A statement of my disbeliefs

I know with this post i won't be doing a whole lot, an belief is hard to change.The fact of the matter is, 'atheism' has no real stance because there is overwhelming evidence to disprove the idea of no intelligent designer, whether it be any spiritual being known to man. It is extremely obvious that there is an intelligent designer, and through my studies it has pointed to the God described by Christianity, and there are evidence to prove that as well.Either way, many 'atheists' hide behind the veil of science when more times than not, science is disproving atheism.
Please consider my statementDan

The huge and intericate code of DNA is the easiest example.For one to see intelligence, one must see an intelligent source behind the intelligence. The DNA code is so vast and so packed full of intelligence, the basic structure of it follows the guidelines of a written language, with a combination of 3 parts to make up coded sentences and paragraphs that give key guidelines to genetic makeup. For such a code, there is obviously an intelligence behind it, such intelligence could not have 'just happened'. That is substantial proof of an intelligent designer.Michael Behe's book 'Darwin's Black Box', Lee Strobel's books 'Case for Christ', 'Case for Faith', and 'Case for a Creator', and Patrick Glynn's book 'God: The Evidence' all have substancial evidences to show that much of athiestic claims have abundant holes in their theology (that's right, theology), and there is a great deal of factual evidence to show of an intelligent designer.
PS. Strobel and Glynn were both athiests.Dan

How haven't i answered your question?And explain what you meant about strobel please.ThanksPS. Where were the books discredited?This message has been edited by Namesdan, 05-25-2005 03:46 PM

Was the article given (http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/articles/strobel_cfac.htm), a peer reviewed paper?PS. is peer reviewed translated as evolutionist reviewed?

Well if we are looking at 'peer-reviewed evidence' then the post you gave me did not show enough scientific evidence to prove that the claims made by many of the persons interviewed (with exception of Jonathan Wells, and Stephen C. Meyer) were false.With the interview against Robin Collins, Paul Jacobson said that creationists find the evolution theory to be improbable then obviously the idea of a God creating the world is improbable. That statement does no stand to scrutiny since the creationists just need to find the probability of a powerful God. Since there is constant religious movements out there, with historical written material, that say there is a God (many more than those who say the world evolved) then the probability factor rests largely on the creationists shoulders.
Again, with the exception of Jonathan Wells and Stephen C. Meyers, the author of the website does not use any clear and deliberate points to make the statements made to be false.Therefore I find there is enough in the books by Lee Strobel (not all interviews in the books are foolproof. ex. Jonathan Wells and Stephen C. Meyers), to show that there is good evidence to point an Intelligent Designer.
I made my point, Mr. Knight, so if you wish to keep argueing your point for 97 posts, it's your choice. In my own opinion, and this is opinion, i have not seen enough evidence to show me there is no Intelligent Designer, and from my own study I would base the Intelligent Designer as the one described in the Christian Bible.
Either way, if you wish to keep going, go ahead, but i don't feel like starting a new thread.
DanThis message has been edited by Namesdan, 05-26-2005 02:03 PM