As they say in the classifieds, you need to <put yer money where yer mouth is>, otherwise the argument is so much hot air.>

That's a hard line to tread. But it's a legitimate position to take, along the lines of "There's no Loch Ness Monster. But to show you there's not, let's examine the claims made about it.">

First of all, thanks for your response.

Second of all, my point is that the WWF event is not the original issue. The original issue was that you cited the WWF event as a prediction of creationism. Which is why I did not dispute it for the sake of argument.

But it seems quite the opposite to me. The WWF event is predicted by the fall of man into sin, and not God's creation activities.

You began your reply with

<That which was good became wicked. I don't see a difficulty there. Jeremiah 2:21 I had planted you like a choice vine of sound and reliable stock. How then did you turn against me into a corrupt, wild vine?>

which would seem to be agreement that the WWF event was a prediction of the fall and not a prediction of creationism.

Which would beg the question (again) how is creationism a predictive model (a theory)? If a WWF event is the only prediction in your mind, then it seems problematical at best because a WWF is really a prediction of the fall of man.

Yes, <lark> true, but I feel like I'm playing a clock simul against a team of 10>

Well, at least "against" 3...

Or maybe just 2, because as for now I am just trying to understand why you view a worldwide flood event as a prediction of creationism instead of a prediction of the fall of man.

I am reminding you, brothers and sisters,

of the Gospel I preached to you,

which you indeed received and in which you also stand.

Through it you are also being saved,

if you hold fast to the word I preached to you,

unless you believed in vain.

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received:

that Christ died for our sins

in accordance with the Scriptures;

that he was buried;

that he was raised on the third day

in accordance with the Scriptures;

that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.

After that, he appeared to more

than five hundred brothers and sisters at once,

most of whom are still living,

though some have fallen asleep.

After that he appeared to James,

then to all the Apostles.

Last of all, as to one born abnormally,

<Jess> I have also found that the ID movement has been used to forward related agendas that have been fought legal battles over, about what is allowed to be teached in classrooms in various states. It is more than a pity that social and political agendas are dominating the scientific inquiry and debate, and are, or have been, in a grid-lock that serves NO NONE purpose of any use, yet we individually still have the opportunity to separate the noise from the available evidence from dedicated bona fide research mainly in the field of Molecular Biology and Evolutionary Biology, and the many questions it raises.

There mustn't be a even the hint of stifling the debate, (boycott-like would be an understatement, but I am hardly in a position to judge, I can just read up on available material), on recent (15-20 yrs..) nano technological research.

Saturday night I had indeed gotten pretty miffed to see AGAIN the political agendas disabling normal intelligent debate and degrade to namecalling, generalization and worse.

I was angry, after spending an entire evening on researching the brouhaha, and by no means my remarks were *meant to be personal* - they were of course emotional in part, EVERY contributor here is prone to do so, and we react to eachother in that way; it's in our human nature, and thus always goes both ways. As was the case.

and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.

Day pours out the word to day;

and night to night imparts knowledge.

Not a word nor a discourse

whose voice is not heard;

Through all the earth their voice resounds,

and to the ends of the world, their message.

<Their message goes out through all the earth.

No one comes to the Father except through me.

If you know me, then you will also know my Father.

From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

Philip said to him,

“Master, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.”

Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you for so long a time

and you still do not know me, Philip?

Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.

How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?

The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own.

The Father who dwells in me is doing his works.

Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me,

or else, believe because of the works themselves.

Amen, amen, I say to you,

whoever believes in me will do the works that I do,

and will do greater ones than these,

because I am going to the Father.

And whatever you ask in my name, I will do,

so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

Who explained it to you that way? Surely not a legitimate science book.

It works like this:

[1] A theory may be proposed that explains the observed fossil record.

[2] Then, we determine what that theory would *predict* about future fossil discoveries.

[3] Tests are performed to see if those predictions come to pass. If they do, then the theory receives a degree of confirmation. If many such confirmations occur over a long period of time, then the theory is considered to be strongly confirmed.

It's no different from the methods Newton used to come up with his theories of motion involving different masses and forces. You make several observations, devise a theory to explain them, and then see how well that theory predicts future observations.

The only reason you don't complain about Newton is because his laws don't happen to conflict with your interpretation of the Bible.

By Paul Bentley

Watching television makes children less intelligent and more likely to put on weight, scientists claim.

A study into the affects of television on two-year-olds found the more they watched the more likely they were to eat junk food, perform badly in mathematics and be bullied by peers as they grew up.

Parents of 1314 children born in the Canadian state of Quebec in 1997 and 1998 were asked to report how much television their offspring watched aged two-and-a-half and aged four-and-a-half.

School teachers then assessed their academic, psycho-social and health habits when they reached the age of ten.

The research found that for every extra hour of TV watched a week two-year-olds suffered a six per cent decrease in performance in maths, a seven per cent decrease in classroom engagement and a ten per cent increase in 'victimisation' by peers.

Like there'd have been <any> sort of technological progress in that time if that was what scientists were truly like - their findings would be bogus and not able to be turned into the sort of developments we've actually seen (proof of the pudding and all that).

Like millions of people dedicating their lives to scientific research and accomplishment over the centuries were and are all shallow fools or utter frauds, notwithstanding overwhelming evidence of the accomplishments, for better or worse, of science.

Moreover, the people that level these sorts of charges at science (and I hope no one has the gall to claim its only paleontologists and evolutionary scientists that are like this), benefit from the fruits of science every second of their existence. The communications technology that enables them to have these sorts of arguments with people they've never met and never will, the engines that run their cars and factories, the machines that make their household goods and extract the fossil fuels that power their civilisation via the harnessing of electricity, the medical technology that rovides them with a reasonable expectation of reaching four score years...all this has arisen from the type of bogus thinking described above?

I actually started talking about cosmology in my last post, including stuff about the universe beyond planet Earth and <its> age, but deleted it from my draft to keep it (relatively!) simple.