LeeBowman

I only did it to make a point, that I stongly disagree with the protocol, and frankly, I have better things to do than post here. To me, negative votes w/o any comment(s) to substantiate them, are ridiculous. I once debated a retired lawyer, Tim Beazley on Amazon.com, a debate that went on for weeks. Points were made, rebutted, sometimes rephrased, etc, by both sides. Beazley used a lot of ad homs, his favorite being IDiot for ID'ist.

I enjoyed the debate, feeling that my args trumped his, and none of mine utilized ad homs of any kind; only logic, and 'reference based' when needed. At some point... (read more)

The plausibility of my genetic conjectures have nothing to do with the other speculations that followed them. If they are viable, then my predications will be confirmed.

So tell me, do you feel that consciousness is a synapic brain function? If so, what abou OOB experiences? Are they all BS? The brain is an interface to body functions and sensory input. The only thing it has to do with consciousness is to color it, i.e. mood, personality, inherited character traits. These conclusions are based on my own observations, and some emperical testing I have done. But I didn't expect that you or most others to just 'accept' it, based on a few statements.

To... (read more)

The plausibility of my genetic conjectures have nothing to do with the other speculations that followed them. If they are viable, then my predications will be confirmed.

So tell me, do you feel that consciousness is a synapic brain function? If so, what abou OOB experiences? Are they all BS? The brain is an interface to body functions and sensory input. The only thing it has to do with consciousness is to color it, i.e. mood, personality, inherited character traits. These conclusions are based on my own observations, and some emperical testing I have done. But I didn't expect that you or most others to just... (read more)

On DI's 'General Questions' page, they make their general ID statement as cited above, which is a very general statement, that doesn't address the common descent question, where there is some divisiveness within the mainstream ID camp. But they do address the question further down the page.

Regarding that question, as well as ID's compatability with NDE, they state, "It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory." Given that statement, they now agree with common descent, although not necessarily... (read 544 more words →)

That he did, as have Barbara Forrest and many others, but those conclusions consist of 'blanket statements', and are subject to scrutiny. Many times when a statement of that ilk is made, there follows a link to one of the Creationist trials (Dover most often), the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, a critique of Forrest's book, 'Creationism's Trojan Horse', or links similar to those provided by Torben. These are just a few of the plethora of evolution supporting references, but the question we're addressing here is simply the "more or less" issue regarding the two camps.

Blanket statements abound in the media, an example being "The US has the best health care... (read more)

I just registered here, since I agree with the 'rationality' premise. Rational thought is (hopefully) less wrong than a less rational position, the implication being that little that the human mind formulates is totally correct. Less wrong is a goal, and modification of a stated position is often a requisite of nearing a more correct position.

Anyway, back to the topic of Blogginheads (allowed topics), accomodation, and (related) a critique of Michael Behe. Oh, also the question of whether ID is essentially Creationism.

First, RW sets the standards. It's been said that the stardards are too loose, but some would argue that stricter standards might lead to disallowance of certain... (read more)