Should I even mention how hypocritical it is for ID proponents to chastise science for believing that a more complete fossil record is waiting to be found (even though what we have is plenty to demonstrate lineage) yet then they themselves believe that a purpose will be discovered for junk DNA?

“I wished Mr. Paulin should have been present when the Pilgrims and founding fathers of America laid the foundation of the American Nation so that he could have shouted, “Please stop founding up America with the motto, ‘In God We Trust.’”
‘In god we trust’ wasn’t chosen as the national motto until 1957.
‘Under god’ wasn’t added to the pledge of allegiance until 1954 after a campaign by the Knights of Colombus.
“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion” - Treaty of Tripoli
More about how virtually none of americas founders were christian - http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
What was that you were saying about not dumbing down america?

“To a spiritual person an organ, like the appendix, that is prone to serious infection serves a beneficial purpose. Infection would remind the individual that he is mortal, thus he prepares for the eternal destiny.”
Thank you for this absolutely PERFECT example of why ID is not science. Science must be falsifiable, and if you assume that things were designed by god that automatically eliminates any possibility of falsification. You can simply make up some story about gods intent, since god is by definition untestable.
Evolution, of course, is falsifiable (I know you were thinking it’s not) as there are many very simple ways to prove it wrong. The common example is finding a fossilized rabbit in the precambrian layer.

There are several basic, ground rules in proper Bible interpretation that must be followed by all persons now before anyone even attempts to fully study the Holy Scripture. The first rule is pray and ask the Holy spirit to guide you, to teach you.. not rather self, mere men or women.. we should seek first and not last the Holy Spirit for illumination. The Holy Spirit wants to share the treasures of God’s Word with those who rightfully do esteem Him. The most important principle to remember in studying God’s Word is that it can only be understood with the help of the Holy Spirit. Those who approach the Bible without the Holy Spirit to teach them, may gain some insight into truths, their lives, but also will receive no definite, permanent, important life-changing revelation. Bible Commentaries should be used only very sparingly if at all. Even the most anointed man or woman, preacher of God clearly still can be wrong, biased, have a hidden agenda, limited, (or just shallow) in their understanding or interpretation of certain Bible topics, subjects. Do not believe any man or women, rather solely Take God’s word for it.

“A scorner seeketh wisdom, and findeth it not: but knowledge is easy unto him that understandeth” (Proverbs 14:6)

Please stop dumbing down America.

John Paullin

The recommended wording contains at least four debatable issues about baptism, namely, 1) that “baptism is Christ’s gospel dramatized,” 2) that baptism is “a part and parcel of God’s grace,” 3) that “it is in the act of being baptized that Christ’s blood gets in contact with the soul” and, 4) that “in baptism the disciple is incorporated into the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.”

The success of a debate as a vehicle for settling a controversial issue lies in the simplicity of the wording of the proposition which, as a rule, must embody only one debatable issue that is expected to be resolved by two debaters, each espousing one side of the issue as opposed to the other. This applies to oral or written debate.

I have studied many debates involving reknowned debaters within the churches of Christ. It is my observation that the effective debates were almost always those with propositions that conform to the aforecited basic rule.

It has been a long time since my last debate but I believe the rule established by leading authorities in debate has not changed. — Felix R. Garlitos

- Jason.

There is a big error. May be what is meant is “This item clearly proves that the Roman Pope is not after all infallible” or “This item clearly proves that the Roman Pope is after all fallible.”