It's science, it doesn't attack anything. However, it provides what many believe to be an infinitely more plausable explanation.

Edit: Basically I was agreeing with you, only elaborating.

ok, there is still a fairly significant problem with the odds of life begining on this planet without any sort of "inteligent design" as it were... granted the odds of life being able to evolve are not anywhere near as slim as most christians would have you think... they would say somewhere around 1 chance in 2.04 x 10 to the power of 390. as far as i have been able to find the actual number is closer to... 1 chance in 4.29 x 10 to the power of 40, ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html which is still fairly poor odds in favor of evolution. of course there are a bnch of other factors which make it way more likely that evolution has occured, however all of the sources that i have found so far have only dealt with te odds of evolution under perfect laboratory type conditions, which do not exist in nature, they do not take into account the odds agains having a planet that is capable of supporting life, and after that they do not take into account the odd of anything that has evolved being able to survive in the conditions of the early planet, evolution is supposed to take millions of years for any major advancments to be made. it seems like there was not nearly enough time for evolution to take place without major changes in the environment taking place and probably destroying whatever had already taken place... (if any one has something that will refute that please let me know) from this point of view evolution seems very unlikely, unless there was an "inteligent designer" which would fit PERFECTLY with many christians view of the origions of life... anyhoo... *runs out of room*

oh yeah onto the topic of this thread... i think that evolution should be taught as the current "THEORY" of the origion of life. creationism, inteligent design,... what have you should be taught in possibly religios history or something... it theoretically could be taught as a "theory" it is still a scientific theory, only with a differnet... catalist? is that the right word? evolution is drivin by... nature? i gess, I D, the same thing only driven and directed by a higher power, doesnt necerraly have to be the god from the bible, just a higher power., in that light its not favoring one religion over another.

Read the thread. ID is NOT science. There IS NO DEBATE ON THIS. It's a purely conceptual argument. Intelligent design is NOT science and it is most certainly NOT a scientific theory. The ONLY reason people debate this is either because they don't understand or because they have religious motives and want to convince the less educated public that ID is infact a theory.

dictionary.com

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

i guess you cant really "test" weather there is a higher entity involved, so you technically couldnt call it a "scientific theory... so never ind that part. but a theory, yes... that it is!

What are the odds of you being born? And I mean from multicellular organism generation one. According to that reasoning, you don't exist, because the chances are reaaaaaaaaaaaaaally low of all your ancestors surviving, being in place x at time y, reproducing, etc.... Low as in approaching 1/infinity. So there goes that argument (and abuse of probability + the fact that you're not attacking evolutionary theory but abiogenesis)

I notice a lot of people have opinions in this thread.

I will not indulge in your collective nonsense anymore, so I'll have you indulge in mine.

[quote=Judge John E. Jones, III]

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.[/quote]

ooooooh feel it burnnnnn!



Mmmmmmmmmmm you like that don't you. Say it... say 'I like it when it buuuuurnnnnnnnnnnnns"



Say the name. John Jones. Saaaay iiiiiiiiiiiiitttt. Mmmmmmmmm yeah.

Just a few points Alran.

The first forms of life wouldn't be long lived multi-cellular, complex, sexually reproductive creatures. They'd be single-celled, producing asexually as our fossil record shows. Evolution doesn't take place over millions of years, it takes place over several generations. If a species goes through multiple generations quickly (such as bacteria and other microbes) it follows that it is capable of evolving more drastically in less time than a slowly reproducing organism.

This is why we're having problems with "superbugs". It's quite simple, you attack an infection with a drug designed to kill the bacteria (eg Methicillin) but due to random genetic variations in individual bacteria cells (lets use Staphylococcus Aureus here) some manage to survive. These go on to multiply and further generations have the same genes that protect it from the drug. If you don't use antibiotics properly (in regular doses over a period of time), it just thins out the population a bit each time and each following generation is more resistant. This is exactly how we end up with Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus. That's the MRSA bug to me and you. Evolution isn't "powered by nature", it's just a logical result of genetics. And I've just given you an example of evolution that has occured within human memory.

Also worth remembering is that the simplest organisms we observe on Earth today are still far more complex than the first forms of life.

Uhh... what? I don't know what scientists you've been talking to, but they're usually the ones who are most receptive to new ideas. They just ask that there be some proof to back the ideas up (surely not an outrageous request).

Unless you meant to say "religious zealots" and slipped and wrote "scientists" instead.

My apologies for not being more clear. By "science", I meant to write "scientists", and by "religion", I meant to write "religious". Many scientists do indeed rely on faith, and can be as close-minded as the religious. I'm referring to the mass of scientists in this world that refuse to even believe in the possibility of divine creation. I'm basically trying to show the correlation between close-minded scientists and the close-minded religious, due to the fact that one side (science), tends to pretend that they're so open-minded and far more intelligent than the other side (which is consistently evident in these threads, and occasionally even true). While for you and I, this may be stating the obvious, but for many here, it's something that they should take to heart.

I would have to disagree with you regarding truth. Humans may be unable to experience true enlightenment, or to acquire "truth", but in theory, if there is a creator, it's quite possible that there is indeed truth, and that we're just incapable of attaining it. In other words, the creator's perspective would most likely consist of truth, while ours would consist of a limited human perspective (the illusion of truth).

I agree with virtually everything else that you stated.

There are plenty of perfectly good philosophical reasons to reject the 'divine', but they're all really quite irrelevant because the supernatural isn't science. Whatever view the scientist has on them doesn't really matter, because it isn't science. The scientist can hold whatever political beliefs he wants as well, they have no bearing on the science.

The notion that you have to pick "sides" is fundamentally wrong, and unforunately exists today only in the US and fanatical Islamist states. The rest of the world grew out of this sometime in the 19th century. Israel, where I grew up, is a Jewish state with a very powerful religious movement, yet the issue of science teaching is never questioned. In grade school we had science classes and "bible" classes, and the two were never confused or deemed incompatible. The religious orthodox have their own education system where they can do as they please (which, by the way, has long been at the center of an ongoing debate because it produces individuals who lack real-world knowledge and have problems integrating with working society).

Since science is not the opposite of religion, it is each scientist's right to have any spiritual belief they choose, whether it is atheism or organized religion. It is also perfectly legitimate for those beliefs to motivate their scientific work, as long as they adhere to scientific methods. My problem with ID is that it does not.

Mort-Hog, stop taking the words out of my mouth :p

I find that the belief in an always existing universe and spontaneous creation to be just as "supernatural" as the belief in a creator. Pseudoscience. Never have we witnessed (or proven) something being created from nothing or something that has always existed, yet many scientists like to pretend that their theories are somehow superior. My beef isn't with science, I find it all very fascinating, it's with egotistical scientists who make leaps in logic and pretending that the belief in a creator is illogical when it's most certainly not. I never claimed that the supernatural is science. However, what's supernatural now, may very well be science in the future.



I'd enjoy reading about any theories that you're aware of. Feel free to post links here or PM me. I'm always looking for something to shoot down my beliefs.



I'm in total agreement. I'm just confused by people on both sides, but especially scientists, due to their education, who pretend to have all of the answers and are so ready to call something rubbish when that something, at this point, is perfectly logical. I guess my frustration, valid or not, is that I hold scientists to a higher standard than I do the religious. Maybe that's my mistake. People are people, regardless of what side they're on.

Whether scientists think of themselves as superior or not is irrelevant to the validity of their work. I agree that scientists who take advantage of science to talk down religion are clearly in the wrong, but that is not the case concerning intelligent design.

[edit] And the Big Bang theory is not pseudo science, it is very real science, simply because it is structured using scientific methods. Yes, it is an outrageous idea, just like much of modern physics, but outrageous doesn't make it not scientific. You're confusing two different concepts, and it simply proves my point that a very basic misunderstanding of "science" is the source of the problem.

GUYS GUYS

It's "closed-minded." Not "close-minded." "Close-minded" would mean that their minds are close, and that doesn't make any sense. So stop saying it, because it makes me hate you.

God did not make man. End of story.

The 'always existing Universe' model is about 200 years out of date, no-one seriously believes that the Universe has 'always existed'. However, the Universe is not just space but also time. Space and time are one thing. The beginning of the Universe was the beginning of spacetime. The concepts of 'before' and 'after' require time. There was no 'before' the Universe, because the beginning of the Universe was the beginning of time.

More generally, science is the study of the Universe. Anything that is 'outside' of the Universe is not science.

I'd also like to remind you that Big Bang theory comes from the observation that the Universe is expanding (and so extrapolating backwards it must have once existed as a zero-dimensional particle). It's the expanding Universe that is the really interesting and significant science, the point origin is just a side-effect.


(I'm assuming this is what you mean by 'spontenous creation'. You're using very 19th century terminology, so it's hard to tell what you're actually talking about.

Also, as a sidenote, those of you interested in inflation theory might want to read up on Andrei Linde of Standford University, California. His work is essentially on assuming what density this zero-dimensional particle would have and what energy would be required to spawn one, so if you wanted to create your own Universe you'd have to compress a speck of matter at something like 10^65 megatonnes per cubic centimetre. This would create a 'false vacuum' and could trigger some huge inflation with new space and matter exploding into existence from the gravitational field.)



They're not theories.
The first thing you need to do is understand the difference between (continental) rationalism and empiricism (bearing in mind all the time that 'religion' doesn't fall into either catagory), and The Enlightenment generally (the most important time period for science and philosophy). Understand the difference between a priori and a posteriori arguments (bearing in mind that in this thread we've only been discussing a posteriori arguments)

Then you need to understand that all the arguments against (and most of the ones for) the existance of God are a priori arguments. Then you can start getting involved with the actual arguments themselves. I've tried on several occasions to bring these sorts of arguments up, but too few people actually understand the basics (that is, all of the above) to really make it worth it.

You know what'd be a really good idea.. if we could have like a separate... section.. for all these sorts of threads, so we could cover a topic and not have it dissapear and then have to cover it all over again a few months later.. Yes.. a separate section.. perhaps even... a separate forum.. for religious discussions.. hmm!

And also bring back the religious forum...

A claim of ultimate truth requires evidence. Provide it.



Perhaps you should explain what both of those are. It makes you appear like you are trying to build yourself up when you mention something not everone knows about and do not provide a definition.



Yes, those are always good. Really, every forum I have been on that has had one of those has been more orderly. Partly because there is a 'no referencing threads in this forum outside of it' rule.

I'm confused as to why Christians take creation so literally. There's nothing in the Bible that would lead one to believe it's literal. Quite the opposite, in fact. If the Bible were taken literally, the earth is only about 6000 years old, iirc. So let me ask: How is it possible that we have societies (like China) that have existed for over 10,000 years?

Not true. The chance of something happening after is has already happened is exactly 100%. I exist. Therefore, there is no chance that I don't, or that I'm different than I am, or that anything I've impacted in my life could ever be different because it already has happened and can never be changed. Probability is only relevent in predicting odds for future events, not past ones.

In defense of the Bible folks, the '6000' figure is only given by one bloke (adding up generations in the Old Testament, I think). Granted, I think he was probably an important and influental bloke, but it's still something that is made to seem more significant than it really was.

That was precisely my point.

I know... I was just... er... clarifying.

/me shouldn't skim

Uh, I don't think he was seriously putting forth an argument. It's just an arrogantYectiPost. :p

touche.




what the crap! that is totally dodging the actual point(not of this thread, but the begining of time the universe and everything bit) it doesnt matter if there was anything before the universe or not, the fact still remains something went bang! now lets look at this... here we are in our nice little void of non existant nothingness. no time no universe, no nothing. all of a sudden BANG! what the... but i thought... there was nothing! what the heck just went bang?



...assuming that there is a god, the above would be no problem



ahhh... at last something everyone can agree on. whatever happened to te old one anyways?

Ah... the ultimate religion argument. Nothing is wrong with that, of course, but understand that it's philosophical, not scientific.

There wasn't 'nothingness', there wasn't a 'void'. There wasn't anything. Not only was there no matter, there was no space or time for it to exist in. Nothing went 'bang', because there was nothing for anything to go 'bang' in. The Universe came into existence, and the Universe is everything there is.

There is no evidence at all that any form of supreme being exists. There is plenty of evidence that evolution takes place.

Evolution 1
ID 0

That's all the discussion the topic requires really...

Overly simple statements like that aren't going to convince anyone you know

Except... yah know, for all the evidence people base being a Christian off of. I read/saw a lot of things before I ever decided to go with God.

Er, saw what? Stuff people write doesn't qualify as evidence.

Evidence doesn't exist for anything. Evidence is based on perception. Perception is based on people. Therefore, evidence is based on people. Yet people try to provide evidence. It's cirulcar logic. Therefore, nothing can be proven.

All debates ever are over.

/me enjoys messing with people

But can you prove that?

No. That was sorta the point.

50KG is 50KG, no matter what way you swing it.

But can you prove your 'point' is correct? If yes, then you've actually proved something.. proving yourself wrong. If no then your argument has nothing to back it up and has no real meaning. These non-serious debates are more fun. :p

"Stuff people write doesn't qualify as evidence."

What....?

And as far as seeing goes, I've seen people that can't walk or hear be healed (In the name of Christ) and friends have had supernatural things happen that have influenced my thinking. Supernatural things = visions of demons/angels being witnessed by mutiple people.
There is most certainly a supernatural world that is completely beyond science as far as I'm concerned. The evidence for that IS there, and it's my own belief that within the supernatural there is a supreme being.
Did he create everything? I think someone did. Could evolution have been used as a part of the creator's plan? Sure. Why not?

What I mean is, anyone can write "there is a God," or "God did this," but that doesn't make it true.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]50KG is 50KG, no matter what way you swing it.[/QUOTE]

Unless you redefine it.