Or Creationism vs the Big Bang, or anything else you folks can think of. Where, why and how did life originate?

But what started the Big Bang?
God created the means for life to start and has been helping it throughout time. Not in seven days.

quote:

Originally posted by unikeimage1:
The whole story … what you belive is you problem but the truth is still unknown the only fact is that limiting your thoughts to one belif is not going to help you get any closer to the real answer you have to be open to all ways of thought and look from different prospectives. I was raised a Christian but that does not mean thats the only right way to be..

Even though you say that you were raised Christian, have you ever really thought about it? Sure, you say that everything is theory. But faith is belief without rationalizing it somehow. It has nothing to do with theory; it is set apart from the whole mind process of it all. It is belief without facts. The real “truth” of the matter is only what you believe yourself to be true. God gave humans free will to come to their own conclusions and learn from their own mistakes. Maybe heaven and hell are real, and maybe they aren’t. The belief in them does not set people above others, it simply gives them something more to strive for in life, something hopeful to look forward to before they die. Believing in God also makes one want to please Him with one’s actions. I totally agree that just because you are raised a certain way, that is the only right way to be, but no one will ever completely without a doubt know what is “right”. It all comes down to what you believe and hold to be true for yourself.

quote:

The whole story about the fact that we magically apeard is a hard pill to swallow "God" said let there be earth and there we had earth is not my cup of tea. The big bang is another theory that is out there but I just raises more questions such as if life comes from outer space who or what put it there? And the other question is what are the odds of earth to be the only one to have life? These are things that humanity may not have the need to know.

As you said there are questions on both sides however this does not mean that we should just ignore the issue. Currently evolution is the only theory that is given any spot in the education system, or what is publicly thought of as science. ID is just as valid a theory as evolution and deserves to be taught as one of the theories of how the earth formed. Also the idea that everything just appeared is the creationist’s thing. ID defiantly has more scientific basis then creationism. If you haven’t looked at the theory of ID I would recommend that you do so. With that said creationism is not entirely unfounded it does have its place in science. However I don’t believe in it so I don’t spend much time defending it, and I have been criticized by creationists so I often sound critical of them.

quote:

It's all theory and what you belive is you problem but the truth is still unknown the only fact is that limiting your thoughts to one belif is not going to help you get any closer to the real answer you have to be open to all ways of thought and look from different prospectives. I was raised a Christian but that does not mean thats the only right way to be.

There is always going to be conflicting beliefs when people hold different ideas of what is true. The solution to this is not adopting all beliefs. All beliefs on religion can not be true because many of them exclude the others. Limiting what ideas are true will not necessarily stop you from attaining truth, and in fact it can help you get closer to truth. If Christianity is true all other world religions are false. These beliefs need to be evaluated and tested to see which are true and which are not true.

The whole story about the fact that we magically apeard is a hard pill to swallow "God" said let there be earth and there we had earth is not my cup of tea. The big bang is another theory that is out there but I just raises more questions such as if life comes from outer space who or what put it there? And the other question is what are the odds of earth to be the only one to have life? These are things that humanity may not have the need to know. I think the bigger question is how can humans unite and stop fighting over their differences of belif not be judgmental of other belifs. Not feel the supremacy that some of these groups feel because you belong to certain group or religion. The thought that you will go to heaven and others are left to perish is a little selfinsh and selfcentered because there is no proof that this infact will happed all this is only an act of faith a THEORY. It's all theory and what you belive is you problem but the truth is still unknown the only fact is that limiting your thoughts to one belif is not going to help you get any closer to the real answer you have to be open to all ways of thought and look from different prospectives. I was raised a Christian but that does not mean thats the only right way to be.

quote:

It seems to me that no scientific theory can have supernatural implications because it is against the very nature of the scientific enterprise to include an assumption of the supernatural.

This is not definite. Science is not inherently anti God, Just look at the quote at the bottom of my pots. A large part of the scientific community today is atheistic, however that is slowly changing with the rise of ID. So science can support supernatural implications. Science and religion have gone hand in hand many times in history, and are not inherently opposed to each other.

It seems to me that no scientific theory can have supernatural implications because it is against the very nature of the scientific enterprise to include an assumption of the supernatural. Scientific evidence cannot support the idea that there was something supernatural because it is contemptuous of the definition of supernatural.

quote:

Ancient Greeks came up with Greek mythology when they didn't understand how the world worked. ID 'scientists' support ID because they don't know how the world began. The supernatural always plays a role when we don't understand.

There really is no comparison between Greek mythology and the theory of intelligent design. Greek mythology has no scientific basses and is the Greeks attempt to explain the world. ID also attempts to explain our world, but then again so does the theory of evolution, and Creationism. The fact is that all of these theories try to explain the origin of our world. The defining point is their scientific backing. ID is scientific theory that has supernatural implications.

quote:

"How was the universe created?"
"God snapped his fingers, duh."

The God snapped his fingers department resides with the creationists. The theory of ID is much more developed then that.

Okay I'm just going to say this and get it out of the way because its really bugging me...

I know you aren't trying to convert me, I'm not trying to convert you. I'm trying to have a somewhat debate even though I'm sort of being an a-hole.

quote:

I never claimed to have all the answers.

I know you don't... you don't need to because god takes care of it all.

quote:

I must say. I really am jealous...

This was sarcasm.

I think I should start talking about the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

quote:

I must say. I really am jealous...

I dont know why, no one told you to be.
I am not trying to convert you, I dont care what you believe in or dont believe in. I just said what i believed personally.

quote:

If you add religion to a theory its no longer flawed because now you have an answer to all the questions.

I never claimed to have all the answers.

quote:

Who says?

Scientist who believe in ID.... It was on some show on Discovery Channel one night

Yes theories are flawed...Thats why we have religion. People don't like flawed theories. If you add religion to a theory its no longer flawed because now you have an answer to all the questions.

"How was the universe created?"
"God snapped his fingers, duh."

quote:

They say that human body is far to complex to have been created by chance.

Who says? And how did God get it right? Oh I forgot, he's God! He can do anything because I don't like not having answers.
(The human body was created by years of evolutionary practice)

God is pretty amazing...

He created an entire universe much like someone would an aquarium. The truely amazing thing is that he created the fish too!

I must say. I really am jealous...

I have heard that the reason scientists believe in ID is because some of them think that evolution is flawed (as theories usually are) They say that human body is far to complex to have been created by chance. I believe in God personally.
The bottom line is: theories are flawed...all of them. If they were fact they wouldnt be a theroy.

Ancient Greeks came up with Greek mythology when they didn't understand how the world worked. ID 'scientists' support ID because they don't know how the world began. The supernatural always plays a role when we don't understand.

quote:

regardless of what you want to pass ID off as it's merely a cheap way of saying that god and not chance is behind the creation of the present universe.

You are still stuck on your preconceptions of what ID is. Let me go over this one more time ID does not directly Support Christianity. ID does not directly support any world religion. All it supports is an idea of a divine Beginner. Maybe this beginner is dead, maybe he doesn’t care if we follow him, maybe the beginner is the God of the Christians, maybe the beginner is the god of the Muslims, you could go with any of these and more. ID is not a spin off of Creationism.

Also you would not say that chance created the universe. The question would be is the universe here because of a beginner, or did it happen by chance?

quote:

Radically different discourse yet the meaning is the same.

They really don’t have the same meaning. First of all not everyone who believes in ID, believes in hell. All ID says is that there is a beginner. It says nothing about the validity of Christianity. Now ID scientist might make comments based on their religion, but the theory itself does not support any religion. Secondly when we cut the going to hell part, ID makes no religious statements, just scientific statements, while the first statement was completely religious statements.

quote:

What you notice about all of these is that they had firm, conclusive proof along the prescriptive lines of the scientific method. When this proof is presented, people claim it is untrue. Then they see that it must be true.

First of all my main point was that the resistance by a large part of the scientific community to a theory does not prove it wrong. As to evolution. It is by no means universally accepted. Evolution and creationism are both running into problems which is why ID is rapidly growing in prevalence. While many of the ideas are old it is a new theory and yet it is expanding at a fast rate.

One more point the theories were met by religious furor, and they were met by scientific furor. At the time of Darwin many of the scientists were Christians. There was also a presence of religious opposition but I am looking at the scientific opposition.

quote:

All life is transitional life;

Okay let me be more specific. I was referring to transitional links between life that we already have. For example the link between apes and Humans.

quote:

No more illogical than a single creator. All we do is apply the same logic to God as we do to the universe.

But that’s the problem God and our universe can’t be compared, and you can’t use the same logic. If there has to be a beginner the beginner has to always exist. If he was not then he would not be the beginner.

quote:

The Ontological argument ultimately fails because you cannot define something into existence.

I was not trying to use that argument to prove that God exists. I was using the argument to show why there could not be a long chain of Gods. Basically I was saying if there is a God here’s what he would be.

quote:

As an ID specialist you have just sabotaged your own case; for someone who claims that Creationism is bunk, you do rely overly on the Bible.

I am not relying on the bible; I was explaining how the bible can fit with a belief in a universe that is billions of years old. Basically I was explaining why I believe in an old earth and the bible, not using the bible to prove that the earth is old.

quote:

If the story of how the Bible was written is true, then why are you not a creationist?

I am not a creationist because I don’t believe in many things that Creationists believe in. I don’t have any problem with what the bible says, I do have a problem with many of the creationist’s interpretations of the bible. Therefore I believe in ID.

quote:

God is omniscient, and can give people the gift of speech, yet he could not explain to the authors of the Bible the correct word to use for the period of creation?

He did explain the right word for them to use. The word day can easily mean a long period of time, especially when used in the fashion that is used in Genesis 1.

quote:

Not really all of the examples that I have given are theory’s that have had prevalence at some point. But were not true.

quote:

In the past the scientific community as said that the idea that the sun is the center of the universe, or that the earth is round was not scientific, however today we know that it is. When Charles Darwin first presented his theory many clamed that it was bad science, but it is taught everywhere today.

What you notice about all of these is that they had firm, conclusive proof along the prescriptive lines of the scientific method. When this proof is presented, people claim it is untrue. Then they see that it must be true. Hence the earth is round and the earth/sun is not the centre of the universe. Notably this procedure happened when Darwin presented his scientific evidence; proof meets period of initial rejection due to religious fervor. And now it is supported by the work of the majority of biological scientists, and indeed the majority of scientists.

quote:

Also when I was talking about seeing evolution today I was talking about the forming of new species, or transitional life.

The point about the continents moving is that you are seeing them. All life is transitional life; the nature of the evolutionary paradigm is that all life is adapting, changing and evolving. If you examine a dragonfly, for example, you are viewing a transitional life form, but because you cannot see the end product you cannot determine what it is the transitional stage of.

quote:

An infinite chain of creators is illogical. Basically you could never find a starting point and without a starting point you get nowhere.

No more illogical than a single creator. All we do is apply the same logic to God as we do to the universe. You should read some Eastern philosophy - circular theory of time, etc.

quote:

God is defined as being separate from everything. He has to be the greatest being. If he is not the greater being is God and all he is a powerful being.

The Ontological argument ultimately fails because you cannot define something into existence. Simply because you define something as the most powerful being does not cause that circumstance to be the case. Existence is not a predicate. Go Immanuel Kant!

quote:

Also you have to remember which perspective Genesis is written in. If the Bible is true the story of the beginning of earth would have been dictated to Abraham by God, because God would have been the only one present during the creation. In another part of the bible we read that a thousand years are like a day to God. Now a thousand was the highest Number that the Jewish people used at that time. A thousand meant a thousand and any number bigger then that so when God is saying that he did these certain things in one Day that does not mean a 24 hour period. Instead that could easily mean a day by Gods perspective of time in which case each of the days could have been millions of years.

As an ID specialist you have just sabotaged your own case; for someone who claims that Creationism is bunk, you do rely overly on the Bible. If the story of how the Bible was written is true, then why are you not a creationist? God is omniscient, and can give people the gift of speech, yet he could not explain to the authors of the Bible the correct word to use for the period of creation? What a magnificent omnipotent being he is! If God is outside of time then he cannot experience time except as a loose concept or a blur; he could not narrow it down to more than 'I did create the universe' because he would see its destruction simultaneously.

I apologise for becoming wildly sarcastic; I had a bad night in a typhoon...

ok wait, i forgot to add html humour to my previous post:
[sarcasm]thus we better stop having sex or we'll burn in hell for ever and ever.[/sarcasm]

regardless of what you want to pass ID off as it's merely a cheap way of saying that god and not chance is behind the creation of the present universe.

You see, things can be done in two ways, the blunt way:
I'm christian, darwinism is a lie, fuck you and go to hell because you're a heretic.

Or the nice way:
According to ID you don't have to go to hell anymore if you admit that god started the universe and evolution.

Radically different discourse yet the meaning is the same.

quote:

Yes it is, ID is just a more elaborate and acceptable way to say that ultimately god is behind the creation of the universe and human beings, thus we better stop having sex or we'll burn in hell for ever and ever.

Wtf! ID has nothing to do with condemning any type of sexual activity, why do you draw these implications? If it did the ID scientist would have stayed with evolution. Manny people who Follow ID do not believe in the Christian God and some don’t even follow any world religion. ID is not a religious institution. It may have religious implication but it is not inherently religious. Didn’t you read anything that I wrote in the previous post? Creationists do not identify with ID. They are two separate things, and once again most of the leading scientists who promote ID used to be atheists and followed the theory of evolution.

quote:

I can't help thinking that some of the more conservative elements probably overflowed with joy because they would get to attach the prefix micro to evolution.

ID scientists don’t call all evolution microevolution. It is nothing more than a label that describes a different level of evolution. Micro evolution happens to be the only type of evolution that we have observed and does not prove macro evolution. So we are not really attaching the label micro to evolution if it is micro evolution then that is what it is.

quote:

Damn darwin, if only he'd been drowned on his voyage on the beagle...

Once again you clearly did not read anything that I wrote in the previous post. Most ID scientists holed Darwin in high regard. ID is not a group of Religious fanatics. Just get this into your head. We are not what we are stereotyped as being.

quote:

ID is not a morphed version of creationism

Yes it is, ID is just a more elaborate and acceptable way to say that ultimately god is behind the creation of the universe and human beings, thus we better stop having sex or we'll burn in hell for ever and ever.

quote:

so it is not some label that I am arbitrarily using

never said it was, but when the term was adopted by these so called ID scientists(ID and evolutionary science aren't two things that go well together) I can't help thinking that some of the more conservative elements probably overflowed with joy because they would get to attach the prefix micro to evolution.
Damn darwin, if only he'd been drowned on his voyage on the beagle...

quote:

I can't help feeling anything but contempt for a theory when it has to be modified for it to remain minimally credible.

ID is not a morphed version of creationism. It never has been and it never will be. The Main ID scientists are not creationists who changed their theory to make it scientific but are evolutionists who constructed a theory that matched the observations that they made they became religious individuals based on their science, and did not base their science on their religion because originally they used to be atheists. You can label ID as morphed creationism but that label has no basis because it ignores the facts.

Another thing is that creationist do not like ID. Many creationists hate ID and see it as some type of evolution in discuses that is trying to undermine creationism. So both creationists and evolutionists have the same attitude when it comes to ID, they both see it as a twisted version of the other. However this is not the case. So no ID is not related to creationism. This would be denied by ID followers and creationists, just as ID followers and evolutionist would deny that ID was related to evolution.

quote:

calling ev