quote:

variety seen in some animal species is not proof that there is a designer, it proves that said species is a product of random evolutionary development

Of course variety in species is not evidence of design. Species gain most of their variety do to micro evolution. What ID would argue is that there is a designer that makes passable the formation of the universe, not that the designer made every individual type of creature. So Varity in species is due to micro evolution, however that does not prove that the entire species is the product of evolution. How would variety prove that there was not a designer? That does not make any sense. It may prove that evolution was involved, but again how would it prove that there is not a designer.

quote:

An infinite chain of creators is illogical.

Sure, let me remind you:

350.000 DIFFERENT SPECIES OF BEETLES
350.000 DIFFERENT SPECIES OF BEETLES
350.000 DIFFERENT SPECIES OF BEETLES
350.000 DIFFERENT SPECIES OF BEETLES
350.000 DIFFERENT SPECIES OF BEETLES
350.000 DIFFERENT SPECIES OF BEETLES
350.000 DIFFERENT SPECIES OF BEETLES

The complexity and variety seen in some animal species is not proof that there is a designer, it proves that said species is a product of random evolutionary development due to stressful environmental factors which differ depending on geographical location, climate, food sources, and a large list of others.

Funny how you ignored a post which you couldn't answer in an atleast seemingly convincing fashion.

quote:

I agree with this statement. I am for evolution.

This is what I meant to say:
Most of the scientific community does not recognize ID as science; however that does not mean that it is not science.

quote:

The comparison of examples leads us to believe that evolution is also correct...

Not really all of the examples that I have given are theory’s that have had prevalence at some point. But were not true. Evolution was an example of a theory that you believe but used to be rejected. Evolution was the death of creationism, as I believe ID will be the death of evolutionism.

quote:

so you are seeing them in the same way that you see continents moving and mountains wearing away.

Yes but we have fossils of many deferent type of animals but a lack of transitional fossils. So we are missing a like that should be there.
Also when I was talking about seeing evolution today I was talking about the forming of new species, or transitional life.

quote:

Indeed, but whose to say that the infinite chain of creators is not the case

An infinite chain of creators is illogical. If you always have to have a creator in an infinite chain of creators then you would never get anywhere. Basically you could never find a starting point and without a starting point you get nowhere. 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.
Basically the highest being that you have is God, and by definition he would be the highest being, meaning that he can not have a creator.

quote:

I still quibble with this point; the definition of a day, as I think the Persians/Babylonians had it was still the 24 hour version rather than the geological era version that seems so prevalent in ID.

The Jewish vocabulary would have given the author of Genesis two options for describing an unspecified length of time, Day and age. However at that time the word age had a meaning that was much closer to infinity. It was really long. So that would have been usually used in relation to spiritual terms or saying that it is imposable, such as saying “this age will pass away before I allow this to happen.” Therefore the word Day would have worked much better.

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.

quote:

Most of the scientific community does not recognize ID as science; however that does not mean that it is science.

I agree with this statement. I am for evolution.

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.

The comparison of examples leads us to believe that evolution is also correct...

quote:

If there were a large amount of small changes, why don’t we see all of the transitional animals, and why are we not still seeing these changes.

Conditions for fossilisation may not have occurred and the process takes millions of years, so you are seeing them in the same way that you see continents moving and mountains wearing away.

quote:

The creator can not have a creator. If that were true then the higher creator would have to have a creator and that creator would have to have a creator and it would co on forever. The creator, or designer, would have to be the biggest, thing, the most powerful thing. The Christian God is infinite.

Indeed, but whose to say that the infinite chain of creators is not the case - and the Christian God only claims to be infinite. We don't have conclusive evidence yet.

quote:

Day has multiple definitions

I still quibble with this point; the definition of a day, as I think the Persians/Babylonians had it was still the 24 hour version rather than the geological era version that seems so prevalent in ID.

quote:

not. We're just projecting those ideas onto nature; it doesn't mean nature actually sees in terms of complexity and purpose.

So basically you are saying that what we see in nature may seem complex to us but it actually not complex? If so then what should we base our theory’s on? We could always say that we will probable make some big discovery in the future that will disprove a belief however if we did that we would have nothing to believe. We have to base our theories on the information that we have. So the question is not if ID is perfect, but instead if it fits with what we know.

quote:

That's my theory, at least. This isn't the first time animal species have decreased. My bet is mainly on climate change (human-propelled or otherwise).

So the lack of expansion is caused by the deaths of species. This does make sense, however species have always been going extinct, so this is not a new thing. If the destruction of species was a new thing the explanation would be perfect, however the destruction of species is not a new thing. I will concede that this is not a very strong point.

quote:

As far as I can tell, it's only based on logical inferences, which is only part of science. You need physical evidence along with inferences, and I have yet to see any physical evidence directly in favor of ID

Okay when we are looking at the beginning of the universe we are looking at origins theories. These are different then most science because we can't duplicate the events. What we are doing then is seeing if the theory is scientifically sound. Now when we look at the theory of ID we see two major claims. One there is design in the Universe, and two that design needs a designer. The second observation is tested by experience and logic. The first observation is what is tested and the evidence is used to show that the universe is complex and designed. Most of the scientific community does not recognize ID as science; however that does not mean that it is science. 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.
The leading ID scientists are all very accomplished individuals, who grew up believing in evolution, and then later changing their views based on what they learned.

quote:

Human ideas of species only apply to modern animal types, which is the main idea I wanted to get across.

I understand your point about the species, and how they would have been different. My point was more dealing with the theory in which there are large jumps in evolution. If we are back to looking at gradual changes then we come back to a different set of points. If there were a large amount of small changes, why don’t we see all of the transitional animals, and why are we not still seeing these changes.

quote:

But instead of looking to the past i look to the future and what i can do for humanity.

Looking to the past can be very important in understanding the present.

quote:

The cause of the big bang...

The cause is a designer.

quote:

Who created god? if everything was created by a great creator then how did the creator come into existence?

The creator can not have a creator. If that were true then the higher creator would have to have a creator and that creator would have to have a creator and it would co on forever. The creator, or designer, would have to be the biggest, thing, the most powerful thing. The Christian God is infinite.

quote:

A few big issues i'd like to raise again, why does mountains of geoloigical and archealogical evidence contradict creationism? why did civilizations such as the ancient egyptians live unharmed through the period highlighted in the bible to have been the great flood?

Its fine with me that mountains of geological and archeological evidence contradict creationism, because I am not a creationist. I believe that the earth is billions of years old, and that the universe is about 15 billion years old. I also do not believe in a global flood. Instead I believe in a local flood that was large but defiantly not global. I believe in ID not creationism.

quote:

Why are greek gods consigned to 'myth'

Because the Greek gods, were not part of another dimension. They were presented as a part of this dimension and therefore they can be scientifically shown to be false.

quote:

Looked at together the ancient gods of Greece have the same validity as the Christian god...rendering all invalid.

What you would do would be to test the religions and see which ones are valid. Most Greek myths could easily be shown to be invalid because the gods that are presented are part of this dimension and thus we can prove them false. There are many religions out there today and so the situation that you stated already happens, people look at religions or the lack of religion and then pick the one that they feel is true.

quote:

I for one do think God exists and that He created the universe in seven days

I would say that there is a designer; however I would say that the earth was not created in seven days. I am assuming that you are basing your belief on a young earth on the bible. However the bible does not teach that the earth is young. Day has multiple definitions and when used in the context that we find in genesis it supports an old earth. So the bible allows for an old earth and the scientific evidence points toward an old earth.

quote:

if God could create a fully formed man in a day, doesn't it stand to reason that he could create a fully formed universe as well?

Adam was not aged. He was fully formed but he was not aged. In the same way the universe was not aged. Also the language used to describe the forming of the earth, and the forming of Adam is different. Another point is that it would be deceptive to make the universe look old if it were really young, thus God would have been being deceptive which is outside of the nature of God.

quote:

God is not part of the universe, He is the universe.

How can God be the universe? If God is all natural things, then what meaning does the word God have. Christianity teaches that God is completely separate and higher then everything else. So there would be an entirely different dimension which is God.

quote:

True, but God would have to have a pretty messed up sense of humor to make rocks seem billions of years old and then expect us to realize they aren't really that old.

Exactly why would God deceive us by making the Universe look old that explanation makes no sense? The evidence says that the earth is billions of years old.

You're all powerfull, you can make and unmake as you please, you can put stars in the cosmos, mold gravity, and define physics for your universe, and for some bizarre reason, you decide to make 350.000 different species of beetles.

God must of had insectophilia

quote:

that the fact that rockes are old, for example, doesn't mean that the universe has been around for X amount of years

True, but God would have to have a pretty messed up sense of humor to make rocks seem billions of years old and then expect us to realize they aren't really that old.

Logically speaking, however, if a rock turns out to be a few million years old, it existed a few millions years ago. You can hypothesize all you want that it really isn't that old, but that doesn't provide any proof. According to science and its methods, the rock really is a few million years old.

God is not part of the universe, He is the universe. He is everything we are, think of, feel, see, touch, destroy, our past, present and future. You can not give a location for God, because He Himself is the location

if God could create a fully formed man in a day, doesn't it stand to reason that he could create a fully formed universe as well? that the fact that rockes are old, for example, doesn't mean that the universe has been around for X amount of years

The only reason most of us won't except the fact that God is and has been here always and never had a beginning and will never have an end is because everything here that we know of and that we cherish has a beginning and an end. So how are we expected to think some other being doesn't? I for one do think God exists and that He created the universe in seven days and will one day take us (as believers) with Him.

This debate has become too much about whether it is a debatable topic and moved away from actual debate about hard facts surrounding the issue.

quote:

What caused the Big Bang or How was God created?

Now these are the issues. The cause of the big bang...or even the cause of the universe if you take a creator out of the question. There is a simple answer: human brains cannot comprehend the creation of the universe, they are too underdeveloped, in the same way a dog cannot understand mathematics.

Who created god? if everything was created by a great creator then how did the creator come into existence?

A few big issues i'd like to raise again, why does mountains of geoloigical and archealogical evidence contradict creationism? why did civilizations such as the ancient egyptians live unharmed through the period highlighted in the bible to have been the great flood?

Why are greek gods consigned to 'myth' and today's gods are not debated. Let me present you with a situation:

One day mankind wakes up and all memory is wiped out, they quickly begin to rediscover the world - how to use the great machines, grow food and learn. They come to a book shelf and are presented with dozens of books which claim to be the words of god, or the story of the creators. Side by side with the Koran and the Bible is greek scrolls, Roman tales and Egyptian papyrus...each laying out the story of the god/s. Which would mankind choose and single out as the true word of god? how could they distinguish which was fact and which was fiction? the fact is all are the same, providing methods to live so as to grant everlasting life. Looked at together the ancient gods of Greece have the same validity as the Christian god...rendering all invalid.

....wow big question! I think that if God exists he'll understand me and know why i have returned faith or not. we all sin, if he forgives he'll forgive me. i need to wait and ponder this myself by looking to the world for answers, some things are miricles, like life. But of all theroies they all begin in the middle. Ex. What caused the Big Bang or How was God created? But instead of looking to the past i look to the future and what i can do for humanity.

quote:

As you pointed out that can just lead to perceived purpose. So this is applied to life in an individual manner.

That could still just be perceived purpose. I mean, even the complexity argument isn't waterproof. You say the human eye is more complex than a camera, and I'd agree with you. But cameras are humans' attempt to emulate the eye. Of course we're not going to be able to achieve that level of complexity. But does this complexity mean anything? No. For all we know, eyes are, in the big scheme of things, very simple organs. We have no clue how exactly the universe works, so it could be possible that complexity is actually a more natural state. Or, if randomness and simplicity is more desirable to nature, perhaps the human eye is rather simple compared to, say, the eye of some unknown alien organism. We have our own ideas of what's complex and what isn't, and what's purposeful and what's not. We're just projecting those ideas onto nature; it doesn't mean nature actually sees in terms of complexity and purpose.

quote:

So the question is why? If evolution is still happening then why has the rate of new species been completely turned around?

Why? Because evolution isn't happening in a closed system. When Darwin proposed his theory, humans hadn't expanded to every corner of the globe; there were still isolated areas were evolution could occur in peace. Humans are now present nearly everywhere and are directly responsible for the extinctions of a number of species between the 1800s and now. Climate change is another reason, and humans are partially to blame for the increase in greenhouse gases since the 18th century (the beginning of the Industrial Age). Even slight rises in temperature can knock off already small animal populations, resulting in extinctions. If humans and climate change weren't factors (or weren't big factors), expansion would still be occurring. But now that evolution has produced a highly intelligent and adaptable organism (i.e. humans), expansion has slowed down due to that organisms impact on the environment.

That's my theory, at least. This isn't the first time animal species have decreased. My bet is mainly on climate change (human-propelled or otherwise).

quote:

The establishment will deny that ID is science but that is simply because they don’t want to give any ground to ID. However ID is a scientific theory, as this article shows.

That article (one that's about as biased as any anti-ID source, considering it was published by the Discovery Institute and written by a ID scientist) shows ID is science only on semantic grounds. However, while the author claims numerous times that ID is based on observable physical evidence, he never actually shows what physical evidence ID is based on. As far as I can tell, it's only based on logical inferences, which is only part of science. You need physical evidence along with inferences, and I have yet to see any physical evidence directly in favor of ID (in that it can't be used to support anything else).

quote:

Evolution calls for mutations that eventually lead to the forming of new species, the change for another type of life, not the characteristic of that animal.

When enough mutations occur to change the characteristics of a certain species, it becomes a different species, which is where the human definition of a species comes in. For instance, take the feline and canine species. They are very similar in a number of ways (especially genetically), but still quite different. However, I believe I read somewhere that they both have a common ancestor. They are only separate species now because two groups of that common ancestor developed differently, which then led scientists to classify them differently. The definitions of species do indeed depend on the characteristics of those species, but the definitions only hold now. They don't always apply to past animals (who may have shown characteristics of multiple modern species), such as early amphibian-like creatures. They lived the majority of their lives in the water (like amphibians) but laid hard-shelled eggs, sometimes on land (like reptiles). Human ideas of species only apply to modern animal types, which is the main idea I wanted to get across.

quote:

Ah, but do you know the universe has purpose?

Actually I was referring more to purpose of deferent types of life. This point was fitting into the Jobs of the eye. This really applies point be point, and does not work if you try to apply it to all of creation as one entity. As you pointed out that can just lead to perceived purpose. So this is applied to life in an individual manner.

quote:

I'm beginning to wonder if you actually have a grasp on evolution. To reiterate: evolution does not call for linear expansion.

I do have a grasp of evolution, and because of all the extra time I spend on this topic I probably have a better grasp of evolution then you do. I learned evolution, and ID and creation, so I now what evolution teaches. What I am bringing up about evolution will probable sound new because no one ever teaches the problems with evolution. To get that you have to look at what the other side puts out. I realize that the expansion does not have to happen at the same rate but there does have to be expansion. Currently just the opposite is happening; the number of species is decreasing. So the question is why? If evolution is still happening then why has the rate of new species been completely turned around?

quote:

Sorry if that sounds redundant, but you haven't really proven it is scientific, which is my main problem with it.

This article talks about why ID is science.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-downloa...mand=download&id=697
Look at the point presented here because they present the real issues. The establishment will deny that ID is science but that is simply because they don’t want to give any ground to ID. However ID is a scientific theory, as this article shows.

quote:

How is this? Also, it should be known that the very idea of species is a human creation. Our concept of species wouldn't have applied a few million years ago.

Because the DNA sets the bounds for a specific type of life. If a human mutates, the mutation will be that of a human characteristic, not the characteristic of something else. Evolution calls for mutations that eventually lead to the forming of new species, the change for another type of life, not the characteristic of that animal. The human definition of species is not arbitrary, it actually classify’s distinct categories of life, so this point still stands. This point really centers around the bounds of a creatures DNA, not the definition of species.

quote:

These are complexity and purpose. The information about these three areas helps us to see if there is design.

Ah, but do you know the universe has purpose? It certainly would appear to have some sort of purpose, but that is an idea born of human arrogance. We exist, therefore the universe must have been created for us. Of course, that's a flawed argument, which no more proves the universe exists for humanity's sake than my hunger proves cookies were invented solely for my sake.

quote:

The expansion should be continuing because according to evolutionists evolution has not changed and is still happening.

I'm beginning to wonder if you actually have a grasp on evolution. To reiterate: evolution does not call for linear expansion. If expansion is still going on, it does not necessarily need to be at the same rate as it has been in the past.

quote:

My point is that the natural explanation fails to give adequate explanations, so the possibility of the supernatural can also be included.

It's certainly a possibility, but you're trying to get me to accept that ID is science, which I refuse to accept on the grounds that it doesn't fit the definition of a science, which is something you can test. Nothing in ID can be tested with sound scientific methods. Sorry if that sounds redundant, but you haven't really proven it is scientific, which is my main problem with it.

quote:

When you change to another species you change out side the bounds of the DNA.

How is this? Also, it should be known that the very idea of species is a human creation. Our concept of species wouldn't have applied a few million years ago.

quote:

So, to present an accurate definition: how do you know something is designed?

As I mentioned there are two main aspects. These are complexity and purpose. The information about these three areas helps us to see if there is design.
I’m going to use the well known example of the human eye. The eye is very complex having many parts that work together. The complexity of an eye is greater then the complexity of a camera. Second purpose the eye has a very key task, and it is not apparent that it fills any other tasks then the tasks that it is equipped to fulfill.

Now the fact that something looks like it has been designed doers not necessarily mean that it has been designed, but it establishes design as an option. Then we look at evolution and see if it has an adequate explanation for life, and if it does not we move on to the other theory, that of design.

quote:

On the other hand, the actions of huimanity do provide an account for the diminising number of species.

The problem with this is that many of the causes of the decrees of species are natural so those effects would always be felt.

quote:

What exactly do you mean by this?

No I am talking about the change that is allowed within the DNA of an animal. Basically human babies can be born with mutations, but these mutations will be things like a third arm. They won’t be born with a wing. So the change will be within the bounds of their DNA. Evolution calls for mutations beyond the bunds of the animals DNA.