Intelligent design is a relatively new theory which is growing in size despite many attempts to squash the theory.
Like Evolution?
quote:
Despite this a growing number of scientists reject the theory of evolution as they because exposed to all the facts in their scientific careers.
If scientists were exposed to ALL of the facts, and were smart enough to process said facts, their belief in Creation and/or Intelligent Design would be dwinlde into nothing. And their brains will leak out of their noses, because their minds will be blown.
No you did not. You said that you thought that God was creating unnecessary things, but you failed to address how an all powerful god can waste effort. What if he wanted more then one solar system? Unless you know the mind of God you can’t say that he wasted effort.
quote:
If God came down and told me then I am sure I would belive.
Why should God come down to you? You don’t even believe in him.
quote:
You did it again. You're saying both things. Pick one and get on with it. Either it was no life at all, or no life as we know it.
I have picked one; the study said that no life could form on earth. Now the life that they are talking about is life that resides on earth since we don’t know of any life anywhere else. Maybe some time in the future we will find an extraterrestrial species that could live in that type of environment. However there is no evidence of that type of life, so as far as we know no life could form on earth.
quote:
Therefore, not an accurate test for God.
I will say again I can’t prove the existence of God. The question is it a reliable theory. So if the evidence says it could have been God, then the idea that there is a God is scientifically sound. Then once we have established if God is one of the possible explanations, we can move on to deciding which theory makes the most since, has the least amount of problems. So you can test God in a way by seeing if he is a possible explanation and then seeing if he is the likely explanation.
quote:
Logic does not prove the existence of something. It merely proves the possibility of something existing.
I know that you can’t prove God by logic. However you said that your logical mind prevented you from believing in God and my point was that a belief in God is logically sound.
quote:
Like you? Using this line of argument, no one can possibly argue against anything, since their very argument rests on the fact that they are opposed to whatever it is, thus making them non-credible. Of course, this is not true or else we would never have any debates.
If you notice I said no more credible. I have cited information from scientists who support Intelligent Design, and on multiple occasions the only response was that, they aren’t credible because they are biased and are trying to disprove evolution. So my point was that if information from ID people is thrown out because of Bias then information from evolutionists should also be thrown out. Now I do consider information from evolutionists just as I also think that you should look at information from intelligent design backers. So I was really just illustrating why you can’t just throw out evidence just because you don’t like who it is from.
quote:
The fact that they come up with a piece of biological evidence which counteracts the point that you made earlier about flagellum would have nothing to do with it, I suppose.
All that said is that things like the bacterial flagellum have been found, and then they label that as the predecessor to the flagellum. However I would like to point out that there has not been one study on the evolution of the flagellum, they only have a few guesses about what the path of the evolution might have been.
quote:
Again, I quote Wikipedia,
Winkipedia is not the most credible of sources but whatever, I will answer you point anyway. Intelligent Design can be used to support religion, but it is also a scientific community. The statement that the scientific community agrees that intelligent design is clearly false as there are many creation and intelligent design scientists. Intelligent design is a relatively new theory which is growing in size despite many attempts to squash the theory.
The reasons that so many scientists still believe in evolution is that is all they were taught. Evolution became prevalent before much of the information against the theory was known, but although there is mounting evidence against the theory it maintains its hold on the schools preventing other theories like intelligent design from being taught. Despite this a growing number of scientists reject the theory of evolution as they because exposed to all the facts in their scientific careers.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
Nephilem, I find some of your arguements hilarious; running logical 'teats' on God, and 'meat'ing him. Just classic, a playing with Gods breasts, then mincing him.
quote:
Where did you get that from?
I quote the most commonly used internet resource, in terms of plagerism and staying up late to write essays to be handed in next day. Hail Wikipedia!
quote:
That would be no more credible then a creationist or an ID person saying that evolution is not a reliable theory.
The fact that they come up with a piece of biological evidence which counteracts the point that you made earlier about flagellum would have nothing to do with it, I suppose.
quote:
Incorrect. The theory of intelligent Design is a scientific theory. If anything it has been widely rejected by Christians as a disguised version of evolution or a compromise, and definitely a negation of the Bible.
Again, I quote Wikipedia,
'Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God,[1] based on the premise that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[2] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[3][4][5] claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[6]
The scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science; many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers have also termed it pseudoscience, and some have termed it junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.'
quote:
Oh I know. However I am relentless.
It was amazing; you just kept hitting him and hitting him...
Only simple and quiet words will ripen of themselves. For a whirlwind does not last a whole morning, nor does a sudden shower last the entire day.
It said no life. The only life that we know of is life on earth, and no life that is on earth could have formed in the type of environment that we are talking about.
You did it again. You're saying both things. Pick one and get on with it. Either it was no life at all, or no life as we know it. The two are not the same, no matter how much you want them to be. We don't know how else life could come about, so we can't say life as we know it is the only possible life.
quote:
You test things like God but looking at the things that God would have affected.
That's not testing God. The things that God could have affected could have also been affected by completely different things. For instance, if you look at an apple moving vertically from one height to another, you can't automatically assume you're witnessing the effects of gravity. Indeed, that is the most likely explanation, but the apple's movement could have been caused by other things, such as someone throwing the apple downward, or a magnet inside the apple being attracted by a magnet below it. Just so, you can't assume certain things are the work of God if they can be caused by other, more natural events. Therefore, not an accurate test for God.
quote:
I ran logical teats for God once and the Idea of God is logically sound. Just wanted to throw that out because you say that your logical mind prevents you from believing in God.
The idea of unicorns is logically sound as well. Logic does not prove the existence of something. It merely proves the possibility of something existing. Thus, I can accept the possibility of God, but not his existence. At least, not without solid and incontrovertible proof I can't.
quote:
So is it your position that the universe is not complex?
A different kind of complexity, I suppose. It's not a work of art, that's for sure.
quote:
That would be no more credible then a creationist or an ID person saying that evolution is not a reliable theory.
Like you? Using this line of argument, no one can possibly argue against anything, since their very argument rests on the fact that they are opposed to whatever it is, thus making them non-credible. Of course, this is not true or else we would never have any debates.
Ahh... the religion vs science debate. It goes nowhere fast.
Actually it is not a religion verse science debate it is mainly a science verse science debate. I believe in intelligent design not creationism.
Touche. Mistook "creationary" as a religious concept instead of reading "creationary science". Science vs. science bore me... perspectives flip flop on topics faster than I change socks.
But please, don't allow me to interrupt, continue debating.
Why not? It's god. He can do anything. Or at least that is what I have been told.
Why shouldn’t he have made it that way? Why did he create the law of gravity? Why did he not make us with three eyes? I don’t know? After you die and you meat him you can ask him.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
What is the POINT of the universe? Why do we need it? (In gods plan
Sorry I messed my response up this is what I meant to say:
There has to be more then our universe. If God made just our universe we could not have our solar system. So God made more so that we could have a solar system.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
There has to be more then our universe. If God made just our universe we could not have a universe. So God made more so that we could have a universe.
quote:
seems to me like your god isn't very bright.
God did not just bring the world together with one snap of his figures; instead he guided the formation of the universe so that it would be able to sustain human life.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
I believe that the overriding question was: Why did God design other solar systems, other planets? If life was designed to live on this perfect planet, in a perfect solar system, then why is the rest of the universe necessary?
Yes. That was my question.
quote:
You need multiple types of stars in order to create enough heavy material to build a planet. Our universe requires multiple plaints to shield asteroids Life depends on the formation of the galaxy.
Okay more questions.
Why would god create stars to create material to create the earth? Seems like a lot of wasted time and effort.
Why would god create asteroids if they could endanger the earth? Plus if he didn't make asteroids he wouldn't of had to make the other planets. Thus saving himself a lot of work.
Topics 
