The Evolutionists' Fundamentalist Preacher

[BubberMiley]

How GOD was designed????

Yes, how could such a complicated thing just exist? Based on the logic of ID theory, it would have to be designed by something.

[benny]

Yes, how could such a complicated thing just exist? Based on the logic of ID theory, it would have to be designed by something.

Think God as a Mobius strip.

[BubberMiley]

Think God as a Mobius strip.

You mean, like the universe itself?

[DogOnPorch]

You mean, like the universe itself?

Indeed.

[benny]

You mean, like the universe itself?

Like Drawing Hands, a lithograph by the Dutch artist M. C. Escher:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawing_Hands

[betsy]

Yes, how could such a complicated thing just exist? Based on the logic of ID theory, it would have to be designed by something.

Based on my Fatih, there is no such question of how God was made.

The atheists' faith lies on their belief that the world created itself.

I'm not an Evolutionist, and I'm not an IDer.

My key point in this argument now is that:

Darwin not only considered the possibility of "Design", but in fact capitulated and accepted it at some time (pls see DARWIN thread)....and all through and even near the end of his life, continued to consider the possibility.

Antony Flew, a hard-core philosopher atheist who's known as a "legend" among atheists suddenly renounced atheism and embraced deism. He further criticized the theory of evolution and stoutly stated that the ID theory is more convincing.

Dawkins, in a personal interview, also considers the possibility of "design" or a god....although he tries to avoid saying the word. (See Dawkins articles provided on this thread).

That these three learned men had obviously seen something - enough to have made them consider the possibility of ID or "design" or a god.....then of course, the only conclusion to this is the same as that of the conclusion given by the philosopher Flew: ID theory is convincing and evolution is not.

And remember, whenever you set out to prove something, if you're honest you may just disprove it.

The honesty is the hard part.

If you are truly interested in the theory of ID, you have to do the research to learn more about it.

Edited May 9, 2009 by betsy

[Molly]

Based on my Fatih, there is no such question of how God was made.

...

If you are truly interested in the theory of ID, you have to do the research to learn more about it.

There we have the two grand statements.

#1: Your Faith is irrelevant to everyone but you. It is yours, yours alone.

#2: 'ID theory', which is a faith, not an evidentiary matter, is equally irrelevant to everyone who doesn't have their intellectual cart before the horse.

It becomes a matter of wider 'interest' only in that it is being persistently thrust on the unwilling, into an arena where it does not belong-- not by being within itself persuasive, and certainly not by being a useful working theory, but by way of politics, and law, games of semantics, evangelism and of deceit.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Molly

[Sir Bandelot]

We expect that cause and effect are a fundamental law that the universe is built upon. Einstein showed us that time is simply another dimension, implying that higher order dimensions could exist where time is represented in one plane, space on another. Modern cosmologists who study the origin of the universe ie. Big Bang now believe that this universe was created when an 11-dimensional object collapsed. This is part of what string theory is about. The point is its possible for things to exist outside of the time dimension that we can't easily understand, but mathematics shows they could logically exist. People often ask, what was before the big bang, the conventional answer so far is that time itself did not exist before the big bang. There was no "before".

[BubberMiley]

Based on my Fatih, there is no such question of how God was made.

Your Fatih doesn't even allow you to ask the question?

Edited May 9, 2009 by BubberMiley

[GostHacked]

Your Fatih doesn't even allow you to ask the question?

That is the same problem I have. The religious keep saying to at least take a look at the theory and evidence without even giving the alternative a chance. This is where science and religion are different .

benny

When I look at Gregor Johann Mendel, I can't see much difference between religion and science.

Benny, you would be good to understand the difference between science and religion.

This was a pretty good lecture at Standford about the differences between religion and science. Also how creationists have different views. Can we all be right? Many of us are going to be dissapointed. It's two hours long, but it is worth it.

Edited May 9, 2009 by GostHacked

[Oleg Bach]

"How God was made"?????? First you have to get past human perception and natural conditioning - we only understand that there is a begining and an end because we are bio - mortals - There is no begining or end to the universe or God - so God was not made...did not need to be created - he always was... It's not a question of blind faith - it's a question of understanding that we are limited because we are natural and natural is born and dies - super natural is just that - super! Or Superiour - being. Or Supreme..

[benny]

benny

Benny, you would be good to understand the difference between science and religion.

Philosophers, not scientists, can differentiate science from religion.

Edited May 9, 2009 by benny

[GostHacked]

Philosophers, not scientists, can differentiate science from religion.

I am not religious or a philosopher. Yet I can tell the difference.

[betsy]

Your Fatih doesn't even allow you to ask the question?

Let me explain...I am not forbidden to ask questions. The New testament had shown the apostles asking questions, doubting and their faith wavered - Christ patiently, although at times sounding exasperated, explained repeatedly.

What I mean is that I've always taken it that GOD has no beginning and has no end. It comes with the faith. That's why to me, it was never a question.

I understand that this is something difficult for atheists to comprehend. I think one has to know and understand the concept of God - from a believer's point of view - for it to be understood.

Edited May 9, 2009 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

I understand that this is something difficult for atheist to comprehend. I think one has to know and understand the concept of God - from a believer's point of view - for it to be understood.

Do you know the difference between an agnostic and an atheist?

[betsy]

That is the same problem I have. The religious keep saying to at least take a look at the theory and evidence without even giving the alternative a chance. This is where science and religion are different .

Forget the religious! They are driven by Faith! They believe and are confident that they are right!

And by the looks of it, they are going to be proven right by science! Science is on its way to reconcile with religion.

Darwin obviously looked at the theories.

Darwin was in a long letter-exchanges with Asa Gray. I'm sure Darwin was not influenced by Gray without him (Darwin) really taking a good long and serious look at what was being discussed.

Antony Flew was involved in a long debate with another (forgot his name but he's mentioned in that article I gave). Being a Philosopher to boot, and apparently a hard-core "legend" among atheists, I'm pretty sure he didn't just suddenly abandoned atheism, criticized evolution, and endorsed the ID theory without giving this a thorough study and weighing of evidence!

Dawkins - in a debate - admitted to the possibility....although he back-tracked later on.

BUT, in a personal interview, he did admit to considering the possibility of design or God.

I'm sure he didn't just spout off twice without having thought of it at sometime. And for him to give an inch in that interview must mean that he gave it a good amount of thought - considering that his statement is a blow to his own theory!

Given the stature of these men in the scientific field and philosophy....not to mention their particular role in the theory of evolution.....it only proved what we've been saying all along: Evolution is not a fact. It's only a theory. Between the two, ID is far more convincing....

What more clearer evidence do we need than that?

Edited May 9, 2009 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Evolution is not a fact. It's only a theory. Between the two, ID is far more convincing....

You still don't know what a scientific theory is.

But ID is only convincing if you have what you call "faith"--that is, if you are willing to forget about science altogether.

But if a so-called god can design itself, why can't a universe? Isn't "faith" that the universe designed itself just as credible?

[Sir Bandelot]

You still don't know what a scientific theory is.

But ID is only convincing if you have what you call "faith"--that is, if you are willing to forget about science altogether.

I don't see why the two concepts have to be irreconcilable. To me, if a God exists, it does not micro-manage the universe. So called laws broadly define the interactions that can take place between forces and materials. At small scales there is chaos, but on larger scales, the averages show structure. We are such a structure, and we are the average of many smaller random processes.

And strangely science is coming full circle in its observations of this process. In the beginning, there was a primordial cloud of particles and energy, that separated (by physical laws) into clusters of matter, galaxies, stars, held together by gravity. Stars are fairly simple objects, massive yes, powerful yes but simple in that they are composed of mainly hydrogen atoms. But in the nuclear furnace of stars, fusion creates heavier elements that are released when stars burn out. And we have deduced that this world, rocks and oceans were created by the dust of this process. Yet even that material is simple, when compared to living animated beings.

If we view all this as part of a continuing process, it means that we humans are the most complex things there are in the known universe. Although other life might exist elsewhere as well, it means that in comparison with the billions of stars, galaxies and inanimate matter we are very rare and unique. The universe, if it has a purpose seems to be evolving from simple atoms into more and more complicated structures, and the most complicated thus far realized is- us.

And to me that clearly puts man back at the center of the circle

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...Luc_Viatour.jpg

Edited May 9, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[Molly]

Well, THAT's species-ism of the highest order!

[betsy]

But ID is only convincing if you have what you call "faith"--that is, if you are willing to forget about science altogether.

Since Darwin and Dawkins both suggested to the possibility of Design or God ....which supports the ID theory, and Antony Flew fully endorsed ID theory...

You're suggesting Darwin, Antony Flew and Dawkins were not really Atheists. That all along they had faith.

And that Darwin and Dawkins "willingly forgot about science altogether." They're fraud.

So, the conclusion: The theory of evolution is nothing but a sham!

Edited May 9, 2009 by betsy

[benny]

I am not religious or a philosopher. Yet I can tell the difference.

You compare oranges (religious freaks) with apples (top notch scientists).

[BubberMiley]

So, the conclusion: The theory of evolution is nothing but a sham!

It's sort of difficult discussing scientific theory with someone who hasn't learned what a theory is yet.

[GostHacked]

You compare oranges (religious freaks) with apples (top notch scientists).

The one thing that people seem to not understand is that science simply has NO OPINION on religion. There are also a majority of moderates on all sides compared to the extremist views on any end of this spectrum.

And in a way you are correct. It is a matter of apples and oranges. The two cannot be compared on any level and get some kind of similarity.

Betsy

Forget the religious! They are driven by Faith! They believe and are confident that they are right!

And by the looks of it, they are going to be proven right by science! Science is on its way to reconcile with religion.

It may look that way for now, but what if the evidence ends up to show different? How wavering would you be on your faith when faced against insurmountable evidence to prove otherwiese?

Darwin obviously looked at the theories.

You are correct, at least he considered other theories. You simply have not. You do not have the capacity to even fancy the other evidence.

Dawkins - in a debate - admitted to the possibility....although he back-tracked later on.

BUT, in a personal interview, he did admit to considering the possibility of design or God.

Since it is all theory, you should take his words with a grain of salt when he talks about design or god. For the fact that they are both theories. Only one cannot be tested or verified through real science.

I'm sure he didn't just spout off twice without having thought of it at sometime. And for him to give an inch in that interview must mean that he gave it a good amount of thought - considering that his statement is a blow to his own theory!

At least thinking comes into play here.

Given the stature of these men in the scientific field and philosophy....not to mention their particular role in the theory of evolution.....it only proved what we've been saying all along: Evolution is not a fact. It's only a theory. Between the two, ID is far more convincing....

So the theory of gravity is a complete farce then? Because it is only a theory? Do you know what scientists are talking about when they use the term theory?

What more clearer evidence do we need than that?

If I ever witness a miracle, that would give me some evidence that you might be right. If we can duplicate the miracle over and over again and get the same results, then the theory becomes more of a fact because of the empirical data at hand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical

The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.[1] A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective "empirical" or the adverb "empirically." "Empirical" as an adjective or adverb is used in conjunction with both the natural and social sciences, and refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations. Empirical data are data that are produced by experiment or observation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

[cybercoma]

It's sort of difficult discussing scientific theory with someone who hasn't learned what a theory is yet.

It's not much of a discussion when the other person plugs their ears and talks over you the entire time anyway.

[benny]

The one thing that people seem to not understand is that science simply has NO OPINION on religion.

Religious science has certainly an opinion of its object of research.