Gospel of John Chapter 5, the words of Jesus Christ- 25Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. 28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. Revelations chapter 20 the words of the Apostle John: 11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. 2 Corinthians chapter 5 the words of the Apostle Paul: 10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 11Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
Yes it does. It explains that as the Big Bang cooled matter and energy differentiated from each other and that Big Bang didn't occur uniformly in all directions leading to areas of higher density that eventually clustered and gave us the current observable clustering of matter and energy as we know it. Anyway this is a totally tangential argument. Evolution is a biological theory regarding how speciation occurred not the theory of how matter came to be. Its like saying that you don't accept the theory of global warming because it doesn't explain how the sun came to be. Playing along though do you accept ID as more plausible because it explains how matter came to be? In that case then do you think ID is more plausible than the Big Bang? Of course it does. ID is the theory that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for speciation is it not? Since even an ID proponent like you refuses to state or offer evidence of what that intelligent designer might be or what its methods are then that statement is applicable. Again offer the empiracal evidence of what the designer(s) are and their methods and we'll evaluate it scientifically. You consistently refuse too and even went so far in your previous posts as to say that wasn't a scientific matter but a philosophical one. I've noticed ID proponents do this all the time. When pressed to offer empiracal evidence they hem and haw. Pardon me for saying this again bu there is no better way of saying it accept that that is intellectual laziness. I wouldn't accept Evolution or expect anyone else to accept it if Evolutionists said Evolution's process is random mutation and selective adaption if they didn't show empiracal evidence that might support that. So if ID is to be considered a scientific theory like Evolution it needs to be judged by at leas the same standards. As I said before though then it isn't an independent theory at all but a critique of Evolution. Even if Evolution is false there is nothing that proves that an intelligent designer(s) is a logical argument. Its logically more likely that the complexity could've rose spontaneously like a pattern in Brownian motion. Unless there is independent evidence that there is an intelligent designer(s) and what their methods are there's no reason to presume that ID is a plausible alternative. How much time isn't enough? The age of the Earth is an estimated 3.5 billion with life existing on it for about 2.5 billion and higher life forms for about 1 billion. Within about 10 years morphological changes where noticed among some higher species when subjected to a major habitat change or the presence of mutagens. Within days changes have been noticed among single celluar life. First off if I remember correctly the Cambrian Explosion spanned something like 20 million years so it wasn't like within a week it happened. Its only been a span of about 3 million years between pre-hominids and modern humans so a lot can happen in 20 million years. Secondly its not a matter of faith that scientists are clinging to Evolution, which is why its theory not law again the empiracal evidence best supports to Evolution, including in the case of the Cambrian Explosion since I recall reading that there is fossil evidence that shows a differentiation going on during the explosion itself. I will agree though that the Cambrian Explosion doesn't fit well with standard Evolution theory but even so what evidence is there to say that an intelligent designer played a role into it? You said some people support the idea of alien intervention. If so what evidence is there to support that? Has a spaceship been found from 500 million years ago? Without empiracal evidence ID can't even be closely considered a scientific theory since there's no empiracal evidence to support the hypothesis. You're the ID proponent and I'm giving you and the other proponents what you want. The chance to argue ID scientifically. I don't believe Evolution as a matter of faith I believe it because I've read and even seen first hand the empiracal evidence supporting it and see how independent pieces of investigation, fossils, morphology comparisons, genetic comparisons, mutation and adaption within species, fit into supporting Evolution as a scientific theory. But I'm not going to defend Evolution to ID proponents. You're free to believe what you want. When it comes to demanding that ID get equal treatment as Evolution in science curricula then lets hear why it is as plausible as Evolution and deserves to be treated as science. You're the ID proponent so you obviously must believe that one of the branches of thought regarding the intelligent designer(s) is valid then present the empiracal evidence that would support an intelligent designer. I don't care if its Aliens, demigods, God or smart Crawfish. Show me the evidence. Otherwise all you're doing is criticising Evolution but offering nothing but your own criticism to support ID.
I freely admit to not having read the previous two hundred pages, but I've got to say this... Bush and intelligent don't belong in the same sentence. Or title. Or whatever. Keep D&D Civil!!
That is a flaming mis-characterization of biblical proportions...just kidding rhester Please follow me when I say that I don't include you, Max or Grizzled--hell, even Giddy, as blind supporters of any faith based initiative. However, I don't think you are being accurate or fair. Fact is, YOUR movement is in charge--scientists and the "intellectual elite"(whomever they may be) are not going to go without a fight. They feel assaulted by the activist Christian right who are smug with power from a president that has flattered, used and pandered to them. From their point of view and partially mine, the conservative Christian movement in this country is seeking to reform the "evolution"-sorry-and development of this society over the last 150 years. But not just change within the private sector in their homes, but to influence and place those whom don't follow their doctrine or share their beliefs under the same yolk, which is based on christian-judeo values. ID is part and parcel of that, no? this scares me and I am a life long Christian who shares christian-judeo values.
The generic god posited in this "theory" would eventually become a Christian god if the most vocal supporters of this "science" had their way.
So Exxon and their ilk have not funded studies showing that global warming is overblown? Phillip Morris for years never funded studies to show that smoking was not harmful to one's health? It is not a sinister plot, it is called public relations. Krugman's article, thin as it may be, is trying to say that ID advocates are following a similar strategy - promoting a position that is meant to debunk another.
My post I think #91 Quote: Originally Posted by KingCheetah A few of the questions we haven't really addressed: Should the president be pushing something that at this point is more of a belief or philosophy than a science? Shouldn't he first request more funding for scientific research of ID? Why skip this important step and immediately begin teaching ID as a proven science? It should at the very least be researched as much as the evolutionary theory ~ at this point ID isn't even close. Also, why is there such a Christian slant to ID? Is it because other religions are more intertwined in there regions/nations cultures (Hinduism/Buddhism/Islam/etc.)? 1. I don't think he should push it. 2. I don't think the govt. should fund ID science. 3. ID is not a proven science. 4. It should be continually researched. 5. The Christian slant is based I think in the creation story. __________________ I don't mind the president having an opinion or even a platform but I am not in favor of the federal government funding one science over another. Nor do I believe evolutionary science should be thrown out. Nor do I believe ID should be thrown away. I personally believe there are legitimate scientists who have credible evidence that evolution is not a fact. I also believe that these scientists should be able to confirm, test and publish these alternate conclusions. It is not hard to understand how this would be taught. You don't need origins to make scientific observations. The whole concept of origins is not clear to any scientist. There are highly brilliant assumsions being made about virtual particals and anti-matter by some very brilliant scientists. But there is no proven law here. The issue of origins is where God gets involved and Big Bangs and all the rest. If we took origins out of biology, chemistry and physics not one law of science would be violated. If God created the universe arguing about it doesn't change anything. If 100 years from now every scientist on earth rejects evolution that will not make God any more real or valid than He already is. If God exists we don't need scientific proof. My beef with evolution besides not believing it is true, is that it is unchallengable at the moment because of a bias in mainstream science, and education in general. So anyone with a different view is either stupid and religious or a pseudo-scientist with a hidden agenda. From what I have read neither are true.
Hey, it was your question to begin with. You were questioning your perception of the absence of a fundamental building block for ID, and I simply pointed out that evolution has one just as big. I guess I should also note that although you've said that the Big Bang theory does address the creation of matter, your explainaiton shows that it doesn't. To answer your question, some ID theories explain how matter came to be and some don’t. I suspect that a number of people would be just fine with the Big Bang and other wouldn’t. We’d have to break it down to which particular theory you want to talk about. You design buildings, right? Are you and your methods unknown and unknowable? If someone comes across one of your buildings and makes the educated assessment, “That almost certainly can’t have been randomly created. Is it possible for me to know the designer and the methods of design and construction?” would your answer to him be no? It’s the same principle at work here. And I think most ID people have theories on who the designers are. As far as the methods go, some would say that life must have been introduced into the system from outside, and some would suggest supernatural means of construction. (Note that even the evolutionists have no natural explanation for what occurred in the Cambrian explosion, or even, many would argue, for vertical evolution in any form). You’re starting to get excited and you’re getting confused again. There are different ID theories. Got it? Pick one and we can follow it up. It seems to me that it’s you who has consistently refused to go any farther past the surface of this issue. And no, I didn’t say the whole issue was philosophical. Parts of some ID theories are, and others aren’t. Again, you’ll have to get below the surface to explore which is which. The only person I see being intellectually lazy here is you. You continually refuse to grasp the simplest concepts, like the fact that there are different ID theories. Let’s take a brief pause here to try to pin you down once and for all on this question. Do you acknowledge that there are different ID theories and that ID theories come under one umbrella simply due to the fact that they are pursuing the idea of an intelligent designer? Yes_____No______ Maybe if we can finally get you to do this we can get away from your faulty generalisations and diversionary (and hypocritical) name calling. As for your claim that evolution is supported by empirical evidence, the very problem with evolution, the very reason people are turning away from it, is that it IS NOT supported by the evidence. How many times have I repeated that in this thread alone?! Let’s take another pause to try to pin you down once and for all on this point. Do you understand that the objections to evolution are, for many ID people, made because these people believe that it is not supported by the empirical evidence or sound scientific reasoning? Yes_____No______ Let’s point out one more example one more time. What empirical evidence is there to explain from the perspective of evolution what happened during the Cambrian explosion? Their explanation is that there was “some kind of leap”, which is completely unexplained, but they say it must have happened because they have faith in evolution. Yet again, as a faith statement this is fine, but it’s got nothing to do with science. !!! Logic wasn’t your strong suit in school I take it? If someone, (let’s make him a tribesman who has never been out of the deep jungle of Brazil and never had any contact with the outside world), comes upon a building and they want to know where it came from, one of the first questions they might ask is, is it natural or was it created? This is, for our purposes, an either/or question. It’s not a critique of the theory suggesting it was naturally created to say that the evidence suggests that it was designed and constructed. It is simply what the evidence suggests. Now, for some it can be a path they take after they hit a dead end on the natural creation path, but that doesn’t make the intelligent design path merely a critique of the other path. You’re confusing micro and macro (vertical) evolution again. You claimed to understand the difference above so I can’t help but wonder if you’re just playing dumb here. Do I need to pin you down with another question to keep you from constantly shifting your position in yet another area? It would seem so. Do you understand the difference between micro and macro (vertical) evolution? Yes_____No______ Do you understand that ID only takes issue with macro (vertical) evolution? Yes_____No______ Essentially no vertical evolution has been detected, ever, so even if we said that it happens so slowly that we haven’t noticed it or seen any record of it, the amount of time it would logically take for the diversity of life on earth to evolve to this state is simply astronomical, far more than the time available, but the more important point is that there is no evidence that any vertical evolutions has ever happened at all. I had to interject here to point out the faulty reasoning. You are assuming evolution in one instance and then using that assumption to support your claim of evolution in another. That’s a logical fallacy. Again, the mounting empirical evidence does not support the theory. For many evolutionists it is only by faith that they continue support evolution. “A different going on.” In other words they have nothing. They can’t explain it. It’s a matter of faith for them.
I cant wait till scientific theories based on lack of evidence become more popular. The other day, despite not eating flatulence inducing foods, I nearly intelligent farted myself to asphyxiation in my tent. Damn you intelligent fartsigner!
nonsense, the lack of evidence and gaps as to microevolution clearly supports that the Zeus was just f-cking with Hera in order to win a bet with Hades and Poseidon - this is OBVIOUS from the LACK OF PROOF. Its intellignet designerS, silly.
Not even close. Philosophy is based upon logic, unlike ID. Hell, it's not even worthy of theology classes.
What the hell were you doing in a bloody tent?? Don't strike a match, for gods sake. Keep D&D Civil!!
The previous pope, John Paul II in 1996 declared to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that evolution was "no longer a mere hypothesis". _______ Evolution dispute now set to split Catholic hierarchy The cardinal's views are publicly and robustly rejected by Fr Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, which is a scientific institution sponsored by the Holy See. ... In The Tablet he says that Cardinal Shönborn's article has "darkened the waters" of the rapport between Church and science, and says - flatly contradicting the cardinal - that even a world in which "life... has evolved through a process of random genetic mutations and natural selection" is compatible with "God's dominion". For a Vatican official of such seniority openly to attack the views of a cardinal on such a potentially explosive subject as evolution is unprecedented. It also reveals a deep rift at the heart of the Catholic Church's thinking. It is known that Fr Coyne wrote privately to both Cardinal Shönborn and the Pope himself protesting against The New York Times article soon after it was published last month. But it is understood that so many scientists, especially Catholic scientists, have since contacted him to express their disquiet, that he felt he had to go public. He is believed to have cleared the article with his Jesuit superiors. The previous pope, John Paul II in 1996 declared to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that evolution was "no longer a mere hypothesis". In his July article Cardinal Shönborn played down this statement as "vague and unimportant". He points instead to comments Pope John Paul gave during an audience in 1985, when he spoke at length of the role of God the creator. Fr Coyne attacks the cardinal's analysis and says that the Pope's later statement was "epoch-making". He goes on: "Why does there seem to be a persistent retreat in the Church from attempts to establish a dialogue with the community of scientists?" The key question behind the debate is the opinion of new Pope. Some fear that the cardinal would never have published such a controversial article in such a prominent medium without his personal approval. But nothing will be known for certain until the Pope speaks for himself. link
You are incorrect! The LACK OF PROOF is indicative of a general macoreconomic trend reflected in a paradigm shift away from the early capitalist era into a post-capitalist era where common household items (blenders, leaf-blowers, hair-dryers, penguin-peelers) will all be made edible so on may eat one's self out of house and home in the most literal sense. Then one will make a poop castle and live inside it. This functions as evidence that the universe was indeed planned from the very beginning by a big giant white guy with a beard who sits on a throne in the sky. Oh wait...I guess that could be Zeus. Nevermind.
