The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Or maybe Noah was just a story... and we've actually increased our lifespan since those times...

Probably makes more sense

a reply to: Akragon

Ah, you missed my sarcasm.

No worries, you aren't the first, you won't be the last.

But yeah, probably makes more sense.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

You just jumped into the conversation without even reading what was being discussed. We were talking about INTELLIGENT DESIGN of the universe, the appearance of order amongst the cosmos suggesting creation. We were NOT talking about humans creating things intelligently. They are completely different things! You are making the mistake of not paying attention to the conversation and then jumping in with quick interjections pretending that you are correcting something when you have not corrected anything. You take my statements as overarching blanket statements out of context in relation to the post I respond to.

Every time you do this, it distracts from the discussion. Is this intentional? I debate creationists because it's fun. Arguing with you just annoys me. I'm not threatened by creationism. I could care less what people believe. I just ENJOY debating when they push crap like ID as fact using reasoning that's downright laughable. And whether you realize it or not, you are defending irrationality when you nitpick my post that responded to somebody making ridiculous false claims about ID.

originally posted by: AlienView
True statement - The debate has degenerated into a classic Atheist vs. Theist scenario. Theists demand a creator and will
push their arguments and stretch their logic to support their faith - BUT the worse case of religiosity as usual comes from
the atheists who will step away from natural order, design and intelligence to prove their atheist religion [yes it is a religion, requiring an absolute faith in nothing as the prime cause of everything!!!] is correct - better chaos then Intelligent Design as ID does allow the possibility of an intelligence beyond their obviously limited intelligence would allow - Any theory that even allows the possibility of a creator is anathema to them - The universe came from nothing, has no intrinsic order, no goals, no destiny - How do they sleep at night? - In such a chaotic void how can you really be sure the Sun will rise tomorrow ?

You are the one that just devolved the conversation to atheism vs theism and essentially just posted a tirade against atheists where you pigeon hole them and assign beliefs to them. I have barely even mentioned atheism at all in this thread. I've been discussing SCIENCE and the standard of proof therein. This is a blatant misrepresentation of my position, something that is quite common for you guys. I'm defending science, not personal views on religion or god. I'm actually agnostic, I don't care if god exists or not. I do care about people promoting personal faith as scientific fact, however, like our good friend Cooperton.

The problem is that the people cannot stand to admit that their religion is faith based. They so badly and desperately want to prove a literalistic biblical worldview that they grasp straws and cherry pick, which only makes them look bad. Why not admit your faith is faith? I don't get the need to prove it to others. I never claimed atheism is absolute. I claim that science has high standards of proof, and judging something based on appearance alone is not conducive to this.

Sorry but your tirade is complete nonsense and greatly misrepresents what atheists actually believe.

Barcs wrote:

.....Why not admit your faith is faith? I don't get the need to prove it to others. I never claimed atheism is absolute. I claim that science has high standards of proof, and judging something based on appearance alone is not conducive to this.

And why not admit that science too is also based upon faith - faith that scientific theories can be proven and that the proven theoreis will stand the test of time - they don't always stand the test of time - After Einstein and Relativity the universe does not appear quite the same - And Quantum Mechanics often contradicts Relativity and yet both theories have been 'proven' true.

But I am a Man of faith, not in religion, not in today's science, but in the future, and the future requires most of all the imagination - the imagination precedes all discovery - And if I imagine a future that will really come to pass I can not accept the nonsensical claims of religion or 'the atheist like' claims of those who want to take a 'holier than thou' view of a science
that the future may show is fraught with misconceptions and faulty observation. Remember the science of thousands of years
past? - You might consider much of it, like you consider religion, nonsense today - I can imagine a science thousands of
years into the future that would look at many of the scientific theories of today as being Man's primitive attempt at
understanding - the science of today may one day be considered quite primitive.

But the thing I like about Intelligent Design is the thing you don't like about it - It really is not a science, and some might
argue that Evolution is not a science either. Both ID and Darwinism do have one thing in common though - They analyze
phenomena and attempt to give meaning to the phenomena - Isn't science also based on meaning? - But you say once it is
in the realm of science it is proven and before that it is faith - maybe no more than someone's imagination - Like Einstein's
imagination on Relativity and the nature of the universe - Took many yesrs to be proven true.

So I'll say it again, I'm not in the 'there must be a creator because of intelligent design' camp - I'm in the 'there must be Intelligent Design in order for there to be science' camp - you can not discover, and create useful theories about the universe unless that universe possesses an inherent order and design to it.

Religion does not prove Intelligent Design - Science proves Intelligent Design !

And if you want to go on theorizing about a science that is observing a universe that is inherently chaotic with no patterns of design to it
- go right ahead - I'm still amazed about the magical universe of the atheist - the magic of a chaotic void yielding order !

PS: For the record I also consider myself to be Agnostic - I will not attempt to prove or disprove what can not be proven or disproven;
But ID from my non-religious view is different - Intelligent patterns of design can be, and are shown throughout all that exists.





“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” ― Albert Einstein









"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Religion of the FUTURE"

a reply to: AlienView

But the thing I like about Intelligent Design is the thing you don't like about it - It really is not a science, and some might argue that Evolution is not a science either. Both ID and Darwinism do have one thing in common though - They analyze phenomena and attempt to give meaning to the phenomena - Isn't science also based on meaning? - But you say once it is in the realm of science it is proven and before that it is faith - maybe no more than someone's imagination - Like Einstein's imagination on Relativity and the nature of the universe - Took many yesrs to be proven true.

Science is NOT based on meaning. Science is about discovery and evidence. That's it. No evidence, no discovery, no science. "Meaning" implies the philosophical aspect of science - which is fine if that's your thing. "Proofs" in the natural sciences are typically Bayesian in nature and are similar to probability - as more information and data is acquired which supports a particular theory, the higher the degree of certainty. The short answer is that science is always an unfinished book.

Einsteins' theories were proven early on with classical tests. Experimental proofs only came about when technology and instrumentation were developed to test the theories independently. For example, time dilation and redshift were not proven experimentally until 1960 when instruments were developed which could measure wavelengths in a very narrow band. Proofs, or confirmation, in theoretical physics is dependent on instrumentation whether it's the Rover on Mars or a telescope in space.

To my knowledge, there are no instruments to detect or confirm ID. The fact that the universe appears organized is merely our perception of it. What we actually "see" is probably very limited - like dark energy - you can observe the effects but not the stuff itself. ID can't be proven by deductive reasoning which is what proponents rest their case on. To date, there's no discovery, no evidence and no science to support the idea. That's not to say it will never happen. It only says that there is no hard evidence now.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Barcs
replying to: AlienView
Regardless, relativity posits that both heliocentrism and geocentrism are both equally true, depending on perspective.

Geocentrism comes from Pagan Greek Philosophy (with some of the same philosophers involved in promoting philosophical naturalism or evolutionary philosophies before the word "evolution" was used for the modern ones; such as Aristotle who is mentioned in the video in this comment called "The Pagan Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies") just as so many of their philosophies and ways of thinking were adopted into the Roman Catholic Church (including those involved in formulating the doctrine of the Trinity).

Science and the Bible—Do They Really Contradict Each Other?

THE seeds of the clash between Galileo and the Catholic Church were sown centuries before Copernicus and Galileo were born. The earth-centered, or geocentric, view of the universe was adopted by the ancient Greeks and made famous by the philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) and the astronomer-astrologer Ptolemy (second century C.E.).*
* = In the third century B.C.E., a Greek named Aristarchus of Samos put forth the hypothesis that the sun is at the center of the cosmos, but his ideas were dismissed in favor of Aristotle’s.
Aristotle’s concept of the universe was influenced by the thinking of Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras (sixth century B.C.E.). Adopting Pythagoras’ view that the circle and sphere were perfect shapes, Aristotle believed that the heavens were a series of spheres within spheres, like layers of an onion. Each layer was made of crystal, with the earth at the center. Stars moved in circles, deriving their motion from the outermost sphere, the seat of divine power. Aristotle also held that the sun and other celestial objects were perfect, free of any marks or blemishes and not subject to change.

Aristotle’s great scheme was a child of philosophy, not science. A moving earth, he felt, would violate common sense. He also rejected the idea of a void, or space, believing that a moving earth would be subject to friction and would grind to a halt without the application of constant force. Because Aristotle’s concept seemed logical within the framework of existing knowledge, it endured in its basic form for almost 2,000 years. Even as late as the 16th century, French philosopher Jean Bodin expressed that popular view, stating: “No one in his senses, or imbued with the slightest knowledge of physics, will ever think that the earth, heavy and unwieldy . . . , staggers . . . around its own center and that of the sun; for at the slightest jar of the earth, we would see cities and fortresses, towns and mountains thrown down.”

Aristotle Adopted by the Church

A further step leading to the confrontation between Galileo and the church occurred in the 13th century and involved Catholic authority Thomas Aquinas (1225-74). Aquinas had a profound respect for Aristotle, whom he referred to as The Philosopher. Aquinas struggled for five years to fuse Aristotle’s philosophy with church teaching. By the time of Galileo, says Wade Rowland in his book Galileo’s Mistake, “the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome.” Keep in mind, too, that in those days there was no scientific community as such. Education was largely in the hands of the church. The authority on religion and science was often one and the same.

The stage was now set for the confrontation between the church and Galileo. Even before his involvement with astronomy, Galileo had written a treatise on motion. It challenged many assumptions made by the revered Aristotle. However, it was Galileo’s steadfast promotion of the heliocentric concept and his assertion that it harmonizes with Scripture that led to his trial by the Inquisition in 1633.

In his defense, Galileo affirmed his strong faith in the Bible as the inspired Word of God. He also argued that the Scriptures were written for ordinary people and that Biblical references to the apparent movement of the sun were not to be interpreted literally. His arguments were futile. Because Galileo rejected an interpretation of Scripture based on Greek philosophy, he stood condemned! Not until 1992 did the Catholic Church officially admit to error in its judgment of Galileo.

Lessons to Be Learned

What can we learn from these events? For one thing, Galileo had no quarrel with the Bible. Instead, he questioned the teachings of the church. One religion writer observed: “The lesson to be learned from Galileo, it appears, is not that the Church held too tightly to biblical truths; but rather that it did not hold tightly enough.” By allowing Greek philosophy to influence its theology, the church bowed to tradition rather than follow the teachings of the Bible.

All of this calls to mind the Biblical warning: “Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.”—Colossians 2:8.

Even today, many in Christendom continue to embrace theories and philosophies that contradict the Bible. One example is Darwin’s theory of evolution, which they have accepted in place of the Genesis account of creation. In making this substitution, the churches have, in effect, made Darwin a modern-day Aristotle and evolution an article of faith.

True Science Harmonizes With the Bible

The foregoing should in no way discourage an interest in science. To be sure, the Bible itself invites us to learn from God’s handiwork and to discern God’s amazing qualities in what we see. (Isaiah 40:26; Romans 1:20) Of course, the Bible does not claim to teach science. Rather, it reveals God’s standards, aspects of his personality that creation alone cannot teach, and his purpose for humans. (Psalm 19:7-11; 2 Timothy 3:16) Yet, when the Bible does refer to natural phenomena, it is consistently accurate. Galileo himself said: “Both the Holy Scriptures and nature proceed from the Divine Word . . . Two truths can never contradict one another.” Consider the following examples.

...

a reply to: whereislogic

You do have a point, let's teach ID and/or creationism as failed hypotheses, just like we teach alchemy and astrology as failed hypotheses. ID and creationism have failed every single test, so all we have left is evolution which has passed every single scientific test.
Define scientific and we can tell you precisely why human beliefs are antithetical to science.

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: whereislogic

You do have a point, let's teach ID and/or creationism as failed hypotheses, just like we teach alchemy and astrology as failed hypotheses. ID and creationism have failed every single test, so all we have left is evolution which has passed every single scientific test.
Define scientific and we can tell you precisely why human beliefs are antithetical to science.

Great post.

For those that missed the nuances above:

1) ID fails every test
2) Evolution passes every test

Ask your selves honestly which is most likely to be true...

Remember I said we are talking about two different kinds of animals when we are comparing Darwinism ro ID and they don't
really contradict each other [my opinion] ?

See what you all think of this:

Definition of Intelligent Design

"What is intelligent design? Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds 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. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago."

Is intelligent design the same as creationism? "No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case."

Is intelligent design a scientific theory? "Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed".
Quote source:
www.intelligentdesign.org...

Now, I know you especially do not agree with the last part saying "researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed" - saying 'were designed' does imply a designer, which of course can not
be proved - But if the object has a pattern of design, that design may still reflect an intelligence inherent in nature
- could Evolution be occurring if it was not according to some pattern of design? You could not describe Evolution if
it wasn't following some type of design - As pure random chance Evolution could not exist - As a matter of fact by pure
random chance Nothing could exist - And nothing can not exist

Its like say your a bartender and want to develop a new drink - So you invent the Intelligent Design Cocktail - It is composed
of little of this, a little of that, and you serve it. They like it and someone else asks for one - Thing is if you don't mix
the ingredients the same way it is not the same drink - The ID Cocktail must be mixed according to a certain pattern of
design - Everything that exists has a pattern of design - Otherwise we can not detect that it exists.


It is just as hard to believe that Human intelligence appears by random chance possessing no intelligence than it is to believe that 'a' creator
created the world with specific intent. It is easier to believe that intelligence [mind] comes first and all that occurs follows patterns of design.
If you don't believe this tell me what existence looks like without mind - Describe a mindless universe and do it without your mind.

And once again:

Darwinism and Evoulution are forms of intelligent desigh - Without the observable intelligent patterns of design observed in Evoulution
you would have nothing - Evoulution could not be defined.



So is Intelligent Design a science? NO - it is a methodological and philosophical way of observation. - A way to observe science.





“We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.” ― Carl Sagan, Cosmos

edit on 22-5-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-5-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: AlienView Is intelligent design a scientific theory? Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion...


So is Intelligent Design a science? NO - it is a methodological and philosophical way of observation. - A way to observe science.

erm...

BTW I've no idea what Darwinism is. Is it something made up by religionismists to describe things they refuse to understand?


ETA

ism - According to Merriam–Webster's Dictionary of English Usage it is a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix -ism : the act, practice, or process of doing something

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Akragon

I don't for one second believe in the old characters of the bible living for almost a thousand years.

a reply to: MarsIsRed

Darwinism was a term with meaning once, back when Darwin first postulated the idea, and the Victorian era mindset was appalled by it However it is up there with "evolutionist" for a term that Creationists throw around. Now if we are talking social Darwinism, sure, that is a philosophy people still seem to follow

But yes, Darwinism is a non entity, as is evolutionist. As I keep telling some of these posters, if you accept science as something that measures reality, you can't cherry pick the bits you believe. Thus if there are evolutionists, there are also gravitationalists, Thermodynamicists, kineticists, and certainly not beleive that SN1 but not SN2 are mechanisms in chemical reactions

a reply to: Noinden

Yeah, the terms Darwinism/evolutionist are almost up there with people using a billion interconnected computers (the internet) to deny the veracity of science!

We don't have to like, or understand, where science leads us (QM for example). But if that's where the data points we just have to accept it. Anything else becomes denial, rather than rational acceptance.

a reply to: MarsIsRed

The sad part is their deity is NOT on record about denying these scientific ideas, it is the people. You find far fewer non-Abrahamic Creationists (they exist) out there however.

You see Human you have two choices - You either accept that the universe you exist in is ordered in a pattern of Intelligent
Design and you are one of us - Or it is chaotic nonsense possessing neither order or design and in which case so are you .

Time is both relevant and relative here so make up your minds now.

ALSO SPRACH ZARATHUSTRA

2001: A Space Odyssey Theme • Also Sprach Zarathustra • Richard Strauss





“The snake which cannot cast its skin has to die. As well the minds which are prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be mind.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."
- Friedrich Nietzsche





“The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.”
― Carl Sagan



“Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.”
― Carl Sagan




“Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?” ― Carl Sagan



“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark




“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark



“But nature is always more subtle, more intricate, more elegant than what we are able to imagine.”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark



“The surface of the Earth is the shore of the cosmic ocean. On this shore, we've learned most of what we know. Recently, we've waded a little way out, maybe ankle-deep, and the water seems inviting. Some part of our being knows this is where we came from. We long to return, and we can, because the cosmos is also within us. We're made of star stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos


“We will know which stars to visit. Our descendants will then skim the light years, the children of Thales and Aristarchus, Leonardo and Einstein.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos













"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Religion of the FUTURE"
universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: MarsIsRed

Darwinism was a term with meaning once, ...However it is up there with "evolutionist" for a term that Creationists throw around. ...
...Darwinism is a non entity, as is evolutionist. As I keep telling some of these posters...you can't cherry pick the bits you believe. Thus if there are evolutionists, there are also gravitationalists, Thermodynamicists, kineticists, ...

You're ridiculing other people for using the term "evolutionist" to dismiss them and what they might say (for yourself and others), yet to some people the only one that is looking foolish after such a comment is you. I take it that last part was not part of your intention. For those who might be interested why this comment is so telling in terms of people repeating eachother's arguments and ways of thinking no matter how unreasonable or nonsensical they are (related to the process described in 2 Timothy 4:3,4):
evolutionist - PubMed - NCBI
evolutionists - PubMed - NCBI

It's so silly to point fingers at others when they didn't even introduce the word.

evolutionist - definition, etymology and usage, examples and related words:

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
...
2. Evolutionist One who holds the doctrine of evolution, either in biology or in metaphysics.

Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
...
2. (n) evolutionist A believer in the biological or cosmological doctrine of evolution.
3. evolutionist Of or pertaining to the doctrine of evolution; based upon or believing in the doctrine of evolution.

Online Etymology Dictionary:

evolutionist (n.)
1859, "one who accepts as true the biological theory of evolution," from evolution + -ist. Related: Evolutionism.

Coming back to you again (perhaps also worthy to consider in relation to what I bolded and underlined):

...you can't cherry pick the bits you believe

You can however use the same sources for the word "darwinism" if you're curious and willing to learn something rather than being more interested in other reasons* for commenting (* = or satisfying other desires/motivations).

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.
...
The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right ... one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

From the article in my sig and the page before it. It's addictive and infectious as well once you get used to people (including victims) applying the above described techniques on your mind repetitively (including mutual encouragement among victims and addicts).

sidenote: notice the switch (or choice) from "believer" or "believing" to "accept as true" or "hold" in the choice of dictionaries and etymology dictionaries I used for the word "evolutionist". This is more significant in terms of determining the honesty and willigness to insert a particular philosophical spin (and promote certain ways of thinking) of those who publish that particular dictionary than you might think. Or in other words, it's subtle and cunning.

I'm not against the notion of intelligent design. What I am dead against it is that humans imagine that it is some kind of benevolent geezer with a beard, who sometimes even manages to speak to humans and who is prone to anger is supposed to have done this.

Imagine, a being capable of anger. Anger is not an ethereal property, it is only possible if someone has a body and the relevant glands to produce the hormones and neurotransmitters needed to produce anger.

It is utterly ridiculous to think the bible-god did it. For so many reasons.

People are always against what they don't understand. Because if they would understand, they'd soon see how ridiculous their beliefs are.

IF, and it's a big IF, we were designed, science shows that we are not made from scratch. We evolved. Evolution isn't debatable, in the same way the spherical earth isn't debatable either.

So the only way we could have been designed is by formula. Basically one set of rules, some ingredients and see what happens.

Well, for millions of years not much happened, then small weirdo creatures came along, then dinosaurs happened [and did quite well] for millions of years and that's that....oh, I nearly forgot, a few thousand years ago homo sapiens appeared and only 3500 years ago the wheel was invented.

Wow, such importance, much design. [as Doge would say...]

We could be the brainchild of a nerd who build our matrix, we could be a genetic experiment by aliens or we could have [most likely] evolved from the primordial soup [It's not complicated at all, if people cared to educate themselves and understood what they read. It is INEVITABLE that units will always evolve, such is life], but one thing we are not is:

Being 'made' by some made up man? woman? Godzilla? from the bible, in his mancave, with mud and ribs. Come booming on.

a reply to: AlienView

It doesn't matter that it's "not the same as Creationism". The fact is there's no hard evidence for intelligent design. You sound like a clone of another guy on here (probably are?).

In any case, pushing an idea that has no evidence into the realm of science is a waste of time. Nobody buys it. Carl Sagan spoke about spirituality - not intelligent design. Spirituality fits very well with science because spirituality seeks truth. Denying truth and avoiding reality is a way to cover up an insecurity. And your intelligent designer could be anything - a computer, an evil alien or someone from another universe. Be careful what you wish for......

Intelligent design IS NOT a scientific theory because it has no data to support the thesis. And the scientific method is much more than a "four step process". You don't seem to grasp what science it and what it is not. Science is discovery and evidence. That's it. Until you have evidence, all the blabbering and lengthy diatribes don't amount to a hill of beans.

originally posted by: AlienView
And why not admit that science too is also based upon faith

Because it's NOT. It's based on evidence and experiments. Equating testable experiments to blind faith is laughably wrong, I'm sorry.

faith that scientific theories can be proven and that the proven theoreis will stand the test of time - they don't always stand the test of time - After Einstein and Relativity the universe does not appear quite the same - And Quantum Mechanics often contradicts Relativity and yet both theories have been 'proven' true.

QM operates on a different level than relativity. Both are correct they just apply to different areas.

Even when science gets minor things wrong, they get corrected, because it follows evidence not an absolute doctrine or dogma.

But I am a Man of faith, not in religion, not in today's science, but in the future, and the future requires most of all the imagination - the imagination precedes all discovery - And if I imagine a future that will really come to pass I can not accept the nonsensical claims of religion or 'the atheist like' claims of those who want to take a 'holier than thou' view of a science that the future may show is fraught with misconceptions and faulty observation.

Are you kidding me? It's the SCIENTISTS that have the "holier than thou" attitude, and not the religious? GTFO. Science is not absolute, but it gets us where we need to go. To suggest otherwise is laughably wrong.

Remember the science of thousands of years past?

Do you? How much of that thousand year old science followed the scientific method? Can you give me examples that aren't BS about what science has gotten wrong? Please don't mention flat earth or BS theories from the bronze age that were based on religion and pure philosophy. The modern scientific method is an accurate way to discover facts. End of story. I know this urks you, but that's how it works. To compare it to "science" from thousands of years ago before it was even science is silly. Name a scientific theory from the last 100 years that end up being completely wrong.

You might consider much of it, like you consider religion, nonsense today - I can imagine a science thousands of
years into the future that would look at many of the scientific theories of today as being Man's primitive attempt at
understanding - the science of today may one day be considered quite primitive.

It's so primitive, yet it provides us with countless pieces of technology and things that are proven to work, ie computer and internet that you use to spread your propaganda against it. I don't care if you have faith, you just refuse to admit that it's faith, and instead you choose to attack science unprovoked.

But the thing I like about Intelligent Design is the thing you don't like about it - It really is not a science,

Correct

and some might argue that Evolution is not a science either.

Some might argue that, but they are dead wrong. Evolution is absolutely science. 100,000 research papers an the topic say that it is. You chose to believe a faith based belief system over science, and that's sad.

So I'll say it again, I'm not in the 'there must be a creator because of intelligent design' camp - I'm in the 'there must be Intelligent Design in order for there to be science' camp - you can not discover, and create useful theories about the universe unless that universe possesses an inherent order and design to it.

BS. ID is YOUR INTERPRETATION of the origin of the universe based on it's appearance. Thus far no science anywhere has confirmed ID. I don't care if you have faith in it, but it's certainly not a requirement for anything.

Religion does not prove Intelligent Design - Science proves Intelligent Design !

Can you quote me the research papers that have proven this?

And if you want to go on theorizing about a science that is observing a universe that is inherently chaotic with no patterns of design to it
- go right ahead - I'm still amazed about the magical universe of the atheist - the magic of a chaotic void yielding order !

Once again comparing science to atheism. Just stop. Science doesn't care whether the universe is chaotic or was the designed or whether it's somewhere in between. Science looks for evidence to figure out how it works, and thus far everything has been show to operate just fine without any interference from a god or godlike entity.

But ID from my non-religious view is different - Intelligent patterns of design can be, and are shown throughout all that exists.

You are welcome to that opinion.

"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Religion of the FUTURE"

Why don't you put this in your signature instead of putting it at the end of every post you make. It's pure silliness and doesn't even go with the post.