Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism

Its right what they say...stupidity has no limit!

That being said, the trend on these Evolution Vs. (Insert absurd fantasies here) goes something like this:

1.
a) An outrageous fanstasy is claimed to be true/possible without a shred of evidence.

b) An outrageous fanstasy is claimed to be superior/equal to an opposing theory that is backed by evidence.

(Not to mention the word "theory" is very lightly used...to shoot down any scientific hypothesis as a fanstasy)

2. This claim is faced with credible, well organized and logical rebuttals closing the case for further argument.

3. The original claim prevails because the poster beautifully manages to ignore every shred of evidence posted against his/her fanstasy. More fanstasy spews.

4. The evidence/argument against the claimed fanstasy has to be repeated ( in this case it nearly had me fall off my chair gasping for air :lol

5. This is where it gets interesting. The original poster then picks a whole new topic randomly(absolutely irrelevant to the current fanstasy at hand) and the posters defending logic are tricked into explaining this new argument away while the original fanstasy ends up in the background. This new topic is usually controversial and not necessarily have a solid answer, very skillfully brought in by the original poster.

Hint Hint: NDE's

My 2 cents.

Hey, you gotta give him credit for trying though

Very good post BTW

I kept being told that the chances of life appearing on other planets are 'astronomically small'.. then after I repetitively made the point that the probability of life would be quite high [there are alot of planets and suns in the universe] I was told that even though the universe is riddled with life.. the chances of it appearing are still astronomicaly small. I still don't know how he reached this conclusion [or if he still thinks life is rare.. very indecisive], and whilst I concede the phrase 'astronomically small' sounds really impressive and is just as good as a harvard thesis.. it doesn't seem to be based on or anything or even mean anything.
Then I was told that the universe can't come from no-where.. [even though that is not the theory of the big bang], and when Produkt asked how can a god come from no-where.. he refused to answer. I mentioned Steven Hawkings theories, Einstein's.. I even mentioned fractal theory to try explain what probability is.. my arguments got ignored. It's irritating as those who are trying to defend ToE from attacks are expected to provide pages upon pages of information.. and it gets ignored and called 'evolutionism' to denograte it. Whats the point? Why do they bother if they have no intention of listening, learning and taking evidence seriously? We are willing to look at their evidence! Seems some are only here to spread creationalist propoganda.

-end of rant-

[edit on 6-3-2006 by riley]

ofcourse intelligent Design is a valid Theory, its just as valid as my theory that John Titor went back in time and did the nasty with the primordial soup.

Yeah, its a theory, not a fact, and as such, its just as valid as every other theory.

People arrises with logic, and the basis of these theories. Evolution was based on the long research trips that Darwin took to the Gallopogose islands. There he saw many of the same species of animals, evolving differently to suit theyre needs better. Then, with the findings of human like transitional fossils found, the theory was formulated about evolution.

Intelligent Design has no real logical basis. If anything, it was started as a counter against Evolution, and is based solely off of religious scripture. Over the years it has tried to form a logical basis, but in the end, it has fallen short of that goal, time and time again.

Just as my John Titor Theory, it is a theory, but it has no scientific basis to it. But the thread starters logic, my John Titor theory should be just as valid, and looked at validly, just as evolution is. Now thats wrong, ofcourse, because the John Titor theory is rubbish, and nobody would take it seriously unless I found an ancient fossil which says "John Titor Was here." That same problem arrises with Intelligent Design, it has no evidence to even support it, therefore no, it is NOT as valid as the evolution theory, because it has no real world backing to support its ideas.

Valid as a philosophical theory perhap's, but as a scientific theory hardly. All of it's supposed observation's and evidence's do nothing more then rely upon humanities inability to have all the answer's at the snap of the finger's. When you apply the whole probability issue, as they do with evolution and life itself, to the designer, the entire theory become's pointless in a scientific view. If they really want it taught in school's, philosophy and religion are perhap's it's best bet, but not as a scientific view.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
evolution has been tested on the micro scale and the macro scale

Wow...I had no idea that they have been able to take a single-celled organism and have it EVOLVE into a HOMO SAPIEN in a laboratory.

wow, just wow

first of all, you don't need to test it that far, we don't have enough time to observe it.

but observing speciation over a more brief scale does point towards the posibiliity of one life form eventually evolving into a human over several BILLION years.

You want evidence of intelligent design???

How about humans breeding animals for 1000s of years. Is that not intelligent design?

Man is soon able to genetically engineer species and maybe even humans. Is that not intelligent design??

"I can't see the forest cause there is all those leaves in the way daddy..."

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
You want evidence of intelligent design???

How about humans breeding animals for 1000s of years. Is that not intelligent design?

Intelligent selection

Man is soon able to genetically engineer species and maybe even humans. Is that not intelligent design??

"I can't see the forest cause there is all those leaves in the way daddy..."

Intelligent genetic manipulation?

If we can create an organism from non-living matter, i.e. proteins then I suppose that could be ID. But it would have to be artificial design.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
evolution has been tested on the micro scale and the macro scale

Wow...I had no idea that they have been able to take a single-celled organism and have it EVOLVE into a HOMO SAPIEN in a laboratory.

wow, just wow

first of all, you don't need to test it that far, we don't have enough time to observe it.

but observing speciation over a more brief scale does point towards the posibiliity of one life form eventually evolving into a human over several BILLION years.

What you have there is supposition and perhaps logical extrapolation, not proof-positive that evolution from a single-celled organism into a Homo sapien has indeed happened or even could happen.

Hey, they haven't even found proof that hominids evolved into Homo sapiens

Interesting how you and other Evolutionists would embrace a logical extrapolation for Darwinian theory without significant evidence but are remiss to do so for Intelligent Design which is also in essence, a product of inductive reasoning and logical extrapolation.



Perhaps you are one of those individuals who believe that hydrogen molecules can emerge in a vacuum of space. Am I right?

Paul_Richard,

You've much to learn about evolution appearently. I'm not sure why those of faith mistake it for the whole wham bam thank ya ma'am kind of event. You should also brush up abit on virtual particle's.

What's even more interesting is how religion even survived for so long. Granted, we did have to endure the dark age's where monotheism was most dominantly in charge of ... uh ... truth lol... Unfortunatly, many ancient held religous views and belief's are now explainable today. And no science doesn't have all the answer's and it probably never will. We haven't outlawed outmoded religous view's yet.

Originally posted by Produkt
You've much to learn about evolution appearently. I'm not sure why those of faith mistake it for the whole wham bam thank ya ma'am kind of event. You should also brush up abit on virtual particle's.

So I take it that you are one of those who believe that hydrogen molecules can appear in a vacuum of space. What do you have to provide us to support that far-fetched idea?

To believe that something can appear from nothingness is ludicrous. As such, I don't embrace that secular religious belief, as there is no evidence to support it and it is not logical.

You have much to learn in the area of critical thinking. The mark of an educated mind is not just memorizing "facts" but in being able to analyze objectively and clearly.

Originally posted by Produkt
What's even more interesting is how religion even survived for so long. Granted, we did have to endure the dark age's where monotheism was most dominantly in charge of ... uh ... truth lol... Unfortunatly, many ancient held religous views and belief's are now explainable today. And no science doesn't have all the answer's and it probably never will. We haven't outlawed outmoded religous view's yet.

Ever hear of a spell check?

It is apparent that you hate traditional religion and monotheism while also promoting your own secular religion that in some ways is just as twisted and dogmatic as what you think you are above.



To each his own I guess.

Time will tell who is more accurate in their appraisal about cosmic beginnings.

So I take it that you are one of those who believe that hydrogen molecules can appear in a vacuum of space. What do you have to provide us to support that far-fetched idea?

I take it you never bothered looking up quantum physic's and the wonderfull world that exist's at the plank level. You should learn howto use google.

puhep1.princeton.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...

You can start with these two links. If you have any furthur trouble understanding this and not sure howto use google to find more information, I'll be more then happy to find better links for you.

To believe that something can appear from nothingness is ludicrous. As such, I don't embrace that secular religious belief, as there is no evidence to support it and it is not logical.

Yet you do exactly this when holding faith in god just always existing. By your own view's, god is entirely illogical to have existed out of nothing. Yet he does exactly this.
Why hold such a contradictive belief? We don't yet know what model of physics existed prior to our universe let alone what even was in existence during that time.

Ever hear of a spell check?

Yes, 'cause we all know insulting another just prove's we're better then that person.

It is apparent that you hate traditional religion and monotheism while also promoting your own secular religion that in some ways is just as twisted and dogmatic as what you think you are above.

I don't 'hate' traditional religion. Traditional religion would be more akin to polytheism, not monotheism, wich goes against the traditional belief's of more ancient culture's then thos of say, judaism and especially christianity, which goes against the even older and more traditional judaism belief's.

I don't feel religion is a required belief system anymore, as many religious belief's held by ancient man have now been explained as NOT being the act's of some supernatural diety.

Furthur more, science isn't a religion. There's no absolute truth claimed, nor does it dismiss out right the possibility of there being a god. One also can't hold faith in a system that's under a constant state of flux. As new discoveries are made, our outlook on the universe and life change's. Therefore, anything we believed prior to that would now be false. You'd no longer think the false belief was true anymore, thusly negating any religous concept of faith.

Produkt,

Dodging the question I see.

Let's try it again...

Do you believe that hydrogen molecules can emerge in a vacuum of space?

Yes or no.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
To believe that something can appear from nothingness is ludicrous. As such, I don't embrace that secular religious belief, as there is no evidence to support it and it is not logical.

Originally posted by Produkt
Yet you do exactly this when holding faith in god just always existing.

You should at least get my perspective right. I don't believe in a god that always existed but in a God Force that always existed. That energy spectrum, which is nonliving, is what The Original Creator utilized in order to produce The Big Bang. I explain this in more detail in other threads, such as this one.

Originally posted by Produkt
We don't yet know what model of physics existed prior to our universe let alone what even was in existence during that time.

Well I am certainly not one to disagree with you on that point.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Ever hear of a spell check?

Originally posted by Produkt
Yes, 'cause we all know insulting another just prove's we're better then that person.

Let me get this straight.

I am insulting you by suggesting you use a spell check while you repeatedly insult me and others in the forum in accusing us of how ignorant we are because we do not adhere to your secular religious perspective.

Originally posted by Produkt
I don't 'hate' traditional religion. Traditional religion would be more akin to polytheism, not monotheism, wich goes against the traditional belief's of more ancient culture's then thos of say, judaism and especially christianity, which goes against the even older and more traditional judaism belief's.

I don't feel religion is a required belief system anymore, as many religious belief's held by ancient man have now been explained as NOT being the act's of some supernatural diety.

Furthur more, science isn't a religion.

When "science" becomes dogmatic and inflexible, it becomes a secular religion.

Originally posted by Produkt
There's no absolute truth claimed, nor does it dismiss out right the possibility of there being a god. One also can't hold faith in a system that's under a constant state of flux. As new discoveries are made, our outlook on the universe and life change's. Therefore, anything we believed prior to that would now be false. You'd no longer think the false belief was true anymore, thusly negating any religous concept of faith.

You admit that there is a possibility that there either is a God or was one who initiated The Big Bang?

What evidence or cogent argument do you have to support this view?

Do you believe that hydrogen molecules can emerge in a vacuum of space?

Short answer, yes. But I wasn't dodging the question's. I provided link's so you could learn more about this concept your having trouble grasping. Which you've abviously failed to bother learning about.

You should at least get my perspective right. I don't believe in a god that always existed but in a God Force that always existed. That energy spectrum, which is nonliving, is what The Original Creator utilized in order to produce The Big Bang. I explain this in more detail in other threads, such as this one.

I don't believe in a god that always existed but in a God Force that always existed.

That energy spectrum, which is nonliving,

Ok, so some form of energy that predate's the big bang. Agreed, there is a chance for this. We just don't know the validitiy of this field of energy as of yet.

But ....

is what The Original Creator utilized in order to produce The Big Bang.

You don't believe in a god that always existed, but here you clearly state that some form of intelligence did exist to utilze this force to produce the big bang. Where'd this fella come from?

When "science" becomes dogmatic and inflexible, it becomes a secular religion.

It's a good thing science isn't unflexible or dogmatic then.

You admit that there is a possibility that there either is a God or was one who initiated The Big Bang?

What evidence or cogent argument do you have to support this view?

I don't have any evidence for a god existing, which is why I hold no belief in a supernatural diety initiating the big bang. All evidence indicate's that supernatural belief's have evolved over time through the course of human history. Many people on this site are fine example's of how religous belief's have changed and continue to change. New cult's and sect's that pop up and die off are even more fine example's of how religous view's come and go.

I won't say for a fact what predate's the big bang, niether will any scientist of today. One can come to a more logical definitive view when one look's at all the evidence. So far, everything appear's to be natural processes, which is one of the many reason's we don't think the world is on the back of a turtle anymore and the sky is held up by naked women or mountains, nor do we no longer believe Zues create's lightening when he get's PO'ed. Nor do ... well, some of use... believe demon's posess us and make us sick. We're constantly learning new thing's, and some of those thing's are expelling religous superstition's of the past.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Do you believe that hydrogen molecules can emerge in a vacuum of space?

'Emerge'? :shk: The universe is 99% hydrogen.

Let me get this straight.

I am insulting you by suggesting you use a spell check while you repeatedly insult me and others in the forum in accusing us of how ignorant we are because we do not adhere to your secular religious perspective.

So when I misspelled 'fractal theory' I was trying to force you to be an atheist so you thought it was your right to insult me depite the fact that you didn't even bother looking into fractal theory? How about when you deliberately misspell evolution so you can try infer it's a religion thus trying to put it into direct competition with yours [a common creationalist tactic suggested at many propoganda sites]?

All scientific facts presently available support and do not in any way contradict the theory of evolution. It is a science not a religion. Deal with it.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by riley]

Produkt,

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Do you believe that hydrogen molecules can emerge in a vacuum of space?

Originally posted by Produkt
Short answer, yes.

It is good that you had the courage to answer that directly.

Now, in your own words...why do you believe that hydrogen molecules can emerge in a vacuum of space?

You quoted me as stating:

I don't believe in a god that always existed but in a God Force that always existed.

That energy spectrum, which is nonliving...

Originally posted by Produkt
Ok, so some form of energy that predate's the big bang. Agreed, there is a chance for this. We just don't know the validitiy of this field of energy as of yet.

But ....

is what The Original Creator utilized in order to produce The Big Bang.

You don't believe in a god that always existed, but here you clearly state that some form of intelligence did exist to utilze this force to produce the big bang.

Yes...an Intelligent Designer.

Originally posted by Produkt
Where'd this fella come from?

Difficult metaphysical concept to explain, but I will endeavor to do so once again.

He/She came into being via His/Her own probability via The Light Of The God Force. (Seth, the discarnate entity that came through Jane Roberts in the 1970s and wrote books through her, alluded to this.)

Time is a condition of consciousness. In this case, discarnate consciousness.

When there is no consciousness, there is no linear time.

When there is no linear time - in contrast to the physical spectrum - you can have something emerge in a vacuum of space, but only if there is an energy and consciousness directing it to happen.

Hydrogen molecules and subatomic particles in general, emerging in a vacuum of space simply through pure chance, when there is no energy and intelligence directing the process, is highly improbable as well as quite illogical

The energy which enabled The Big Bang to happen was The Light. This is the same Light that many Near Death Experiencers have reported seeing "at the end of the tunnel." It is that same Light that many gifted people use to heal others in various modalities like Christian faith, Pagan/Wiccan, and Reiki/Seichem, among others.

The Light Of The God Force is infinite and nonliving and one's direct access to it when no longer in the flesh is dictated by one's ability to love genuinely and deeply, one's application of The Golden Rule (the idea of which is found in all the world's major religions), and by one's selflessness.

The only way that reality can manifest itself is via The Light. Without it, there can be no stars, planets, corporeal life or souls.

But this Light is not bound by linear time. Time is how consciousness, be it incarnate or discarnate, experiences reality.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
You admit that there is a possibility that there either is a God or was one who initiated The Big Bang?

What evidence or cogent argument do you have to support this view?

Originally posted by Produkt
I don't have any evidence for a god existing, which is why I hold no belief in a supernatural diety initiating the big bang.

Whoa...wait a minute...

You said:

Originally posted by Produkt
There's no absolute truth claimed, nor does it dismiss out right the possibility of there being a god.

Here you are stating a possibility of there being a god, at least in your view. You contradict yourself.

Originally posted by Produkt
I won't say for a fact what predate's the big bang, niether will any scientist of today.

Where science ends...metaphysics begins.

riley,

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Do you believe that hydrogen molecules can emerge in a vacuum of space?

Originally posted by riley
'Emerge'? :shk: The universe is 99% hydrogen.

Yes...there is plenty of hydrogen in the cosmos. But that isn't the issue.

The question pertains to ORIGINS, not PRESENT CONDITIONS.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Let me get this straight.

I am insulting you by suggesting you use a spell check while you repeatedly insult me and others in the forum in accusing us of how ignorant we are because we do not adhere to your secular religious perspective.

Originally posted by riley
So when I misspelled 'fractal theory' I was trying to force you to be an atheist so you thought it was your right to insult me depite the fact that you didn't even bother looking into fractal theory?

Are you having an identity crisis?

I directed that inquiry at Produkt...not to you.

There is no logic to your argument and I am well aware of what fractal theory entails.

Now get a spell checker, as apparently you also need one.

Originally posted by riley
How about when you deliberately misspell evolution so you can try infer it's a religion thus trying to put it into direct competition with yours [a common creationalist tactic suggested at many propoganda sites]?

Yes, Evolutionism is a secular religion among many Darwinists. It is a secular religion because it is dogmatic and inflexible and because there is no solid evidence to support it. When there is no solid evidence or even a cogent, logical argument, then it becomes a supposition that is based on FAITH. A paradigm that is based on FAITH is a religion, in this case, a SECULAR RELIGION

Observable progressive mutations among microsopic life forms notwithstanding.

Originally posted by riley
All scientific facts presently available support and do not in any way contradict the theory of evolution. It is a science not a religion. Deal with it.

I do not adhere to the secular religion of Evolutionism, and various people in this forum who have found the inductive reasoning supportive of Intelligent Design agree with that.



[edit on 7-3-2006 by Paul_Richard]

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
He/She came into being via His/Her own probability via The Light Of The God Force. (Seth, the discarnate entity that came through Jane Roberts in the 1970s and wrote books through her, alluded to this.)

Time is a condition of consciousness. In this case, discarnate consciousness.

Time is a condition caused by SPACE. Again.. E=mc2.. nothing exists outside it. Of course again you answered a scientific question with faith.. the two are not interchangable.

Yes...there is plenty of hydrogen in the cosmos. But that isn't the issue.

The question pertains to ORIGINS, not PRESENT CONDITIONS.

I have not said that there was 'nothing' before the big bang. Please check out this site:

Stephen Hawking
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.

I am still looking for the piece on the 'multiverse'.. this one is more about our own and I will hopefully have more to post later- providing this doesn't get ignored.

Are you having an identity crisis?

Enough with the personal insults.

I directed that inquiry at Produkt...not to you.

You said something similar to me before and justified it the same way.. you seem point out typos just to antagonise and it comes off as petty.

There is no logic to your argument and I am well aware of what fractal theory entails.

If you knew you would know what scientific 'chance' is. To figure out what the chance of something happening is.. you also need to start with a number to compare it to. You have not provided one yet have kept insisting that life appearing naturally is 'atronomically small'. Again.. where did you pull this vague figure from and what is a division of?

Fractal theory
What is a fractal? In the most generalized terms, a fractal demostrates a limit. Fractals model complex physical processes and dynamical systems. The underlying principle of fractals is that a simple process that goes through infinitely many iterations becomes a very complex process.

Wow.. that almost sounds like evolution.

Yes, Evolutionism is a secular religion among many Darwinists.

The definition of religion is belief in a deity. It would be a good idea that while you are using spell check.. you take the time to consult a dictionary and actually look the word up. You will also discover that 'evolutionism' is NOT a word.

It is a secular religion because it is dogmatic and inflexible and because there is no solid evidence to support it.

This is an outright lie.. unless you just 'forgot' about all the observed changes, dna similarities, thousands of fossils found over the years and the fact that it is an established science.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by riley]

Paul_Richard,

Now, in your own words...why do you believe that hydrogen molecules can emerge in a vacuum of space?

It would do you best to learn howto use google and learn abit about the science behind it and how it's used in today's heathen modern world.

Difficult metaphysical concept to explain, but I will endeavor to do so once again.

He/She came into being via His/Her own probability via The Light Of The God Force. (Seth, the discarnate entity that came through Jane Roberts in the 1970s and wrote books through her, alluded to this.)

Time is a condition of consciousness. In this case, discarnate consciousness.

When there is no consciousness, there is no linear time.

When there is no linear time - in contrast to the physical spectrum - you can have something emerge in a vacuum of space, but only if there is an energy and consciousness directing it to happen.

I've asked you this before. What evidence do you have for your views. Which you've convienently gone off to ignore and or change subject's.

So your view's of time is, time doesn't exist unles you exist to observe it? What evidence do you have for such view's?

You do realize, your still talking about god and in such a contradictive manner.

in contrast to the physical spectrum - you can have something emerge in a vacuum of space

but only if there is an energy and consciousness directing it to happen.

So, the energy alway's existed, but out of our inability to exist at that moment in time (self-centered egotism) this IDer was able to come into existance, but ONLY if there was a pre-existing consciousness to have directed it to happen?

IDK... maybe I'm just not following you on this one.

[EDIT] Or rather, nothing could have come into existance without some form of intelligent consciousness bringing something into existence, thus it must have already been existing, else it wouldn't have been able to bring anything else into existence as your view point require's some form of consiousness to exist to direct the flow of energy to create a big bang boom boom event.

Hydrogen molecules and subatomic particles in general, emerging in a vacuum of space simply through pure chance, when there is no energy and intelligence directing the process, is highly improbable as well as quite illogical

So, virtual particle's only exist because some invisible IDer is making them pop in and out of existance? Really, you should learn the wonder's of google and how it can help you to discover a vast new world out there.

But again, what evidence exist's for this view here?

The energy which enabled The Big Bang to happen was The Light. This is the same Light that many Near Death Experiencers have reported seeing "at the end of the tunnel." It is that same Light that many gifted people use to heal others in various modalities like Christian faith, Pagan/Wiccan, and Reiki/Seichem, among others.

What evidence do you have for your views? If this is true, you alone being able to conclude what existed pre big bang and being so sure about it, well... you should be rather famous by now.

The Light Of The God Force is infinite and nonliving and one's direct access to it when no longer in the flesh is dictated by one's ability to love genuinely and deeply, one's application of The Golden Rule (the idea of which is found in all the world's major religions), and by one's selflessness.

The world's major religions are monotheistic. None of them teach this, let alon practice it. But again, I beg to ask, what evidence do you have for your views?

The only way that reality can manifest itself is via The Light. Without it, there can be no stars, planets, corporeal life or souls.

But this Light is not bound by linear time. Time is how consciousness, be it incarnate or discarnate, experiences reality.

You like making claim's without backing them up... Again, what evidence for your view's?

Here you are stating a possibility of there being a god, at least in your view. You contradict yourself.

You should take a class on reading comprehension as well.

While I may be open minded about the possibility of a god, open to the possibility that everything science has discovered about our universe is wrong, that doesn't make me contradictive for holding my belief's in what the evidence of reality has presented our rather ignorant species.

Where science ends...metaphysics begins

What evidence do you have for your views?

The question pertains to ORIGINS, not PRESENT CONDITIONS.

That's going to be pretty much an impossible question to answer, as no one, not even you can claim to know what predate's the universe for a certain fact.

Yes, Evolutionism is a secular religion among many Darwinists. It is a secular religion because it is dogmatic and inflexible and because there is no solid evidence to support it. When there is no solid evidence or even a cogent, logical argument, then it becomes a supposition that is based on FAITH. A paradigm that is based on FAITH is a religion, in this case, a SECULAR RELIGION

Your ability to point out spelling error's is amazing. Your inability to comprehend what it is your saying is even more amazing.

Since we're discussin science as a religous movement, let's look at dogmatic from the religous view point.

Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas) is belief or doctrine held by a religion or any kind of organization to be authoritative.

This doesn't sound like what science is at all, from a religous viewpoint.

Now let's look at inflexible.

# incapable of change; "a man of inflexible purpose"
# uncompromising: not making concessions; "took an uncompromising stance in the peace talks"; "uncompromising honesty"
# resistant to being bent; "an inflexible iron bar"; "an inflexible knife blade";
# incapable of adapting or changing to meet circumstances; "a rigid disciplinarian"; "an inflexible law"; "an unbending will to dominate"

Again, doesn't sound abit like science at all. Science is quiet flexible. It change's, thing's get dropped, new thing's adopted. New discoveries constantly made.

Let's look at what faith is.

religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny;
religion: an institution to express belief in a divine power;

Another fine example of what science isn't. Your inability to comprehend what it is your typing simply is astounding.

I do not adhere to the secular religion of Evolutionism, and various people in this forum who have found the inductive reasoning supportive of Intelligent Design agree with that.

As we've already pointed out numerous time's to you, and with your complete lack and inability to comprehend the fact's, science is not a religion.

IDism does seem to fit the bill though.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by Produkt]

Originally posted by Produkt
I keep seeing this ID garbage knocking down evolution.

MY OWN thought is that evolution was intelligently designed.

Computer programs are now being designed by us lowly humans
to teach themselves and to get smarter and smarter. So why can't
an intelligent designer program life to get better and better?

The computer programs are not aware of their designer (programmer).
They have to operate within their designed functions. However,
the designer does exhist and is able to operate outside the design
functions because the designer is outside the design

Exactly what evidence is there of an intelligent designer?

A while back someone here, I don't remember who, observantly said
that if you look at all the problems the human body has and all the
breakdowns, it sure doesn't look like the body was designed intelligently.

Can't argue with that, can we??

UNLESS you get into metaphysics, which tell us that everything that
happens is an opportunity for the greater good, or for the purification
of that person's karma. Someone born without sight may appear to
be less intelligently designed than others, but then as life goes on that
person can be a source of learning for others, an example of fortitude,
an opportunity for others to practice charity ... etc .... all of which have
higher purpose than being able to see at this moment in our lives.

QUESTION for all -

Would you consider a NDE (Near Death Experience) to be evidence
that supports the thought/belief held by so many on this planet
that there is a higher 'etherial-type' intelligence at work with
the human race?

There have been many many many documented cases of NDE.
People who were clinically dead and free of their bodies who
return and tell what they saw, felt, heard, etc.

Many have given information that could only have come from
someone outside their bodies ... like telling of discussions
people were having on the other side of town, or describing
what was happening in a room in another part of the hospital.
That sort of thing.

Would you all consider this information gathered from the
field to be evidence that supports the exhistence of God
or other intelligent spiritual beings?? There are some who
say that what is seen is due to the brain dieing of oxygen
starvation. But that doesn't explain how those people knew
of what was happening elsewhere, etc.

IF this is evidence of God or an Intelligent Being who is
very interested in our lives, then what (if anything) does
that mean for the ID/Evolution debate?