All Evolutionists, go see the movie "Expelled"

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by snowman

What amazes me about this thread is the total lack of understanding of science shown by almost all. Science only tells HOW things work, never WHY things work or why things are here to begin with, those subjects are NOT science. What we have is a bunch of so called scientists who do not even know what Science IS to begin with.
I don't seem to recall any claims to the "why question" on this thread.

Science is based on observation. One cannot observe where we came from or why we are here, that simple. Consequently where we came from is NOT science, since it cannot be observed. Evolution can be observed, but it cannot show where life originated. Evolution can be a science, the origin of life cannot.
Let's see, "god of gaps" argument, argument from ignorance, argument from incredulity. Wow, that is a lot of negativism.

ID does not depend on religion in any way. ID is an observation by people with enough perception to know what can occur by chance and what cannot. The lack of many to see the necessity of ID only show their weakness, their lack of ability, nothing more.
Theoretically, ID could be a scientific subject. However, it has not been presented as science and has been conclusively shown to be of religious origin (please read the Dover findings)

Some people recognize the necessity of ID and try to incorporate it into their religion, they may be mistaken, they may be right, who knows, but the main religions, eg Catholics beleive in evolution, so the atheist trying to spoil religion have no point to make there. They argue against ID like it is a religion, it is not so they have no point, they also have no argument to show that ID is not a credible idea that must be considered.
I think you have it backwords here. ID was clearly born of an attempt to subvert the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

And finally, yes, some of us are gifted. We have the ability to know things that some do not. We know that there must have been a creator. THose of us that cannot see this are simply lacking in the intelligence required to know such things.
LOL, time for a psychiatric evaluation to discuss those delusions of grandeur.

I can give you the name of several psychiatrists.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by sjf911

I can give you the name of several psychiatrists.

Good idea. It will take "several".

[dewolf]

Originally Posted by sjf911

I can give you the name of several psychiatrists.

Calling Dr. Phil

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by sjf911

ID describes the origin of life like string theory defines the universe. If it is correct, you have to figure out which of the 10^500 iterations is "the one". I vote for Hopi version.
Unfortunately for you, that still leaves natural abiogenesis with more supporting evidence and stronger case, despite the 10^500 possible creation myths/chances.

If you like the Hopi version then so be it.

This argument is circular. You think that abiogenesis has more supporting evidence than a creator does. I say that is because you either discount or refuse to see the evidence there is that supports a creator. You expect that if there is a creator that it would be some sort of hit you over the head type that would rain fire from the sky. I say that by definition if there is in fact a higher power it would have no need to prove itself to us. You expect the evidence for a creator to fall into our 3 dimensional world. I say why would a creator who made everything around us be bound by the same laws as we?

See, it all boils down to faith. I have a personal faith in God, you put your faith in a puddle of mud and a random lightning bolt billions of years ago. Good luck with that.

[dewolf]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

See, it all boils down to faith. I have a personal faith in God, you put your faith in a puddle of mud and a random lightning bolt billions of years ago. Good luck with that.

That's a pretty arrogant statement. One that we are becoming used to from the religious folk here. I don't put my faith in a puddle of mud. I have faith in life itself. Once again, it's all faith based on both sides, but whilst faith will never seek to find the true answers, science itself is in a state of constant evolution. You can't put your faith in a Petri dish, but science can, and does, albeit sometimes without success, other times with great success.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

I say that is because you either discount or refuse to see the evidence there is that supports a creator.

What evidence? Present it. How can someone "refuse to see" evidence? If it's valid, one cannot discount it. Wait a minute, one need only say "Trekkor". Seriously, though, what evidence do you have to support your, personal, watered-down ID theory?

You expect that if there is a creator that it would be some sort of hit you over the head type that would rain fire from the sky. I say that by definition if there is in fact a higher power it would have no need to prove itself to us. You expect the evidence for a creator to fall into our 3 dimensional world. I say why would a creator who made everything around us be bound by the same laws as we?

In actuality, your creator is a fabrication of your emotions. Just like the Hopi's. I do not share the same emotion, so I truly have no preconceived notions about what your particular god is and isn't supposed to do other than what you tell me. If you tell me that your god is responsible for the origins of life on Earth, I say "what evidence do you have to back that statement up?". So far, you've provided nothing but emotional responses.

You have defined your creator to us. You have implied that he can do (or has been responsible for) certain things like the origins of life. I'm simply saying, "show us why you believe that to be true". So far, your argument seems to be "you can't prove me wrong, so I'm just as right as you are".

See, it all boils down to faith. I have a personal faith in God, you put your faith in a puddle of mud and a random lightning bolt billions of years ago. Good luck with that.

You have an emotional feeling that your particular god exists. That's perfectly fine. It's not serving you well in a debate regarding the science of evolution and the study of the origins of life, however. Reading the last few pages of this thread, it's apparent that you really don't have anything to bring to the table other than an emotional feeling that there is a creator. Good luck with that. :>)

[frogger]

Originally Posted by sjf911

And of course this should sit well with frogger, stuartj, and Kurt.

ROFL! That's brilliant!

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

You expect that if there is a creator that it would be some sort of hit you over the head type that would rain fire from the sky.

Why would anyone expect otherwise? That IS God in the OT, the same book that gives us both accounts of creation.

Rick, you like to pick and choose what is real and not real in the Bible. Why do you think the story (pick one) of creation is real, but Jonah is not?

What logic did you use in deciding each one?

[frogger]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

I say that is because you either discount or refuse to see the evidence there is that supports a creator.

The evidence is abundant.

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

This argument is circular. You think that abiogenesis has more supporting evidence than a creator does. I say that is because you either discount or refuse to see the evidence there is that supports a creator. You expect that if there is a creator that it would be some sort of hit you over the head type that would rain fire from the sky. I say that by definition if there is in fact a higher power it would have no need to prove itself to us. You expect the evidence for a creator to fall into our 3 dimensional world. I say why would a creator who made everything around us be bound by the same laws as we?

See, it all boils down to faith. I have a personal faith in God, you put your faith in a puddle of mud and a random lightning bolt billions of years ago. Good luck with that.

Let's see. The evidence is all around, "I see it every day". But wait, don't expect it to be in our 3+dimensional world because it is "god" and it takes faith to believe.

I am not sure that even Snowman's rants reach this level of intellectual dishonesty.

[Milu]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad View Post
I say that is because you either discount or refuse to see the evidence there is that supports a creator.


Lots of posts over several threads over many pages. But we have yet to see evidence or a proof? Go for it Nathan's Dad, give us the evidence or your logical proof.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by dewolf

That's a pretty arrogant statement.

It's not arrogant at all, it is what you are supporting if you think abiogenesis is the source of life. A pool of liquid (probably had some dirt in it too) with a bunch of amino acids and compounds and then SOMETHING happened, maybe a lightning bolt and POOF...life.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

Why would anyone expect otherwise? That IS God in the OT, the same book that gives us both accounts of creation.

Rick, you like to pick and choose what is real and not real in the Bible. Why do you think the story (pick one) of creation is real, but Jonah is not?

What logic did you use in deciding each one?

Shaun we already discussed this on the other thread you started. Do you not recall or do you not understand my answer?

[Nathans_Dad]

So, to all of you who are demanding your proof. Here it is. The proof is all around you. I see proof of God in my baby's eyes. I see proof of God in the perfection of a rose in my garden. I see proof of God in the amazing complexity and beauty of how our body works. I see proof of God in the transformations that occur in people's lives when they finally turn to God. I could go on for a few pages, but you get the idea.

Let me answer it for you...you discount all of the above. That's ok, I wouldn't expect you to understand since you don't look for God in things, you look for things to prove to yourselves that there isn't a God.

Can I prove God exists scientfically? No and I never plan to try. God isn't a being that needs to be proven scientifically. I will continue to chuckle that those who try to use science to disprove God, however...it's just as futile.

[Milu]

Not proof or evidence and I see the world differently but a good answer.

[the]

Can see proof of Jesus everywhere!

Toast:


Peruvian sand dune:

[trekkor]

I just heard something interesting about quail.
The mother bird lays one egg each day for say, eight days.
The eggs are kept warm during incubation.

Why is it that they all hatch within 6 hours of one another and not 8 days?



KT

[the]

Divine incubation?

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by trekkor

I just heard something interesting about quail.
The mother bird lays one egg each day for say, eight days.
The eggs are kept warm during incubation.

Why is it that they all hatch within 6 hours of one another and not 8 days?
KT

Because quail egg gestation periods vary non-linearly?

How is it that a wood duck can fly directly into a hole in a tree and not punch out a hole in the other side?

How is it that eyebrows,eyelashes, et al stop growing at a certain length while head hair just keeps growing?

Incidentally, Trek, I just finished my flagstone patio. It's a basically random selection of natural, mostly untrimmed stones, but looking at it closely one can see patterns that indicate that intelligent design was involved.

[frogger]

Originally Posted by trekkor

I just heard something interesting about quail.
The mother bird lays one egg each day for say, eight days.
The eggs are kept warm during incubation.

Why is it that they all hatch within 6 hours of one another and not 8 days?



KT

myth?