Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism

page: 27
1
<< 24  25  26   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Melatonin,

So I see you decided to give up on trying to put down the theory of The Big Bang.

Wise decision.


I never was...


Are we to assume then that your are espousing the idea that The Big Bang occurred through evolution? With no Higher Power or God to initiate it?


I don't know, that's why I'm am agnostic verging on atheist


I prefer Turok & Steinhardt's cyclic model. It needs no higher power



Oh that's right. You really don't know what being an evolutionist is.



Originally posted by melatonin ...isn't 'evolutionist' a vacuous word that has no real meaning?

Only to those who are ignorant to its definition.

Evolutionism Defined


And from the definition you linked...


noun 1. a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, esp. in biology.
2. a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.


So, theists, deists, and atheists can be 'evolutionists', which was what I originally thought. Therefore your statement that 'there is no god in the evolutionist paradigm' is garbage, you are just referring to atheism.

I understand why you feel the need to associate the two concepts, you and other IDers try to discredit ToE any which way you can. It would be easier if you just said that.




Originally posted by melatonin
Deists...will reject the 'theory' of intelligent design.


Wrong.

ID has strong Christian and Deist supporters. The very foundation of Deism can be used to further the theory of Intelligent Design.


Are we talking about the 'theory' of intelligent design, you know the one where a god comes down from his cloud and interacts with the world, creating flagella, blood cascades, consciousness, or just the classical deist god who kicked it all off (which, if you noticed, I said before)? I understand that deism requires a cosmic-daddy who plays with the 'cosmic universe creator (TM)' machine's knobs to create a universe that allows the laws of physics to enable life.


Do you now need to have a definition of Christian and Deist?



Nah, I'm happy I know what my version of those are. Not sure about yours though.

[edit on 21-10-2006 by melatonin]




posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
if there was a ID

ask yourself why would the designer design

'why' is a great word which can never be answered

but we always ask, as we need to understand why and who we are and are place in the universe

so we have different theory's, but our intelligence ( a human defined word for what we believe to be are conscience) can not comprehend what might be.

we ask questions, but maybe if we dont ask questions there is no answers. maybe not everything has to have reason or cause, it just is



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 04:04 AM
link   

ask yourself why would the designer design


sounds like someone finally figured out that God knew that if there wasnt signs of design, there would be no sign of him.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Produkt
 

There are many problems with the big bang.For example why is the universe a uniform temp? Well lets postulate another thought like blah blah blah which is not provable! Or where did all the elements come from. Ok H and He.... right.... seems reasonable but where did H come from?? No logical anwser for that. So we don't need science to tell us that a house had a builder. and that the house was built. We know from experience and observation that in fact the house was built, even though we did not see it being built our reason tells us that it had a builder.We know that all those atoms were put together in an organized,intelligent way and in fact it was done by someone or something. ( It did not happen by a collision of atoms. reason and observation tell us this even though we did not see it happen, in fact I have never seen a house built but my reason tells me that it was created by something with intelligence. How much more amazing is the universe? I do believe in the big bang, it points to creation. That is a fact . The Big bang is a creation theory. this fact in itself is cause to teach intelligent design. The Popes embraced the big bang for this very reason it points to creation. You still need a first mover. Why? our experience and observation tells us so. I also believe in evolution, I simply do not believe that we evolved into our form today from the apes of the past. No scientifc evidence for that. No expeience to back it up and no observations to support it, in fact too many Scientific Laws must be broken or changed to embrace evolution as science. Through reason I can prove the existence of a creator, I do not need science to do that, scientific laws and theory have been contiunally changing to adapt to what is observable. Science is not fact nor will it ever be. The science they teach today will be completley different than the science taught in 200 years. Laws will be broken and changed it is a contiuous process. It is quite disturbing to here people say science is the Law because it is provable. This simply is not true. Scientic Law"''''''''''''''' can not travel faster than the speed of light" only one problem the law is false. E = mc2 has problems, it needs to be changed . We just don't have the data to change it yet. So stop dictating that scientic lAws can not be broken .You must do it ( that is break laws of science) to accept evolution and you must do it to explain the universe today. You throw science in the face of the ID folks while the whole time breaking scientific LAws to accept your Ev theory. Please excuse typos , spelling and grammer... half a bottle of Limoncello in me. A fine Italian lemon drink at any rate let reason win not science. If you believe the Law s of gravity are fact then you don'tt undertsnad science , the universe or reason. It ( laws of gravity) must be flawed to explain the observable universe. and so on and so forth and blah blah blah... stop spouting off that evolution is based on science because that is a flawed agrument at best. Scientic Laws today are at best very flawed.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Paul_Richard
 


But do Human Primates accept, the probability that the Universe they see, is perhaps only one of so many different Universes, it would be impossible to count them and that the Universe they are experiencing is only the result of an Intelligent program, that produces the story in an interactive geometric form.

And do Human Primates consider the possibility that there is quite probably other innumerable worlds may also exist, that do not represent anything like a Universe!

Any thoughts on this?





[edit on 29-9-2008 by The Matrix Traveller]





new topics
 
1
<< 24  25  26   >>

log in

join