Oops. Sorry. I was the one that said that- wasn't meaning to drop a drama bomb. It's a long story and one not even worth explaining. It involves some massive drama that went down a few months back as well as some things I see occurring while making quickie stops into this forum since then. Mostly I just stay away since it's not worth it but do pop in from time to time (usually only to see more crap).

You raise some valid arguments in your OP that I can respect and understand. Your OP was a great example of how to address an issue with intelligence and respect and expressing your views without being insulting.

Anyways, The 'hostility' comment was my way of using a disclaimer to say, 'Hey. I just want to answer the questions. Please don't flame me. Do with this info what you will. I won't be going back to the thread to refute any rebuttals of my post. Take it or leave it.'

That's all. I'm not really interested in getting into anything.

I do want to throw out there that Evolution does not need to explain how life began...

on the contrary:

DNA is a self replicating molecule and is not, by definition alive.

these self replicating molecules are capable of making near identical copies of themselves when in contact with the proper amino acids...

if DNA suddenly made an appearance in the world... they would copy themselves over and over again... since each DNA molecule can only make near identical molecules, these slight variations in the copies could have given some of the replicated molecules a little added protection for them to copy themselves in the form of a Lipid Ring... or.. cell wall...

Lipid rings with DNA still aren't "alive"... but now we have a very crude cell...

Keep going with this evolution, and you end up with bacteria... and potentially the first divergent species, the Virus...

Maybe life is nothing more than DNA's way of replicating itself...

Originally posted by Demandred
*digs a trench and dons helmet*

*grins @ nj2day across no mans land*

im ready

hehe I can see this is going to get rather interesting lol

Originally posted by nj2day
I do want to throw out there that Evolution does not need to explain how life began...

That is what it has tried to do, though. Quite unsuccessfully I might add. It is still nothing more than it was when Darwin proposed it, a theory. It really matters little to me whether it's true or not. It's not going to change what I believe.

As I stated, evolution does not disprove an intelligent design at all... I have always viewed evolution as the mechanism God (Guiding-Organizing Design process) used to create life.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

That is what it has tried to do, though. Quite unsuccessfully I might add.

Negative... the Origin of Species was only intended to explain how Species originated, and how different species came into existence... It never tried to explain the origin of life.

It is still nothing more than it was when Darwin proposed it, a theory.

A theory is a little different than what you are implying here. A theory is a testable observation that not only satisfies all known factual data sets, but also is able to predict future behavior... Do you believe it atoms? Atomic Theory is still "just a Theory"...

It really matters little to me whether it's true or not. It's not going to change what I believe.

Well, if some piece of evidence came along to completely explain beyond a shadow of a doubt, that science can indeed explain the universe from the big bang, all the way through present day... would you change your mind? If not, than there really is no reason for us to continue, as you will prefer continue to believe in a comfortable fantasy...

As I stated, evolution does not disprove an intelligent design at all... I have always viewed evolution as the mechanism God (Guiding-Organizing Design process) used to create life.

Thats a pretty lazy deity IMO... "bammo, here's bacteria... now go forth and create man... its ok... I'll wait a billion years or so... "

here is your flaw in reasoning though, apparently you feel that your theory needs to be "disproven". However, for ID to be entered into the realm of scientific study, you have to provide something we can test using the scientific method. To date, this has not happened...




[edit on 20-11-2008 by nj2day]

Originally posted by nj2day
Well, if some piece of evidence came along to completely explain beyond a shadow of a doubt, that science can indeed explain the universe from the big bang,

It wouldn't change anything that I believe... There has to be a primal cause of this "bang." Also, without there being a prime consciousness, nothing exists... So, really, anything that you throw at me doesn't change my beliefs. I have incorporated so many things into what I believe, I am not very dogmatic, that it would be hard to dissuade me from anything I already believe.

You guys just need to get a life.

Originally posted by nj2day
Do you believe it atoms? Atomic Theory is still "just a Theory"...

There is still debate as to the validity of even that... However, to answer your question, yes, I do. By the way, did I say anywhere in any of my posts that I didn't believe in evolution? Nope.... As a matter of fact, I actually stated that I did believe in it... It, however, is not a certainty... Far from it, actually.

Until evolutionists can find the missing link between flowering and non flowering plants and that all improtant "golden fleece" of the link between apes and homo sapiens, it will always be questioned. Why most evolutionists just can't accept that is beyond me.

Here is my quote about Evolution:

[I have always viewed evolution as the mechanism God (Guiding-Organizing Design process) used to create life.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
There has to be a primal cause of this "bang."

Here is where I state, then what "caused" god...
and you state something to the effect that he needs no cause...

why don't we just cut to the chase and say "Everything needs a cause (except for god).

then you won't give me any scientifically testable evidence in support of this...

Nothing new here... just more statements that are completely untestable via the scientific method... which brings us back to why ID is NOT science...

Also, without there being a prime consciousness, nothing exists...

This is a self defeating argument, and is in itself a paradox. How could god come into existence if there was no "prime consciousness"

For the rest of your argument that follows, please refer back to my answer on the big bang.

So, really, anything that you throw at me doesn't change my beliefs. I have incorporated so many things into what I believe, I am not very dogmatic, that it would be hard to dissuade me from anything I already believe.

You would go on believing even if everything beyond a shadow of a doubt proved you were wrong? Are you just going to hide under a rock, plug your ears and scream "I can't hear you lalalala"

What are you doing on ATS than? Your a member of a site that wants to "Deny Ignorance" and here you are stating that you will not accept any information contrary to your beliefs... You are actively making it a goal to remain ignorant.

A theory is a little different than what you are implying here. A theory is a testable observation that not only satisfies all known factual data sets, but also is able to predict future behavior... Do you believe it atoms? Atomic Theory is still "just a Theory"...

ill have to disagree on this point if a theory satisfies all known factual data sets it wouldnt be called a theory it would be called a fact, and the fact is Darwin was well aware of the shortcommings of his theory which is why he constantly tried revising it.

the Atomic theory is still a theory because despite what we know to date there is still so much we dont know.

take newtons laws these were taken as absolute fact where as was discovered newtons laws only really apply to earth hence why astrophysics was created, because it was easier to create a new branch than it was to demote Newtons laws back to newtons theories, newtons laws are also a good example of how scientists can make errors because they dont have all known variables as with evolution

Thats a pretty lazy deity IMO... "bammo, here's bacteria... now go forth and create man... its ok... I'll wait a billion years or so... "

that in my opinion is alittle presumptuous, a billion years to us may seem like a long time but to a higher being 1 billion years could be nothing more than the equivelent of 10 years, and considering we dont know how to create life maybe thats just the way it has to be done to create stable multi cellular life forms

here is your flaw in reasoning though, apparently you feel that your theory needs to be "disproven". However, for ID to be entered into the realm of scientific study, you have to provide something we can test using the scientific method. To date, this has not happened...

seriously mate, can you really look at this planet and the universe as a whole and marvel about just how perfect everything seems to fit together? just how uniform all these obects are and still seriously believe that its all just random happenstance?





[edit on 20-11-2008 by Demandred]

[edit on 20-11-2008 by Demandred]

on atomic theory
There is still debate as to the validity of even that...

Atoms exist. This is proven... the reason that it is still a Theory is because of the fact that the theory states All matter in the universe is made of Atoms. This obviously hasn't been tested, as we cannot test ALL matter in the universe. However, since you said you believe in atoms... we'll let this one die.

on Evolutionary Theory
Until evolutionists can find the missing link between flowering and non flowering plants and that all improtant "golden fleece" of the link between apes and homo sapiens, it will always be questioned. Why most evolutionists just can't accept that is beyond me.

There is no missing link. You're looking at evolution all wrong. Evolution (oversimplified) means change over time. do evolution detractors really expect us to find fossils of every generation of every species to prove this correct? This is akin to demanding to see "transitional species".

truth be told, evolution is non-stop, and all species are transitional in nature.

On Intelligent Design[I have always viewed evolution as the mechanism God (Guiding-Organizing Design process) used to create life.

Then why do we need a middle man for this to happen? If life evolved this far, why do we need some all seeing magic man in the sky to accredit it to?



[edit on 20-11-2008 by nj2day]

hefty requirements indeed. I will ask you to concede that religion is also just a theory under the same premise.

that i would have to conceed, to prove such a theory i would need god or the original entities to come to earth and show us how it was all done.

but again we are debating two different things. To me, science is the process of asking questions, and testing out various doubts, over and over. Religion is the exact opposite, in fact religion is based on just accepting some things, and being willfully ignorant of doubts - literally, ignoring the doubt replaced by faith.

unfortunatley for some that is a sad reality, fact is we were given the ability to question and think beyond our primitive urges that i can only speculate is because its our purpose to question and examine, i have questioned my faith many times but it seems to make my faith stronger for it. nobody should accept anything without questioning what they are told however as to how it all started God or an intelligent entity appears at least with current knowledge to be the most likley source of life and the universe untill such time as there is new information that can shed more light on the subject i have no problem with maintaining this belief at this time.

Originally posted by scientist


I will ask you to concede that religion is also just a theory under the same premise.

Certainly.....

Also, honestly, I don't view it as science's job to prove God's existence. It is hard to prove intangibles.... Science, no doubt, has its uses. I am not anti-scientific in the slightests. I think the whole debate between science and religion is rather ridiculous, to be quite frank.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by nj2day
Then why do we need a middle man for this to happen? If life evolved this far, why do we need some all seeing magic man in the sky to accredit it to?

You see, to me, you sound almost frightened of such a concept. Why?

[edit on 20-11-2008 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by nj2day
do evolution detractors really expect us to find fossils of every generation of every species to prove this correct?

It stands to reason that there would be such fossils, no? If there is no such find, I don't see the theory ever being accepted without some question. Evolution may be, I suspect it is, a fact. However, without fossilized evidence, there will always be some question to its validity, even amongst its proponents.

Originally posted by Demandred
ill have to disagree on this point if a theory satisfies all known factual data sets it wouldnt be called a theory it would be called a fact, and the fact is Darwin was well aware of the shortcommings of his theory which is why he constantly tried revising it.

Negative... look up the definition. It becomes a Law when it satisfies ALL Factual Data... this means it has been tested and is deemed to never be incorrect.

You are also mistaken that Theories can become fact. This is backwards. Theories attempt to draw conclusions from facts. when those conclusions are proven to be correct beyond a shadow of a doubt, it becomes law.

Darwin applied what is called the scientific method... meaning as he discovered new facts he modified his theory to correctly incorporate those facts.

name the last time the bible was edited, or that religion changed it's dogma to accept new facts.

take newtons laws these were taken as absolute fact where as was discovered newtons laws only really apply to earth hence why astrophysics was created, because it was easier to create a new branch than it was to demote Newtons laws back to newtons theories

Newtons laws? you have to be joking.

Newtons Laws of motion have never been, and probably will never be proven wrong... ever.

you do know Newtons Laws right?

newtons laws are also a good example of how scientists can make errors because they dont have all known variables as with evolution

I think what you meant is they do have all known variables... its the unknown that causes errors... but, as new information becomes available, science textbooks are modified to reflect these discoveries.

I'm sure the Bible gets revised when proven inaccurate too right?

considering we dont know how to create life maybe thats just the way it has to be done to create stable multi cellular life forms.

Did you just admit that your deity isn't Omnipotent?

I guess he isn't as "all powerful" as religion would want us to believe...

seriously mate, can you really look at this planet and the universe as a whole and marvel about just how perfect everything seems to fit together? just how uniform all these obects are and still seriously believe that its all just random happenstance?

Nope, seeing that evolution by natural selection is a reaction to the enviroment and predation pressures, it is by no means "random". This means that the longer the world goes on, the more everything is going to fit together...

as far as the Universe... well, the universe is a seriously confusing place... but for the most part you could say "isn't it amazing that the universe seems formed by the most basic laws of physics independent of divine will?"







[edit on 20-11-2008 by Demandred]

[edit on 20-11-2008 by Demandred]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
You see, to me, you sound almost frightened of such a concept. Why?

Not at all, I'm merely asking why must magic and fairy tale be used to explain the universe...

To me, you sound frightened of the possibility that the universe can, has, and will forever continue to function without need of gods.