Intelligent design
- Started
- Last post
- 690 Responses
- mrdobolina0
gawd focking rawks!
- deep_throat0
www.uncommondescent.co... [jpg]
discipler
(Oct 7 05, 08:32)*looks for humour
woah! some right-wing christian organisation had a humour by-pass!
- discipler0
nah, i don't see any humor there. Just accurate portrayal of the media treatment on this issue. ;)
- deep_throat0
comics are meant to be comic!!!
christ fundamentalists are dull!
- pyeaton0
This is getting minimal media coverage in the States.
- waynepixel0
Yep I thought so.
- TheTick0
So, is this going to be a regular friday PVN thing? I need to note to make room for it on my schedule...
- mrdobolina0
I'm down to get my argue on.
- TheTick0
Can we come up with some other biblical/secular argument to beat each other with for once? I mean this is getting old...
Like what about pros and cons of coveting wives? Or worshipping golden idols? Something...anything...jesus h. christ...
- discipler0
There's no biblical/secular argument about ID though, Tick. That's what the media wants you to think.
ID does not = Biblical Creationism.
- pyeaton0
No, it says that all life began at the sametime. i.e. man walked with the dino's.
Tom Cruise believes in this shit to some degree too. But he feels that space aliens dropped us off here.
- mrdobolina0
explain the science about 'the uncaused cause' please.
- discipler0
sigh... pyeaton, c'mon. At least spend 30 seconds learning about an issue before you make claims as to what it is. Here...
http://www.discovery.org/scripts…
in short, it's science. Current science.
- adamfinger0
My favorite part of that article is at the bottom under "The American world view."
Wow!!
God has no place in science. Period. It's not even open to debate. Faith and science are completely incompatible. By definition, there cannot be a commonground.
Read "Atheism: The Case Against God" if you're interested in a rational and explanation as to why believing in God is absurd.
- mrdobolina0
explain "the uncaused cause" in scientific terms please.
- discipler0
dobs, first of all, the Uncaused-First-Cause argument is not scientific per se, even though it's consistant with scientific discovery (i.e. the Big Bang). It's a theological/philosophical argument. As I've stated, ID is about observing specified and irreducible complexity in biological systems. It does not identify who or what the designer is. That is for theologians and philosiphers to debate.
That being said, the Uncaused Cause argument, in a nutshell, goes like this:
1. The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
2. It is unreasonable to believe something could BEGIN to exist without a cause. The universe therefore requires a cause.
3. God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.
Hence, God is the Uncaused First Cause.
- bruised_blood0
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...
- JazX0
I hope that reincarnation is true and that I reincarnate into a Messiah of some sort, then I will vindicate all heathens of all tribes
- discipler0
Actually Adam, you contradict yourself. Atheism is religion. It makes theological claims. And the backbone of neo-Darwinian evolution is Atheistic Naturalism. So, I'm afraid that religion has been involved in evolutionary "science" for quite a long time.
Secondly, ID does not introduce faith into science. As I've stated until I'm blue in the face, ID simply identifies specified complexity and biological systems and then makes a logical inference to a designer. I.E. - DNA contains digitally coded information like a computer program. One is not being illogical by inferring a designer when looking at a computer program.
Read "I don't have enough Faith To Be An Atheist" by Dr. Norman Geisler if you're interested in a rational explanation as to why Atheism is absurd.