camelot

Who decided to call it "intelligent design" wasn't it always known as Creation? Didn't the debate used to centre around Creation vs the Big Bang Theory?

rincewind

Using the term "Intelligent Design" is a ploy by the Christian nut jobs in the USA that want to palm this crap off as science. You see, what they don't understand is that there is no science to Creationism. It's all based on faith. You are expected to believe in the words of man in topics that cross the border of ridiculous.

What they should be doing, and something I would have no problem with, is leave Evolution within the science class and put ALL religion into a history lesson. It has no place in science.

If these idiots want their children shielded from certain things, close their minds by home schooling them or put them into a brain washing school of their preferred religion. And then we'll have another generation of ignorant individuals that will take this country further down the sewer pipe.

Wow, Monday's are real good for me.

Patrick

What I dont understand is why the two are mutually exclusive!

The Bible is marketing material for God, and like all marketing material it is not completly Kosha. So why cant creation happened as evolution, the Univerise is infinite, therefor one day in Gods life may be 1 billion days earth time so....

on the first day God said let there be light and there was light - Big Bang, lots of ****** light there I can guarentee - first billion days


Day 2, seperated the sky and the oceans - it took 2 Billion days for the hot gases to cool down and make planets

Day 3. Seperated the land from the oceans, the planets cooled, as they cooled the maulten lava cooled and caused mountains, the shifting (cooling) plates caused continents - and another couple of billion days has gone

Day 4. Created the the Sun, the Moon and Stars? Makes no sense - fire the person who came up this marketing crap

Day 5. Creation of Sea Animals and Birds - makes complete sense, these where the first creatures to evolve in the ocean - they later got out of the ocean and evolved into

Day 6. Created Animals and finally man - which as we know is what happened, along came apes and up popped us.

Day 7. Union Rules, had to take a 7 Billion day break

Why cant people accept that God does thing and we have to accept it not disect it - its like the story of the guy in New Orleans floating down main street on a piece of wood and a guy comes over in a boat and says let me help you and guy says "no, God will save me".

Then a guy on roof says "let me throw you a rope" and the guy says " God will save me"

Then a helicopter turns up and the guy says "go away God will save me"

The guy drowns and goes to Heaven and asks God, why didnt you save me and God says "I sent a boat, a Helicopter and man on a roof, what more could I do"

rincewind

Because Evolution contradicts what is written (depending on which chapters you read and which you choose to ignore).

Evolution is evidence that the Earth is billions of years old.

Animals walked the Earth long before man and we are only a result of a second "Snow Ball" event which produced the right environment for the next forms of life to flourish.

Manc

Scientists have to prove evolution, micro and macro evolution

whereas creationist can simply shrug their shoulders and say "It's the way it happened"

scrubbedexpat099

How about this analogy

I have a 'faith/theory' that Coventry City will regain their rightful place in football's top flight.

I am open enough to realise that some might not consider that a theory or particularly intelligent.

No doubt a real true believer would be unable to accept that alternate point of view.

Manc

that's still not a correct analogy.

you have proof that Coventry exists.
you have proof that Coventry once were in the top flight.
Heaven in your case (the new stadium) can be seen.
people don't believe the matchday programme as gospel

Yosser

Had this debate with a American colleague just last week.

I explained to my colleague,
Many moons ago at school, we had.
1. RS (religious studies) with Mr. Firth (he looked like Jesus, beard n all)
2. Integrated science with Mr. Bache (very bald with a little tuft of hair).

Now every Monday morning we discussed things like the big bang theory etc
Darwin's chart of the evolution of ape into man and the possibilities of fish making it out of water, growing legs etc etc you know what I mean, with Mr. Bache.

Then on Tuesdays we had RS, ol' firthy would explain that god made the earth, Adam and eve etc etc...

Not once did I really question the differences and just sat there and listened.
I really didn't give a toss because from 11-16 I just wanted to play rugby, chase girls and whack off 5 times a day.

Now according to my friend in the American school system, 99% religion was taught and bugger all of scientific fact, so really what do you expect, the septics have no choice but to dismiss all science and push it out of sight and out of mind.

camelot

Oh, thanks for your reply, since my question in my post, I was talking with someone about this subject and they said it had to do with the advances in science regarding DNA. That the DNA is showing evidence of an intelligent design, nothing to do with faith or religion, it's showing evidence that it isn't merely a series of chance occurances, it had to be designed. I'm no expert and either was the person I was speaking with, but there may be something in that.

And surely, science uncovers what has been created? Science helps us to understand how things work, etc? Is science not a tool to help us discover things that may in fact turn out to be evidence of an intelligent designer?

camelot

I don't think you're quite accurate there, evolution is not proven.

Also, the point that 'animals walked the earth before man' doesn't contradict the Bible - because the Bible says that God made them before us, so your point about animals before humans does in fact harmonise with the Bible.

cutina

if DNA shows evidence of intelligent design, i am very sorry to have missed it so far...
As far as i know this most likely refers to the complex nature of DNA and genes, but the argument is the same as it ever was 'look around, this stuff is complex- something clever must have done it'.

If you look at DNA, you find a lot of junk with no modern purpose. IMHO, DNA argues against ID.

I'm not saying that this is proof that god doesn't exist, just that from DNA, I can't see the evidence that she does.

Anyway, if God did exist (as opposed to ID), she would have made sure there was no evidence, for religion relies on faith, not proof.
Therefore, people who believe in ID must not believe that the 'intelligent designer' was god....


just a thought

rincewind

Dear oh dear, newbie. You really are twisting words aren't you?

I never said Evolution was proven. I said it was evidence that the Earth is billions of years old. If I'm wrong, please tell me how old the Earth is and why you think so?

Evolution encompasses much more than the age of the Earth.

As for being proven, some aspects have been. Others remain theories.

As for your second attempt at downplaying my words, re-read your bible if you have one. There are two accounts in Genesis. One tells how animals were made before man and then god created Adam. The second tells of how man was created first.

If you'd have read my post fully rather than sitting there typing with one hand and jerking your stick with the other being proud that you might have cornered someone....I backed that statement up with "depending on which chapters you read and which you choose to ignore."

But hang on, I wasn't replying to you. I was replying to another poster. But that's okay, being a newbie you're still wet behind the ears. You have a lot to learn about "open" forums.

camelot

But that still doesn't mean that science can't uncover evidence of an intelligent designer.........Science doesn't have to disprove the existence of a creator, in fact, that's why this 'intelligent design' issue has come up, because scientists are beginning to discover through their testing and evidences in our DNA that an intelligent design is behind it, it's not just some random structure.

I think of science more as a tool of discovery, and that could lead to evidence of an intelligent designer...what's wrong with that?

cutina

Which DNA evidence? I would be interested to know....

camelot

Good post,

But that was my point Cutine, they're not just saying "it's complex, something clever must have designed it," they're discovering a definite indisputable design that had to intelligent from the outset. And DNA absolutely does have modern purposes, never more so than at our time in history, because scientists are now able to decode the blueprint for life via the DNA, its not just some random structure thrown together.

I don't think that they are trying dispute God, rather, they're trying to make a case for God by way of intelligent design. But ultimately you are correct, God requires faith not proof. And in saying that, the Bible also says that the Creation (ourselves, the world, and the universe) is God's proof.