[_ Old Earth _] Intelligent design meets its'maker

[NRoof]

Math cannot be used to answer the philisophical question of the universe's origin. It is an inadequate tool.

But isn't this the reason being used to say that intelligent design shouldn't be taught in science classes at school.

We teach the Big Bang Theory as science but you say it's philosophical.
We can't teach Intelligent Design in science because it's philosophical.

It can't be both ways.

Math, the last time I checked, is what most science (at least the science we're talking about) is based on.

 

[cubedbee]

Math cannot be used to answer the philisophical question of the universe's origin. It is an inadequate tool.

But isn't this the reason being used to say that intelligent design shouldn't be taught in science classes at school.

We teach the Big Bang Theory as science but you say it's philosophical.
We can't teach Intelligent Design in science because it's philosophical.

It can't be both ways.

Math, the last time I checked, is what most science (at least the science we're talking about) is based on.

You are mistaken in your understanding of the Big Bang and what is taught in school. The mathematical tools and theories that scientists have are valid only “close†to the beginning, very very close indeed, but any textbook will tell you that scientists cannot theorize on the very instant of creation with their tools. The question of what caused the big bang, where did the energy/matter released in the big bang come from, how the initial constants of the universe were set---these are philosophical questions of the origin of the universe that science cannot answer.

Could it have been an Intelligent Designer? Certainly, that’s what I believe? Could it have been random or could we be one of many universes? Certainly, that’s what many atheists believe. The question between these two alternatives is not scientific, is not taught in science class, nor should it be.

Big Bang however, and the subsequent theories of our universe’s billions of years of development, are science, and should be taught in science class.

 

[bibleberean]

The fact that there is order and design in the Universe gives all the credibility necessary to allow for the possiblility that a Supreme being created the Universe to be considered in the class room.

This is not promoting religion only allowing for "all possible" explanations to be explored.

After all...

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 

[cubedbee]

The fact that there is order and design in the Universe gives all the credibility necessary to allow for the possiblility that a Supreme being created the Universe to be considered in the class room.

Certainly, the possibility of an intelligent designer cannot be dismissed and should be discussed in the class roomâ€â€in a philosophical setting. However, as far as scientific evidence is concerned, there is no scientific evidence in favor of an intelligent designer, and so it should not be taught in the classroom.

This is not promoting religion only allowing for "all possible" explanations to be explored.

Science isn’t about allowing for all possible explanationsâ€â€after all with man’s imagination there are literally an endless number of explanations for anything---it is about exploring the explanations that fit with all known data and which offer falsifiable predictions for as yet un-obtained data. ID is not one of these explanations. It is the true explanation, it is simply not a scientific oneâ€â€there is no possible piece of evidence in the universe which could prove there was not a designerâ€â€hence the hypothesis that there is a designer is not scientific.

 

[bibleberean]

Certainly, the possibility of an intelligent designer cannot be dismissed and should be discussed in the class roomâ€â€in a philosophical setting. However, as far as scientific evidence is concerned, there is no scientific evidence in favor of an intelligent designer, and so it should not be taught in the classroom.

Then evolution should be only discussed in a "philosophical setting" there is no scientific evidence as far as evolution is concerned.

Design=designer...

creation=creator.

 

[pfilmtech]

Certainly, the possibility of an intelligent designer cannot be dismissed and should be discussed in the class roomâ€â€in a philosophical setting. However, as far as scientific evidence is concerned, there is no scientific evidence in favor of an intelligent designer, and so it should not be taught in the classroom.

Then evolution should be only discussed in a "philosophical setting" there is no scientific evidence as far as evolution is concerned.

Design=designer...

creation=creator.

You really need to read up on evolution. Reject science if you like but there's plenty of scientific evidence to back evolution up.

 

[bibleberean]

Certainly, the possibility of an intelligent designer cannot be dismissed and should be discussed in the class roomâ€â€in a philosophical setting. However, as far as scientific evidence is concerned, there is no scientific evidence in favor of an intelligent designer, and so it should not be taught in the classroom.

Then evolution should be only discussed in a "philosophical setting" there is no scientific evidence as far as evolution is concerned.

Design=designer...

creation=creator.

You really need to read up on evolution. Reject science if you like but there's plenty of scientific evidence to back evolution up.

No there isn't...I don't reject science only bad science.

 

[noblej6]

Hi berean,

No there isn't...I don't reject science only bad science

So then you would have to accept the scientific research which includes archeology which has taken the skeletal remains of human like creatures and displayed them in some Museum of Natural History. Would that not be good science?

So what is your explanation for these strange upright walking skeletal remains which have longer legs in relation to their bodies than we have and their skulls are sloped back so they could not accomidate as large a brain as we have? You can see it all in these museums.

What is your explanation for dinosaurs being 200 feet down in the sedimetation of a glacial flood plain? There are no human remains at this level with them. You can see it all for yourself at Drumheller, Alberta.

Why haven't you stopped by over at end times forum to show us how well you know the bible on a biblically provable topic.? Yes, I know, if you have this one wrong, your entire religious doctrine could be jeopardized, and if you have it wrong very little of what you preach has been true, but hey, you are confident in what tha bible says aren't you? According to you it is me that doesn't know what the bible says, so you should have nothing to worry about? You should be able to prove me wrong in the twinkling of an eye....almost.

noble6

 

[Frost Giant]

There's plenty of evidence for evolution. Creationists simply try to explain it all away and think that their explanations actually hurt evolution.

 

[cubedbee]

Then evolution should be only discussed in a "philosophical setting" there is no scientific evidence as far as evolution is concerned.
.

This is a straight-up bald-faced lie. There is no possible way you can define science so that evolution has no evidence. That is absolutely absurd--that would be saying that literally millions of people who have studied years of science would some how have been duped into studying something with zero evidence--and that millions of other scientists in related fields doing science you accept as real would also have accepted evolution--have allowed thousands upon thousands of papers to be published in their journals---allowed thousands of textbooks filled with false evidence about evolution to be published---allowed millions of students to learn a science with absolutely zero evidence. How can you even say such obviously false things?

 

[Heidi]

When in doubt, blame liberals. They are, after all, the source of the world's problems. Like AIDS. AIDS isn't a disease, it's a poison distibuted by liberals.

Liberals call themselves "free thinkers" (who, of course are not open-minded enough to think that God can exist), which is why they use the Latin word "liber" which means free. So since they rebel against God and believe that fallible human reasoning is more accurate (which is an oxymoron, by the way), they always oppose anything that God endorses. Again, if you always want to be right then agree with God. But if one is audacious enough to think he knows better than God, then he will always be wrong.

And Christians blame the sexual sin of lust for AIDS, but liberals do not. They see nothing wrong with licentious sex (even though std's are staring them in the face),and want to spend billions of dollars to find a cure for AIDS instead of dealing with what causes it. That's like using the brake and the accelerator at the same time. :wink:

If God hadn't wanted people to have free will he would have created us as some kind of God worshipping robots.

God gave us free will so that we could come to an understanding of God on our own, and not be forced to believe Him. But he repeatedly warns us what will happen if we enage in mocking him or rebelling against Him. This warning is ignored by those who are arrogant enough to think they know better than God. Nevertheless, God allows this so that those people can be held accountable for their actions, attitudes, and beliefs. They always have the option to turn to God instead of their fallible imaginations. But again, if they're still too arrogant,, proud, and foolish enough to keep relling against God, then they will have to pay the price for this when they die since they refuse to acknowledge God while they are alive. God will not be mocked. Sorry. :wink:

 

[reznwerks]

liber

When in doubt, blame liberals. They are, after all, the source of the world's problems. Like AIDS. AIDS isn't a disease, it's a poison distibuted by liberals.

Liberals call themselves "free thinkers" (who, of course are not open-minded enough to think that God can exist), which is why they use the Latin word "liber" which means free.
Sorry to burst your bubble Heidi but free thinking isn't necessarily Liberal. I vote straight Republican and always have.Free thinkers are not closed minded to the existance of God. In fact I think you will find more liberals embracing a different kind of God but a God nevertheless. Free thinkers in general will not deny God but there is no evidence whatsoever of the existance of the bible God. Yes liber does mean free , free to think for oneself and free to quesion claims that have no evidence.

So since they rebel against God and believe that fallible human reasoning is more accurate (which is an oxymoron, by the way), they always oppose anything that God endorses.
Can you show anywhere in mans history where accepting God has led to unadulterated happiness? Give real examples with real evidence please. Can you show where man is opposing anything God endorses? Can you show me anywhere that society is endorsing murder, theft, etc.

Again, if you always want to be right then agree with God. But if one is audacious enough to think he knows better than God, then he will always be wrong.

How can you agree with God when his own examples of conduct shock the common man? Look at how he deals with conflict in the old testament.

And Christians blame the sexual sin of lust for AIDS, but liberals do not.
Having sex does not cause aids no matter how many times you do it. Only having sex with an infected partner with aids causes aids. Now you have to find out where aids came from and then you might have an issue to discuss.

They see nothing wrong with licentious sex (even though std's are staring them in the face),and want to spend billions of dollars to find a cure for AIDS instead of dealing with what causes it.
Risky behavior is risky behavior and is very common to both liberal and conservative alike. Look at the churchs and the legacy that they are leaving. I assume you are from the south and that sort of "thing" was usually hushed up but that did not make it any less common. You need to get around a liitle more.
That's like using the brake and the accelerator at the same time. :wink:
Your analogy is not quite right because you don't understand the issue. Sex does not cause aids , HIV causes aids. Stopping sex is not going to make aids go away not that it is possible. So it is liberals that are facing reality and trying to stop aids from occurring and understanding that it is an impossible goal to stop people from having sex. They also know they are not going to get people to agree to testing and then advertise the fact that says "hey I've been tested and I'm aids free, Do you want to have sex?