Printable View
Tiger Shark: don't try and drag astrophysicas down into the mud, biology is having enough pain. Big bang while a thory has a rather large mountain of evidence supporting (they found singularities, galixy red shift, the ambiant radiation, the "noise" created by the big bang that can be detected today.)
Tiger Shark: don't try and drag astrophysicas down into the mud, biology is having enough pain. Big bang while a thory has a rather large mountain of evidence supporting (they found singularities, galixy red shift, the ambiant radiation, the "noise" created by the big bang that can be detected today.)
I do need something explained by the ID proponents...wh ydo you insist of trying to shove a religious view down our thorates, when from a religiuos contect most christians don't accept creationism...if your thology isn't even main stream theology why do you think you can trick the rest of us into thinking its science?
I do need something explained by the ID proponents...wh ydo you insist of trying to shove a religious view down our thorates, when from a religiuos contect most christians don't accept creationism...if your thology isn't even main stream theology why do you think you can trick the rest of us into thinking its science?
It's all about money. BTW, spellcheck? LOLQuote:
wh ydo you insist of trying to shove a religious view down our thorate
:cool:
It's all about money. BTW, spellcheck? LOLQuote:
wh ydo you insist of trying to shove a religious view down our thorate
:cool:
Because if you believe in a creator you must believe in a God of sorts, and that is a religious viewpoint. But please note that not all religions are creationist/ID.Quote:
I do need something explained by the ID proponents...wh ydo you insist of trying to shove a religious view down our thorates
That is not correct. Strictly all Christians are creationists. Most do not accept the Book of Genesis as an accurate account of anything, it is an allegory or legend.Quote:
when from a religiuos contect most christians don't accept creationism.
How did we know what God did on what day?...................because he "told" a shower of primitive, bronze age nomads?.............how did God know the day..............Checked it with his Rolex GMT Master? :D Anyway, why would God bother to tell mankind, it is totally irrelevant information.
:)
Because if you believe in a creator you must believe in a God of sorts, and that is a religious viewpoint. But please note that not all religions are creationist/ID.Quote:
I do need something explained by the ID proponents...wh ydo you insist of trying to shove a religious view down our thorates
That is not correct. Strictly all Christians are creationists. Most do not accept the Book of Genesis as an accurate account of anything, it is an allegory or legend.Quote:
when from a religiuos contect most christians don't accept creationism.
How did we know what God did on what day?...................because he "told" a shower of primitive, bronze age nomads?.............how did God know the day..............Checked it with his Rolex GMT Master? :D Anyway, why would God bother to tell mankind, it is totally irrelevant information.
:)
bballad:
Are you implying that evolution doesn't? I'd be happy to wager that the body of evidence for evolution is significantly greater than the body of knowledge for the big bang.... The funny thing is that even with all the evidence there are many that pick holes in evolution yet do so while defending Genesis on the evidence of 4000 year old heresay....Quote:
Big bang while a thory has a rather large mountain of evidence supporting
Furthermore, it is far more logical to consider ID to have begun in the first few days of Genesis assuming that the story of those days was the story of the creation of our universe as we currently understand it since any for of design, if it is indeed intelligent, would be in place from the start. Yet all the proponents of ID are, quite wrongly, arguing it in place of evolution. To do so shows they clearly haven't even thought through their own argument and leaves them utterly open to the argument that they are only arguing it to push forward their own religious belief - a thought to which I proscribe.
Nihil:
Funny how they can so easily discard the very beginning of their religious text and yet cling so fiercely to the remaining chapters.... I wonder how long it takes them to discard the other chapters that, with convincing evidence, no longer seems so supportable? It makes me question the strength of their religious belief if they can discard portions of their god's word so easily.Quote:
Most do not accept the Book of Genesis as an accurate account of anything, it is an allegory or legend.
Interestingly enough atheism and ID are not mutually exclusive - when taken in the context that ID does not imply an individual had the intelligence and did the design. looking around this universe there is some argument for "design".... It sometimes is difficult to look at the complexities and interactions in the world alone and not think that there might have been some design.... But at the same time it is not at all difficult to look at those same complexities and interactions and understand that with the time periods involved and the diversity of influences
and environments.
bballad:
Are you implying that evolution doesn't? I'd be happy to wager that the body of evidence for evolution is significantly greater than the body of knowledge for the big bang.... The funny thing is that even with all the evidence there are many that pick holes in evolution yet do so while defending Genesis on the evidence of 4000 year old heresay....Quote:
Big bang while a thory has a rather large mountain of evidence supporting
Furthermore, it is far more logical to consider ID to have begun in the first few days of Genesis assuming that the story of those days was the story of the creation of our universe as we currently understand it since any for of design, if it is indeed intelligent, would be in place from the start. Yet all the proponents of ID are, quite wrongly, arguing it in place of evolution. To do so shows they clearly haven't even thought through their own argument and leaves them utterly open to the argument that they are only arguing it to push forward their own religious belief - a thought to which I proscribe.
Nihil:
Funny how they can so easily discard the very beginning of their religious text and yet cling so fiercely to the remaining chapters.... I wonder how long it takes them to discard the other chapters that, with convincing evidence, no longer seems so supportable? It makes me question the strength of their religious belief if they can discard portions of their god's word so easily.Quote:
Most do not accept the Book of Genesis as an accurate account of anything, it is an allegory or legend.
Interestingly enough atheism and ID are not mutually exclusive - when taken in the context that ID does not imply an individual had the intelligence and did the design. looking around this universe there is some argument for "design".... It sometimes is difficult to look at the complexities and interactions in the world alone and not think that there might have been some design.... But at the same time it is not at all difficult to look at those same complexities and interactions and understand that with the time periods involved and the diversity of influences
and environments.