LuvRPgrl
Senior Member
- Aug 11, 2005
- 3,163
- 206
- 48
Powerman said:"It is more scientific than ID exactly HOW? There is as much evidence to support one as the other."
You simply must be called out on this. There is zero evidence for ID. Not one measly shred of evidence. How do you not realize that? And even if the theory is right, there still isn't evidence. So it's not science.
You tell me what evidence there is for ID compared to evolution or big bang. It's all based on the premise that there is an invisible superior being that there is no evidence exists.
Not everything has to be proven scientifically for it to be proven at all.
Logical deduction can prove things.
Since you purport that ID is not science, maybe we should simply rename the cirriculum. Instead of calling it science class, we should call it origins of life class, or science/ID class, or science/theology. Point is, both ideas should be presented side by side in any open minded forum of learning. Let those who are learning decide what to believe and accept. If Id is so nonsensical, as you purport, then standing next to science/evolution should make it all the more obvous, and be desirous to you.
Now, our mere existence is evidence of a Creator. Since the only alternative to their being a creator, is NO CREATOR. If there is no creator, then all matter must have come into existence without any help, it must have suddenly "appeared"
on the other hand, the belief in a spiritual being (non material) existing and creating matter is more plausable. The idea would be that the Creator is some form of life that isnt matter, nor it isnt non existent. That does not seem possible, but every possibility we come up with is "impossible" according to your scientific parameters.
I believe it is more likely that a non matter, spiritual being existed, rather than to believe at one point NOTHING existed and then suddenly things did exist.