Who honestly doesn't belive in intelligent design?

[Dr Grump]

In fact that is how science works. It uses the best theory to explain a phenomenon until a better one is devised. So far ID is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the universe and will remain so until you and your evolutionist friends are willing answer the questions in a logical and scientific fashion which you have been unable to do thus far.

So let's get this straight: You want something explained in a logical and scientific fashion, yet you believe in one of the most illogical, unscientific and preposterous theories of all?

Too funny...

 

[JBeukema]

Really? I can use my imagination to mentally erase everything that doesn't absolutely have to be there out of the universe. But I cannot mentally erase time and space. Why not?

Because you have a limited imagination. Might have something to do with your severely limited intellect.

how did those scientific facts happen to become facts?

You're retarded.

Intelligent design...would be the author of science.

 

[THE LIGHT]

The only "as some claim" who say everything came from nothing are Creationists!

In science there is no such thing as nothing!!! According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore there always was and always will be energy in the exact same total quantity. Only its form will change.

No, I'm afraid you don't know what you believe.

"as recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." -Stephen Hawking

Hawking is not infallible.
Gravity cannot be defined without mass, and quantum theory accounts for certain interactions between energy and matter. Both are useful for understanding how EXISTING things function. Neither is useful to account for the origin of those things. If there had ever been a time when absolutely nothing existed, nothing would exist now.

You just stated that it was "only" Creationists who believed that. It appears not. It looks more like it is not Chreationists vs. Non-Creationists but rather the Scientific community vs. Edthecynic.

 

[edthecynic]

No, I'm afraid you don't know what you believe.

"as recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." -Stephen Hawking

Hawking is not infallible.
Gravity cannot be defined without mass, and quantum theory accounts for certain interactions between energy and matter. Both are useful for understanding how EXISTING things function. Neither is useful to account for the origin of those things. If there had ever been a time when absolutely nothing existed, nothing would exist now.

You just stated that it was "only" Creationists who believed that. It appears not. It looks more like it is not Chreationists vs. Non-Creationists but rather the Scientific community vs. Edthecynic.

Hawking is one scientist not the scientific community.

If nothing exists then mass does not exist, so how can gravity exist without mass to create something from nothing??????

Most likely that quote is out of context since it is so obviously wrong.

 

[THE LIGHT]

In fact that is how science works. It uses the best theory to explain a phenomenon until a better one is devised. So far ID is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the universe and will remain so until you and your evolutionist friends are willing answer the questions in a logical and scientific fashion which you have been unable to do thus far.

So let's get this straight: You want something explained in a logical and scientific fashion, yet you believe in one of the most illogical, unscientific and preposterous theories of all?

Too funny...

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but 'That's funny..." - Isaac Asimov

 

[Foxfyre]

Well I don't know about TheLight, but since my esteemed opponents have now ceased trying to have a conversation on the subject and have turned to insulting and accusing me, I shall declare myself the winner of the debate. (The winner is the one who doesn't run out of ammunition and has nothing left but schoolyard insults.)

You folks do have a good night.

 

[marksinvirginia]

If matter sprang from nothing, as some claim - than logic dictates that matter continues to spring from nothing.

Fail.

This is, of course, unless we have run out of "nothing" from which matter can spring. But, but, but... if that is the case... nothingness is rendered finite. That would then render matter as infinite, because there would be no more nothingness left to absorb its decay.

fail

So, my dear atheists, your Big Bang theory is now reduced to absurdity; more appropriately called... bullshit.

fail

Reductio ad absurdum, at its best!

Nope, just stupidity on display

****************************************

And your ignorant reply, JBeukema, reduces you to the least common denominator of absurdity.

Now, I mean that in a nice constructive way.

~Mark

 

[marksinvirginia]

If matter sprang from nothing, as some claim - than logic dictates that matter continues to spring from nothing. This is, of course, unless we have run out of "nothing" from which matter can spring. But, but, but... if that is the case... nothingness is rendered finite. That would then render matter as infinite, because there would be no more nothingness left to absorb its decay.

So, my dear atheists, your Big Bang theory is now reduced to absurdity; more appropriately called... bullshit.

Reductio ad absurdum, at its best!

~Mark

The only "as some claim" who say everything came from nothing are Creationists!

In science there is no such thing as nothing!!! According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore there always was and always will be energy in the exact same total quantity. Only its form will change.

********************************

And ... where did you learn that crock of shit?

Everything is finate except the unverse which is without confines. Things (matter) have limits... pure emptiness has neither dimensions nor limits.

Vacuum fluctuations. particle excitation. antiparticles; is there something that has less energy than nothing? Is there [a space] between antiparticles that has less no-vacuum fluctuation? And, what lies between those "anti-particles" of nothingness? And if something does... what lies between those "anti-particles?"

"Anti-particles" are the hobgobblins of pseudo-physics and frustrated anti-creationists.


~Mark

 

[edthecynic]

You would have to define 'magic' if you want to know whether you are close. I have argued that one does not have to believe in a "God" or deity in order to accept the basic concept of intelligent design. Einstein, for instance, did not accept a concept of a personal God, but he was smart enough not to pooh pooh intelligent design as a rational explanation for why things are as they are.

And if you have no 'expectations' for how certain components of the universe/nature will behave, you don't believe anything is 'natural' then, do you?

One member said my 'vacuum cleaner in the sack' analogy was foolish, yet I am guessing that the member has no better theory for how the universe came to be as it is observed by us now. How did the atom or the materials that form the atom come to be in the first place and what caused the rules governing any specific atom to be set into motion? What happened to set the rules of nature into motion?

If we accept the big bang theory as the origin of the universe as we know it, is it too much to ask how the materials that exploded came to be there? For that matter, how did the 'there', wherever it was, come to be there? How did sufficient energy build up to allow such explosive force? What lit the fuse?

All these are reasonable questions to many reasonable people.

Let me try again.

Atoms and the materials that make up the atom are forms of energy. According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means that energy in all its changing forms always exists in the exact same total quantity. The FLoT was proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule, so it is not a theory so you will have to just accept it as fact whether you understand it or not.

Where I think you are confused is you have time and energy flip-flopped. I suspect you think time is eternal and energy has a beginning and end. It is time that has a beginning and end not energy. Time exists only in terms of motion, no motion, no time. Time begins at the Big Bang, not energy. Energy is what went bang. And time ends at the Big Crunch.

But that ending of time is only for an instant too small to measure. Please visualize in your mind a ball tossed straight up into the air. It rises up to a single point where it is neither rising nor falling for an instant. This singularity is very unstable and in the very next instant it starts to fall again.

So too the universe. The universe expands from the Big Bang and compresses to the Big Crunch and for one singular instant all the energy of the universe is compressed into one single and very unstable point that for that instant is neither contracting nor expanding. On one side of that singularity, if you will, is the Big Crunch and on the other is the Big Bang, but for that one singular instant, like the ball described earlier, there is no motion and time does not exist.

That is the simplest way I can explain it and it actually is quite oversimplified, but that is the best way I know how to show the difference between time and energy.

I hope it helps.

Really? I can use my imagination to mentally erase everything that doesn't absolutely have to be there out of the universe. But I cannot mentally erase time and space. Why not? And where did those come from? And where is the beginning of time? When is the end? Where is the beginning of the universe? Where is the end?

By what authority can you say that atom or that energy has always existed? Has existed in the form that it currently exists?

You can explain science facts until the cows come home and it won't change my opinion one bit that science is incapable of answering such questions as how did those scientific facts happen to become facts?

Intelligent design can answer such questions. And in fact would be the author of science.

Obviously I wasted my time since you didn't bother to even read what was written as the red highlighted parts show.

But thank you for admitting your mind is completely closed no matter how much you might pretend the contrary.

Well I don't know about TheLight, but since my esteemed opponents have now ceased trying to have a conversation on the subject and have turned to insulting and accusing me, I shall declare myself the winner of the debate. (The winner is the one who doesn't run out of ammunition and has nothing left but schoolyard insults.)

You folks do have a good night.

So the "winner" is the one who Cuts & Runs.

 

[antagon]

has intelligent design lost it's original meaning as a theory? it is being used here in an abstract form to encompass physics, chemistry and cosmology, where it was originally a study of life, an alternative to biology.

is ID just a term used by people who insist that faith must be incorporated into any scientific endeavor? is it a religion in itself which has invented a mandate to deprecate scientific exploration with faith or which maintains that science is a threat to God or the faithful? this is the evolution of this ID biz that's played out in this thread. i think it is heresy for christianity and science, both.

 

[Foxfyre]

has intelligent design lost it's original meaning as a theory? it is being used here in an abstract form to encompass physics, chemistry and cosmology, where it was originally a study of life, an alternative to biology.

is ID just a term used by people who insist that faith must be incorporated into any scientific endeavor? is it a religion in itself which has invented a mandate to deprecate scientific exploration with faith or which maintains that science is a threat to God or the faithful? this is the evolution of this ID biz that's played out in this thread. i think it is heresy for christianity and science, both.

I disagree. As previously posted, Einstein did not beieve in a 'personal God' or in any sort of spiritual beings with thoughts and emotions. But when he contemplated the universe and the intricate symmetry, order, predictability, and consistency, he was not willing to dismiss some form of cosmic intelligence behind it all. It is much the same view as held by Plato, some Buddhist sects, and others who did not believe in a "God" as such, but who nevertheless sensed or observed characteristics within the universe that led to something more than everything happening by pure accident or chance.

In my opinion, this is not outside the realm of science at all nor an insult to it. I think any decent science curriculum should include the concepts of such original and famous scientists. It is not 'religion' as in the sense of something that is to be adored or worshipped, but for people like me who are believers and are Christians, it is no insult to our beliefs either.

Again it comes down to the three theories:

1. Big Boss - God, however or whatever one considers God to be, called it into being with no effort to explain how God came to be.
2. Big Bang - A cosmic event that resulted in what we now have with no effort to explain how the components that caused the event came to be.
3. Vacuum Cleaner shaken in the sack - no particular rhyme or reason but it all happened by pure chance and coincidence given unlimited time and space.

 

[edthecynic]

has intelligent design lost it's original meaning as a theory? it is being used here in an abstract form to encompass physics, chemistry and cosmology, where it was originally a study of life, an alternative to biology.

is ID just a term used by people who insist that faith must be incorporated into any scientific endeavor? is it a religion in itself which has invented a mandate to deprecate scientific exploration with faith or which maintains that science is a threat to God or the faithful? this is the evolution of this ID biz that's played out in this thread. i think it is heresy for christianity and science, both.

I disagree. As previously posted, Einstein did not beieve in a 'personal God' or in any sort of spiritual beings with thoughts and emotions. But when he contemplated the universe and the intricate symmetry, order, predictability, and consistency, he was not willing to dismiss some form of cosmic intelligence behind it all. It is much the same view as held by Plato, some Buddhist sects, and others who did not believe in a "God" as such, but who nevertheless sensed or observed characteristics within the universe that led to something more than everything happening by pure accident or chance.

In my opinion, this is not outside the realm of science at all nor an insult to it. I think any decent science curriculum should include the concepts of such original and famous scientists. It is not 'religion' as in the sense of something that is to be adored or worshipped, but for people like me who are believers and are Christians, it is no insult to our beliefs either.

Again it comes down to the three theories:

1. Big Boss - God, however or whatever one considers God to be, called it into being with no effort to explain how God came to be.
2. Big Bang - A cosmic event that resulted in what we now have with no effort to explain how the components that caused the event came to be.
3. Vacuum Cleaner shaken in the sack - no particular rhyme or reason but it all happened by pure chance and coincidence given unlimited time and space.

Again, energy, the component of the Big Bang, didn't "come to be." Energy has always been and will always be in the exact same total quantity according to the "authority" of the PROVEN FLoT.

 

[konradv]

And then there is the vacuum cleaner theory. If you put all the parts of a vacuum cleaner into a big sack and shook it, given unlimited time all those parts in the sack would eventually come together as a working vaccuum cleaner until further shaking shook them all apart again. Those advocating that theory assume that we are at this particular junction of the universe because that's how all the parts came together in the sack at this time.

That's ludicrous, since there are no laws of nature that would predict that that would ever happen. There are, however, chemical laws that allow for the formation of some bonds and chemicals over others that eventually would lead to macromolecules and all the complexity of life we see today.

Um, I think you missed the point of the analogy.

But since you brought it up, what determined what the laws of nature would be?

If I did, then it's a poor analogy. I have no problem with the possibility of design with regard to the laws of nature, but that's not what ID focuses on. It normally refers to the theory that the life on earth was designed, while evolutionary theory contends that it's the result of environmental forces and natural selection, not a designer.

 

[Foxfyre]

And then there is the vacuum cleaner theory. If you put all the parts of a vacuum cleaner into a big sack and shook it, given unlimited time all those parts in the sack would eventually come together as a working vaccuum cleaner until further shaking shook them all apart again. Those advocating that theory assume that we are at this particular junction of the universe because that's how all the parts came together in the sack at this time.

That's ludicrous, since there are no laws of nature that would predict that that would ever happen. There are, however, chemical laws that allow for the formation of some bonds and chemicals over others that eventually would lead to macromolecules and all the complexity of life we see today.

Um, I think you missed the point of the analogy.

But since you brought it up, what determined what the laws of nature would be?

If I did, then it's a poor analogy. I have no problem with the possibility of design with regard to the laws of nature, but that's not what ID focuses on. It normally refers to the theory that the life on earth was designed, while evolutionary theory contends that it's the result of environmental forces and natural selection, not a designer.

Well I'm sorry that you don't like my analogy, but the specific point I'm making is that Intelligent Design can include a concept of a designer but does not have to include a concept of a designer as i have taken some pains to explain and have provided background to support.

Those who use threads like this to express their prejudices and contempt for the religious and religion are often not willing to focus on anything else or even consider any other theory for intelligent design, however, and I hope you are not among that group that I now pretty much have on figurative if not literal ignore. Once they attack the messenger I know they are not serious about discussing the topic. (Should they acknowledge their sin and pledge to cease and desist from that sort of thing, I will no longer need to think it an exercise in futility to engage them.)

But going back to your comment here, how do you reconcile a 'design within the laws of nature' without having some sort of intelligence behind it?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

By what authority can you say that atom or that energy has always existed? Has existed in the form that it currently exists?

You can explain science facts until the cows come home and it won't change my opinion one bit that science is incapable of answering such questions as how did those scientific facts happen to become facts?

Intelligent design can answer such questions. And in fact would be the author of science.

Actually, intelligent design has NOTHING to do with atoms and energy, nor does evolution. I know it's difficult for you to actually educate yourself on these topics, but at least know your own bad theory before entering a discussion about it. EVEN IF some deity created the universe and all the atoms and energy in it, including but not limited to the very first life on the planet, it IN NO WAY deteriorates evolution, which has nothing to do with those things.

AS SUCH, trying to refute evolution with things like atoms and energy is like trying to refute the internet with gravity. Gravity existed before the internet, and its forces affect the servers that run the internet, but the two concepts have nothing to do with one another, and disproving gravity in no way challenges the internet. If it sounds like what I'm saying doesn't make sense because gravity and the internet have nothing to do with one another, IT'S BECAUSE THEY DON'T. Nor can talking about the start of the universe disprove evolution.

FURTHERMORE, disproving evolution, something you can't do, does not prove intelligent design. You need supporting evidence to prove a point, not just knocking out the competition.

 

[Foxfyre]

By what authority can you say that atom or that energy has always existed? Has existed in the form that it currently exists?

You can explain science facts until the cows come home and it won't change my opinion one bit that science is incapable of answering such questions as how did those scientific facts happen to become facts?

Intelligent design can answer such questions. And in fact would be the author of science.

Actually, intelligent design has NOTHING to do with atoms and energy, nor does evolution. I know it's difficult for you to actually educate yourself on these topics, but at least know your own bad theory before entering a discussion about it. EVEN IF some deity created the universe and all the atoms and energy in it, including but not limited to the very first life on the planet, it IN NO WAY deteriorates evolution, which has nothing to do with those things.

AS SUCH, trying to refute evolution with things like atoms and energy is like trying to refute the internet with gravity. Gravity existed before the internet, and its forces affect the servers that run the internet, but the two concepts have nothing to do with one another, and disproving gravity in no way challenges the internet. If it sounds like what I'm saying doesn't make sense because gravity and the internet have nothing to do with one another, IT'S BECAUSE THEY DON'T. Nor can talking about the start of the universe disprove evolution.

FURTHERMORE, disproving evolution, something you can't do, does not prove intelligent design. You need supporting evidence to prove a point, not just knocking out the competition.

Whether or not I have educated myself on these things is something you have no knowledge whatsoever of, and therefore is inappropriate to bring into the conversation don't you think?

But perhaps you could spend some time reading the comments I have made before drawing any conclusion about the argument I have been making.

You will find a damn hard time finding any place that I have made any argument involving the behavior of atoms or energy or natural law/laws of nature or evolution even though I am quite comfortable and an advocate for all those things. And not one gives any reason for why a concept of intelligent design is not also credible, whether derived from a "Creator" or any of the other theories I have proposed.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

This has gone on by ignorant people such as yourself throughout history. The sun was too mysterious, so it was God. The parts that make up people are too mysterious, so that was God. Then we discovered cells and the things that made the cells work were too mysterious, so that was God. Then we figured out DNA, and the things that make up DNA are too mysterious, so that was God. It's an endless load of vacuous crap.

Just answer his questions Hick. Or is there a reason you wish to dodge them?

Which one did I miss?

And no, it isn't Christians who attributed the sun as God. We have gone over this many times before and you know that is a lie. Just because science points to a creator doesn't mean that it was unexplainable.

I never stated Christians attributed the sun as God. I stated ignorant people throughout time have associated things they don't understand as God, be it cheap magic tricks by others or unexplained natural phenomena. It was YOU, and only you, who interpreted "ignorant people" to mean Christians. That's the association in YOUR mind.

Then you go on to claim I am lying because of your stupidity? You have no clue what the word "lie" means. Perhaps this thread will clarify for you.

In fact that is how science works. It uses the best theory to explain a phenomenon until a better one is devised. So far ID is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the universe and will remain so until you and your evolutionist friends are willing answer the questions in a logical and scientific fashion which you have been unable to do thus far.

So you're saying reason and logic are using the best evidence available to draw the best possible conclusion, and is open to change and being proven wrong if new evidence comes along? And that somehow this is a bad thing? That sounds open minded, logical, and willing to admit a mistake. Contrast that to ID, which offers an explanation without support or logic, that is utterly incapable of being changed by new evidence.

I don't know about you, but the company I keep are the type of honorable people who can admit mistakes based on evidence, learn from them, and grow. There is nothing noble about being stubborn in the face of clear opposing evidence, but that's what you call "faith".

Well I don't know about TheLight, but since my esteemed opponents have now ceased trying to have a conversation on the subject and have turned to insulting and accusing me, I shall declare myself the winner of the debate. (The winner is the one who doesn't run out of ammunition and has nothing left but schoolyard insults.)

You folks do have a good night.

You seem to have this habit of only reading the things you want to see, and ignoring everything else. It's not just that people are calling you stupid. You're being called stupid for the very specific reasons being provided that show you to be incorrect in the face of evidence and reason.

But you dismiss that evidence, seeing only the insult, and somehow declaring yourself a "winner" because you haven't run out of ammunition. In all actuality, you haven't had ANY ammunition from the start. No evidence. No support. No way to even test your completely made up theory. Stating your unsupported unintelligent theory over and over again is like firing an unloaded gun.

There's a reason this crap isn't taught in public schools.

has intelligent design lost it's original meaning as a theory? it is being used here in an abstract form to encompass physics, chemistry and cosmology, where it was originally a study of life, an alternative to biology.

is ID just a term used by people who insist that faith must be incorporated into any scientific endeavor? is it a religion in itself which has invented a mandate to deprecate scientific exploration with faith or which maintains that science is a threat to God or the faithful? this is the evolution of this ID biz that's played out in this thread. i think it is heresy for christianity and science, both.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Evolution is not threatened nor affected by religious beliefs. But the opposite is not true.

 

[antagon]

has intelligent design lost it's original meaning as a theory? it is being used here in an abstract form to encompass physics, chemistry and cosmology, where it was originally a study of life, an alternative to biology.

is ID just a term used by people who insist that faith must be incorporated into any scientific endeavor? is it a religion in itself which has invented a mandate to deprecate scientific exploration with faith or which maintains that science is a threat to God or the faithful? this is the evolution of this ID biz that's played out in this thread. i think it is heresy for christianity and science, both.

I disagree. As previously posted, Einstein did not beieve in a 'personal God' or in any sort of spiritual beings with thoughts and emotions. But when he contemplated the universe and the intricate symmetry, order, predictability, and consistency, he was not willing to dismiss some form of cosmic intelligence behind it all. It is much the same view as held by Plato, some Buddhist sects, and others who did not believe in a "God" as such, but who nevertheless sensed or observed characteristics within the universe that led to something more than everything happening by pure accident or chance.

In my opinion, this is not outside the realm of science at all nor an insult to it. I think any decent science curriculum should include the concepts of such original and famous scientists. It is not 'religion' as in the sense of something that is to be adored or worshipped, but for people like me who are believers and are Christians, it is no insult to our beliefs either.

Again it comes down to the three theories:

1. Big Boss - God, however or whatever one considers God to be, called it into being with no effort to explain how God came to be.
2. Big Bang - A cosmic event that resulted in what we now have with no effort to explain how the components that caused the event came to be.
3. Vacuum Cleaner shaken in the sack - no particular rhyme or reason but it all happened by pure chance and coincidence given unlimited time and space.

i don't think that einstein's beliefs line up with ID the way it was originally put forward, neither are his scientific explorations of physics and the universe predicated on a physical insertion point whereby deity interacts with our universe or its history the way you have put forward.

for example, while the big bang theory is a conclusion based on physics and the observation of matter in our universe, its movement/momentum and the laws governing it, it is not mutually exclusive to God in such a manner as you have juxtaposed them. because einstein maintained the spirituality which you describe, it is doubtful that he also took such a mutually exclusive perspective as you have proposed.

apart from co-opting dead scientists into ID, the proposal that God created the universe is nothing new. its doubtful that ID will insult anyone per sa. what i think is 'heretical' about it is that it presents an incorporation of God into science which is not consistent with science itself nor with biblical christianity.

for example, when you proposed earlier that the value of God was predicated on the extent which nature was mysterious to us, i question with what biblical mandate would such beliefs be based? this is among the ways i find this juxtaposition to science as being unique to conventional christianity and inferior with respect to faith. when you propose above that alternative to the big bang, science should conclude without inquest that God had created the universe, i wonder why the extent of our knowledge in 2010 should constitute the end of scientific exploration into the physical origins, nature and history of the universe or where the biblical mandate against studying the physical world is derived.

 

[Foxfyre]

has intelligent design lost it's original meaning as a theory? it is being used here in an abstract form to encompass physics, chemistry and cosmology, where it was originally a study of life, an alternative to biology.

is ID just a term used by people who insist that faith must be incorporated into any scientific endeavor? is it a religion in itself which has invented a mandate to deprecate scientific exploration with faith or which maintains that science is a threat to God or the faithful? this is the evolution of this ID biz that's played out in this thread. i think it is heresy for christianity and science, both.

I disagree. As previously posted, Einstein did not beieve in a 'personal God' or in any sort of spiritual beings with thoughts and emotions. But when he contemplated the universe and the intricate symmetry, order, predictability, and consistency, he was not willing to dismiss some form of cosmic intelligence behind it all. It is much the same view as held by Plato, some Buddhist sects, and others who did not believe in a "God" as such, but who nevertheless sensed or observed characteristics within the universe that led to something more than everything happening by pure accident or chance.

In my opinion, this is not outside the realm of science at all nor an insult to it. I think any decent science curriculum should include the concepts of such original and famous scientists. It is not 'religion' as in the sense of something that is to be adored or worshipped, but for people like me who are believers and are Christians, it is no insult to our beliefs either.

Again it comes down to the three theories:

1. Big Boss - God, however or whatever one considers God to be, called it into being with no effort to explain how God came to be.
2. Big Bang - A cosmic event that resulted in what we now have with no effort to explain how the components that caused the event came to be.
3. Vacuum Cleaner shaken in the sack - no particular rhyme or reason but it all happened by pure chance and coincidence given unlimited time and space.

i don't think that einstein's beliefs line up with ID the way it was originally put forward, neither are his scientific explorations of physics and the universe predicated on a physical insertion point whereby deity interacts with our universe or its history the way you have put forward.

for example, while the big bang theory is a conclusion based on physics and the observation of matter in our universe, its movement/momentum and the laws governing it, it is not mutually exclusive to God in such a manner as you have juxtaposed them. because einstein maintained the spirituality which you describe, it is doubtful that he also took such a mutually exclusive perspective as you have proposed.

apart from co-opting dead scientists into ID, the proposal that God created the universe is nothing new. its doubtful that ID will insult anyone per sa. what i think is 'heretical' about it is that it presents an incorporation of God into science which is not consistent with science itself nor with biblical christianity.

for example, when you proposed earlier that the value of God was predicated on the extent which nature was mysterious to us, i question with what biblical mandate would such beliefs be based? this is among the ways i find this juxtaposition to science as being unique to conventional christianity and inferior with respect to faith. when you propose above that alternative to the big bang, science should conclude without inquest that God had created the universe, i wonder why the extent of our knowledge in 2010 should constitute the end of scientific exploration into the physical origins, nature and history of the universe or where the biblical mandate against studying the physical world is derived.

Why do some of you continue to claim that I attribute Intelligent Design to God when I have not been making my argument on that basis at all? In fact I have been intentionally going out of my way to not do that. Are you one of those who is incapable of understanding any concept other than that which supports a prejudice against God or religious belief?

 

[antagon]

Why do some of you continue to claim that I attribute Intelligent Design to God when I have not been making my argument on that basis at all? In fact I have been intentionally going out of my way to not do that. Are you one of those who is incapable of understanding any concept other than that which supports a prejudice against God or religious belief?

i couldn't speak for others, but i make this connection because God is the only identity I attribute the capacity which you lend to your IDer. i don't have a prejudice against God or a religious belief. i believe in God and have religious belief myself. i think i've made some specific indictments of ID. are you one of those who is incapable of answering to those, resorting instead to claims of persecution?