When I speak of the High Priest of the Darwinian Movement I am sure you all know I am taking about the very Faithful Richard Dawkins. ;)

I watched a very interesting Documentary that I encourage you all to rent and watch.( Expelled, No intelligence allowed) It is a documentary about the consiracy behind the so called "Fact of Evolution" that has plagued authentic science. This is a documentary study done by a non religious Jewish man (Ben Stien) who exposes the lack of academic freedom "to legitamately Challenge "Big Science's" orthodoxy without persecution." The real issue in the film is not whether Intelligent Design is scientifically viable, (though it does address it), but rather why scientist can’t even ask scientific questions critical of Darwinism without fear of reprisal by the scientific hierarchy, or their peers.

Here is a link to a more indepth description of the Documentary. EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Official Site

Anyway, the best part of this movie was when Ben Stien asked Richard Darwkins how life began and he said life began on the back of Crystals :rolleyes: Ben Stien asks where did those crystals come from? After some probing questions Dawkins to my utter astonishment and must say amusement, Richard Dawkins, the darwinistic equivalent to a religious Fanitic, said, and I am paraphrasing, " (intelegent) alien life on a distant planet could be responsible for Origin of life... lol wait a minute here isnt this intelligent design? It seems Dawkins is open to the possibity of Intelligent Design. He just replaces "God" with "Aliens" . mmm Science?

Though it is almost always distorded by its opponents, ID is not meant as an argument for Christainity. ID is simply contending that the design of the Univers poinsts to an intelligence of some kind that would have worked with a design purpose in mind. Wether it be "GOD" or Dawkin's "aliens". Dawkins apperently recognizes an argument for intelligent design is not ridiculous although Dawkins vehemently denies and expresses horror that he might be open to ideas outside the scientific Paradigm.

Interesting, because Dawkins views simply dont meet the criteria of emprical evicence that he insists must govern all our thinking. For example, he is prepared to believe that the origin of all matter was an entirely spontaneous event, he therfore believes that something can be created out of nothing- and that since such a belief goes against the very scientific principles of verifiable evidence which he tells us should govern all thinking, this is precisely the kind of irrationality, or "magic" , he scorns.

Here is the bottom line, to believe in the spontaneous origin of matter is NOT science but rather as much a matter of Faith as is the belief in God.
Studying Dawkins, he is a very confused man which led me to write this book
"The Dawkins Delusion"

Kidding I did'nt write a book... yet ;)

Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks » The Truth behind the Fiction

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks » The Truth behind the Fiction

---

Lol go figure :rolleyes: The real truth behind the Darwinstic propaganda has been exposed so you are bound to see angry Dawinists building sites to vent against what has been made known of what really goes on. Funny this site actually buys adwords in an ongoing effort to promote the Dawinst movement. :D

Ok.

Intelligent design is not scientific, therefore it is not allowed in science. That's not infringing on anyone's academic freedom, you can go and ponder it all you want in philosophy or theology journals.

Capuchin is exactly right. The objection to ID is that it is an untestable hypothesis. To object to ID is not to object to creationism: One can hold that God created without taking that claim to count as part of a scientific theory. If you want to teach creationism in religion classes, fine. But keep ID out of science departments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Intelligent design is not scientific, therefore it is not allowed in science. That's not infringing on anyone's academic freedom, you can go and ponder it all you want in philosophy or theology journals.

---

So what is scientific about Spontaneous generation? What emprical scientific evicence is there to prove that something can be created from nothing?
Something being created from nothing goes against the scientific principles of verifiable evidence thus the belief that origin of all matter came about by an entirely spontaneous event is as much a matter of Faith as is the belief in God.

I'm so sick of this stupid argument. Who cares if it was God or shape shifting alien lizards that started this planet. We are here now live your life and stop worrying about who started this planet and what is going to happen to you after you die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sassysback

so what is scientific about Spontanous generation? What emprical scientific evicence is there to prove that something can be created from nothing?
Something being created from nothing goes against the scientific principles of verifiable evidence thus the belief that origin of all matter came about by an entirely spontaneous event is as much a matter of Faith as is the belief in God.

---

Which theory are you talking about? I don't believe any scientific theory states such a thing.

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

Capuchin is exactly right. The objection to ID is that it is an untestable hypothesis

---

So is the idea of spontanious generation of matter a testable hypothesis? To believe that something can be created from nothing is a purely supernatuaral beliefe. Unless if you can point me to any evidence found in a lab or in nature that demostrates this that something can be created from absolutely nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sassysback

So is the idea of spontanious generation of matter a testable hypothesis? To believe that something can be created from nothing is a purely supernatuaral beliefe. Unless if you can point me to any evidence found in a lab or in nature that demostrates this that something can be created from absolutely nothing.

---

Matter is generated from the vacuum energy routinely, which is as close to nothing as you can get. This explains several phenomena, like the casimir effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Matter is generated from the vacuum energy routinely, which is as close to nothing as you can get. This explains several phenomena, like the casimir effect.

---

Yes I understand that this is your belief.
But where, how and when did this so called "vacuum energy" originate? Do you have any empirical evidence to prove that this "vacuum energy" is what is responsible for the creation of the universe?

Well when the question is on the Answer page I tend to read the question. My point being this You, me, Darwin, or the pope can't prove what we believe actually happened so what is the point of arguing about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sassysback

Yes i understand that this is your belief.
But where, how and when did this so called "vacuum energy" originate? do you have any emperical evidence to prove that this "vacuum energy" is what is responsible for the creation of the universe?

---

I didn't say it did. You said that you cannot observe something coming from nothing in the lab, so I gave an example of the evidence that suggests that you can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spitvenom

Well when the question is on the Answer page I tend to read the question. My point being this You, me, Darwin, or the pope can't prove what we believe actually happened so what is the point of arguing about it?

---

You have a good point. I agree with you 100%. Which make me wonder why these haughty self proclaimed science experts think their beliefs are better than others. At the end of the day, like you said no one can prove their claims therefore no idea is superior to the other as Darwinsts would have people believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

I didn't say it did. You said that you cannot observe something coming from nothing in the lab, so I gave an example of the evidence that suggests that you can.

---

Lol... but vacuum energy is something. It is what it is, ENERGY. That is not nothing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sassysback

lol... but vacuum energy is something. It is what it is, ENERGY. that is not nothing

---

We don't have any evidence that "nothing" exists. All we have ever observed is something. Can you back up your claim that "nothing" existed or does exist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

We don't have any evidence that "nothing" exists. All we have ever observed is something. Can you back up your claim that "nothing" existed or does exist?

---

Lol.. why do I have prove anything. I am not the one who claims matter apeared spontaneously from nothing.

In case you missed it:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Which theory are you talking about? I don't believe any scientific theory states such a thing.

---

Isn't the point rather that spontaneous generation *is* a testable hypothesis? It has been empirically disconfirmed. Any claim that can be made in the physical sciences has to be defeasible: It must be possible to confirm or disconfirm it by experimental means. I don't mean to reject the claim of creationism--I want to stay neutral there--only to point out that ID cannot be subjected to experimental confirmation/disconformation. We cannot use scientific means to prove its truth or falsity, which is to say that it lies outside science. (I know scientists who believe in a divine creator but reject ID. This seems perfectly reasonable to do.)

Energy is matter. Matter is energy. Energy can not be created or destroyed. All of the energy that exists today has always existed.

Since energy has always existed there is no need for the first cause.

And Sassy your reaching into topics you don't understand as always and posting information that you know misrepresents someone's position on a subject. Maybe you could spend more time learning instead of spreading misinformation.

Researchers describe how cells take out the trash to prevent disease


"The paper in Developmental Cell, co-authored by Emr with postdoctoral fellows David Teis and Suraj Saksena, describes for the first time how a set of four proteins assemble into a highly ordered complex......"



Just the abstract is evidence of design.


1] how does complex order, that is evident in all of us, come from disorder?

2] What is the "scientific method" that proves that evolution produced this complexity?

3] how did DNA come about?


Now, ID may not be "scientific" but neither is evolution. They both take faith; however, the OSE is that life is very complex and seemingly designed - this is evident in cell biology, molecular biology, physiology.





















g&p

If you're talking about the laws of thermodynamics, then order can form locally as long as there is a larger decrease in order elsewhere (i.e. an energy source). Order is created all the time without life. Think about infalling gas creating a star, or a planetary disk creating a planet. We can observe the formation of a star - is your intelligent designer currently going around creating stars? Can we see him at work? Why does he look so much like what is predicted by gravity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Researchers describe how cells take out the trash to prevent disease


"The paper in Developmental Cell, co-authored by Emr with postdoctoral fellows David Teis and Suraj Saksena, describes for the first time how a set of four proteins assemble into a highly ordered complex......"



Just the abstract is evidence of design.


1] how does complex order, that is evident in all of us, come from disorder?

2] What is the "scientific method" that proves that evolution produced this complexity?

3] how did DNA come about?


Now, ID may not be "scientific" but neither is evolution. They both take faith; however, the OSE is that life is very complex and seemingly designed - this is evident in cell biology, molecular biology, physiology.

















g&p

---

Yes this is correct. These Dawinists need to keep in mind that when Darwin came up with his scam of a theory, a cell at that time was thought to be a blob with no complexity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Energy is matter. Matter is energy. Energy can not be created or destroyed. All of the energy that exists today has always existed.

Since energy has always existed there is no need for the first cause.

And Sassy your reaching into topics you don't understand as always and posting information that you know misrepresents someones position on a subject. Maybe you could spend more time learning instead of spreading misinformation.

---

Lol.. except there is one major problem with your belief, A little thing called entropy.
According to the laws of Physics the universe could not have always existed because the second law of thermodynamics tells us everything is running down and dying. Everything around us is degenerating, decaying and dying. If you don't take care of your house, it will collapse from lack of care. Your car will become a chunk of junk. Everything gets old and becomes useless.


So the Universe could not have been here forever because it would have run down in observance to the Second Law. Evolutionists require the Universe to run up which based on observation alone, is far from the reality. Therefor once again your beliefs are based on Faith not natural science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

If you're talking about the laws of thermodynamics, then order can form locally as long as there is a larger decrease in order elsewhere (i.e. an energy source). Order is created all the time without life. Think about infalling gas creating a star, or a planetary disk creating a planet. We can observe the formation of a star - is your intelligent designer currently going around creating stars? can we see him at work? why does he look so much like what is predicted by gravity?

---

Lol... Capuchin, what you are saying proves nothing. People create other people every day.. duh :rolleyes: o its like saying "does your intelligent designer currently going around creating babies?" He Created the first man and woman and gave them the ability to procreate and reproduce. God created the planets and the stars and them the ability to reproduce. Reproduction is the order of the day in our universe and it does not necessarity mean God is sitting somewhere with a tool box creating things every second. He created the universe once and gave the Universe the ability to expand and reproduce.

You flat earthers really need to update your information.

The only people that believe in ID are religious people who want to push their religious agenda and will do anything to accomplish their goals. That's why you never see a secular person pushing ID. That's why even a right wing judge said that ID had no scientific merit. After hearing what the grand pupa of ID Michael Behe himself.

Really this is an old augment that you have lost horribly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

In case you missed it:Which theory are you talking about? I don't believe any scientific theory states such a thing.

---

I am talking about the beliefs of Dawkins, the biggest Dawinistic Zealot. He believes the in spontaneous appearance of hydrogen atoms out of nothing which formed formed some crystals and on the back of those crystals, life began. Sound like a shallow science fiction movie to me :D

All I am trying to point out is, it is impossible to determain the origin of the universe by natural means i.e science.
All the ideas and theories so called scientists come up with, run into HUGE brick walls. Scientist end up with theories that are supernatural and go against fundermental principles of science. Within the bounds of natural law all effects must have a cause. Because of this fact, the spontaneous appearance of matter out of nothing (ex nihilo) is a definite breach of the First Law of Thermodynamics which asserts that matter, under natural circumstances, can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore, since it is not a natural event, it is by definition a supernatural event-a miracle! This is then a rather weak starting point for a materialistic scenario to begin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sassysback

lol.. except there is one major problem with your belief, A little thing called entropy.
According to the laws of Physics the universe could not have always existed because the second law of thermodynamics tells us everything is running down and dying. Everything around us is degenerating, decaying and dying. If you don't take care of your house, it will collapse from lack of care. Your car will become a chunk of junk. Everything gets old and becomes useless.

So the Universe could not have been here forever because it would have run down in observance to the Second Law. Evolutionists require the Universe to run up which based on observation alone, is far from the reality. Therefor once again your beliefs are based on Faith not natural science.

---

Sassy really you need to stick with what you know answering peoples question about whether they really saw Jesus' face in their buttered toast this morning.

I didn't say the universe has been around forever now did I. I said that the energy in the universe has been around forever. Where the energy was before that is anyone's guess. It could have been in a different universe or our universe could be in a state of expantion and contraction phases. We don't know. The fact that we don't know something doesn't prove god did it. It only proves that we don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

You flat earthers really need to update your information.

The only people that believe in ID are religious people who want to push their religious agenda and will do anything to accomplish their goals. That's why you never see a secular person pushing ID. That's why even a right wing judge said that ID had no scientific merit. After hearing what the grand pupa of ID Michael Behe himself.

Really this is an old augment that you have lost horribly.

---

Aww... you have run out of intelligent rebutals in defence of your beliefs so now you just resort to insults.. lol Very typical.


Anyway, do you want to continue and intelligent debate or do you just want to continue with your play ground mudd slinging?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Sassy really you need to stick with what you know answering peoples question about whether they really saw Jesus' face in their buttered toast this morning.

I didn't say the universe has been around forever now did I. I said that the energy in the universe has been around forever. Where the energy was before that is anyones guess. It could have been in a different universe or our universe could be in a state of expantion and contraction phases. We don't know. The fact that we don't know something doesn't prove god did it. It only proves that we don't know.

---

So since you have admittedly told me you pretty have no clue how, when, why life began, what makes you rule out even just the possibility that an intelligent being could have designed this complex universe.
Since there is no natural scientific explation for origin of life, is'nt there even the slightest possibility that there could be a supernatural explanation? Or are you just closed minded to that possibility based on your zealous beliefs in the doctrine that there is nothing supernatural.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sassysback

Or are you just closed minded to that possibility based on your zealous beliefs in the doctrine that there is nothing supernatural.

---

I think he's more open minded actually. It could be an intelligent designer, it could extra-terrestials, it could be electricity mixed with proteins, it could be a small red goat, but he hasn't built a religion around his choice and decided to shun all other possibilities.

As the OP is clearly not willing to even listen to alternative opinions this thread is now CLOSED.