Intelligent design

[Barbarossa]

What theory have I rejected?

To not believe in intelligent design is to believe that everything just is. The universe began from nothing on it's very own. I think that's foolish.

[Busyman]

To not believe in intelligent design is to believe that everything just is. The universe began from nothing on it's very own. I think that's foolish.

You'll be aware that there are many people who certainly aren't foolish who believe just that. This is why I use the word illogical to describe what you are.

The thing is, to just lazily muse; 'meh, god did it' simply won't do. There is a huge amount of evidence to suggest that explainable forces created the universe as we know it. The big bang (or a series of big bangs) is accepted by many religious folk who try to work their faith around this.

Belief in organized religion is illogical. However, what huge amount of evidence do you refer to? It is comforting to believe the latest science regarding the beginning of the universe. You do realize that all of this evidence can be bullshit too don't you?

Btw, you said earlier that you believe in intelligent design - you do know that this involves a hell of a lot more than god setting off the big bang, right?

Sure and if there was a Big Bang.

I believe a "creator" didn't have to be created for this creator was already or was created was created.....

Rocks..No. Creator...Yes.

This has nothing to do with religion.

Now come on, that first sentence is just drivel, isn't it.

You don't believe a creator has to be created yet you go on to say that he could have been created ergo you think this illogical paradox of a creator being created could have happened.

Nice one.

Thanks. That sentence was meant sound that way for I doubt I'd understand this intelligent being.

I just believe this being exists.

[Busyman]

To not believe in intelligent design is to believe that everything just is. The universe began from nothing on it's very own. I think that's foolish.

Oh that's a theory?

One that has no logical back-up.

Can you create something?

[Barbarossa]

Thanks. That sentence was meant sound that way for I doubt I'd understand this intelligent being.

For once we agree...

[manker]

Belief in organized religion is illogical. However, what huge amount of evidence do you refer to? It is comforting to believe the latest science regarding the beginning of the universe. You do realize that all of this evidence can be bullshit too don't you?

What has organised religion got to do with anything. The huge amount of evidence is there for all to see, according to the laws of physics, galaxies are further apart now and ... I'm not going to summarise it all.

It's not bullshit because the laws of physics aren't bullshit. If light takes longer to travel between two points now than it did previously, then it's because the two points are now further apart. Light hasn't speeded up. By seeing how galaxies are getting further away from us, we know that the universe is expanding.

You're ostrichising.

Sure and if there was a Big Bang.

Thanks. That sentence was meant sound that way for I doubt I'd understand this intelligent being.

I just believe this being exists.

So basically you understand nothing but you're willing to put it all down to a 'creator'.

That's not only illogical - it's also a very lazy way of thinking. You can't handle the theories behind the big bang so instead you close off your mind and put it all down to a creator.

Great stuff. At least we know your way of thinking and to be quite frank - you're welcome to it.

[Barbarossa]

Oh that's a theory?

Well, kind of. There are theories about the creation of the Universe being without cause.

One that has no logical back-up.

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't logical.

Why is it more "logical" for you to believe in an uncaused Creator, rather than an uncaused Universe?

Can you create something?

My abilities and existence are consistent with the physical laws of this universe. Why?

[vidcc]

I can't see any other reason for trying to get this into schools other than to teach God by the back-door.

I would argue though that the complexity of life supports evolution precisely because it is so complex it has to be random and not the other way round.

I.D. may not be a "religious" belief but it is a belief in God. To clarify this statement, one may believe in God without being a member of a religion and without subscribing to the word of the bible etc.

Odd though that I.D. is being championed by Christians in Kansas.

[whypikonme]

Oh that's a theory?

One that has no logical back-up.

Can you create something?

Tell me something Busy, is your belief in intelligent design a theory?

Or is it the truth?

[JPaul]

I can't see any other reason for trying to get this into schools other than to teach God by the back-door.

I would argue though that the complexity of life supports evolution precisely because it is so complex it has to be random and not the other way round.

I.D. may not be a "religious" belief but it is a belief in God. To clarify this statement, one may believe in God without being a member of a religion and without subscribing to the word of the bible etc.

Odd though that I.D. is being championed by Christians in Kansas.

Why must Intelligent Design be a belief in God.

The designer may not have been omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent. Just very, very advanced (did I say very)

Why do you assume that the creator of the universe had to be (a) God. Perhaps the creator of the universe has died. They certainly aren't (a) God then

Take mankers example, the creator was herself created. That creator was himself created, until you get to the One who wasn't created.

Oh and if one takes it that the Universe was not created, then it must either always have been or popped into existence. To follow you chaps use of "logic", the popping into existance from nowhere is not logical. Therefore the universe must always have been here (or there). It must also always be here (where would all the energy / matter go (it would only change form)).

See here's your problem chaps, you are trying to understand a universe of space-time / mass-energy using a basically Newtonian model, which doesn't even come close to working. Certainly not for the very big, very small, very fast or very slow. It's an approximation for a narrow spectrum of experience.

Perhaps the creator of the universe hasn't been born yet, who said time travels at a constant speed, in a straight line. We already know that the rate of it's passage is relative, so let's stop assuming that we understand it's nature.

[manker]

Oh and if one takes it that the Universe was not created, then it must either always have been or popped into existence. To follow you chaps use of "logic", the popping into existance from nowhere is not logical. Therefore the universe must always have been here (or there). It must also always be here (where would all the energy / matter go (it would only change form)).

See here's your problem chaps, you are trying to understand a universe of space-time / mass-energy using a basically Newtonian model, which doesn't even come close to working. Certainly not for the very big, very small, very fast or very slow. It's an approximation for a narrow spectrum of experience.

The what came before the big bang stuff is really interesting, none of it can follow the Newtonian model and none of it can be backed up properly - unlike the big bang theory.

Saying that it's illogical to say it popped into existence isn't completely accurate because I'm fully accepting of the school of thought that says there are things we don't understand. I'm confident of what happened after the big bang (altho' I don't/can't fully understand it due to lack of scientific training) but I'm not confident of what happened before.

There's nothing illogical about that.