Life's origin, outer space (maybe)

[Thon]

Zeus had a dad

[brinstar]

someday, centuries from now, people will laugh at those who refuse to believe in evolution the way we laugh about those who refused to believe in heliocentrism

Are we simply ignoring the fact that heliocentrism was wrong?

not sure what you mean here X.

by heliocentrism i meant "the idea that the sun is the center of the solar system" as opposed to the previously believed idea that the sun revolved around the earth (geocentrism). galileo was severely harangued by the roman inquisition and nearly burned at the stake for suggesting such a thing as heliocentrism might possibly be true.

at present, everyone knows the earth is just another planet that orbits around the sun. and the notion that people once believed otherwise (with enough fervor to burn dissenters at the stake, no less) is at once both tragic and comedic.

which again leads me to my point. someday, i think people will feel the same about creationism as we now feel about geocentrism.

edit: i just realized that there are two kinds of heliocentrism-- 1. the sun is the center of the solar system and 2. the sun is the center of the universe. i meant the first one

[Tikker]

A better example would be Spontaneous Generation


Some of Louis Pasteur's experiments are still working, and enabling laughter at this moment




SG was the theory that stuff just magically grew out of nothing (rotting meat produced maggots, plants just magically grew, etc etc)

Pastuer was able to prove that you had to add stuff to the system to get a net gain in growth

his best known experiment was to take a container of nutrient rich solution, and allow it to sit out, exposed to air. It would of course start growing mold and shit after a while

He then sealed the container, and nothing grew (whing zealot bitches then whined that sealing it broke SG)

To further bitchslap the Intelligent Desi... i mean the Spontaneous Generation crowd he came up with a way of leaving the container open to the air, yet something that wouldn't allow bacteria/bugs/etc in (basically it was a super long, convoluted tube/neck

by showing a non-sealed container that grew nothing, he was able to completely jabown SG

[brinstar]

yeah fair enough

i thought about using pasteur instead but went with galileo instead

[Harrison]

I am not about to sit and believe existence was as a result of an explosion of a large mass that is now our universe.

I am also not going to believe that existence simply is there at all times and always was.

There is a larger picture and we aren't going to figure it out with telescopes and math.

[araby]

I am not about to sit and believe existence was as a result of an explosion of a large mass that is now our universe.

I am also not going to believe that existence simply is there at all times and always was.

There is a larger picture and we aren't going to figure it out with telescopes and math.

Thanks for your input, great post.

[brinstar]

I am not about to sit and believe existence was as a result of an explosion of a large mass that is now our universe.

I am also not going to believe that existence simply is there at all times and always was.

There is a larger picture and we aren't going to figure it out with telescopes and math.

got any other suggestions?

[Witty]

Man, Arlos I loved those posts.

Where is Lyion's 2nd response in all this? I am feeling so unsatisfied.

[Lyion]

Man, Arlos I loved those posts.

Where is Lyion's 2nd response in all this? I am feeling so unsatisfied.

Did you watch my cool video with spaceships, DNA, and genes? It's all you really need to know, with uber graphics to boot. It overtly disproves common descent, so nothing else really needs to be added, except when they upgrade it with the Unreal 3 engine.

[Arlos]

That video didn't disprove a damn thing. Well, beyond the fact that ID supporters rely on a bunch of unsupported allegations and statements with no backing, then using those baseless statements as evidence of their "proof". It also admits the fact that the whole point of ID is to try and repackage "Goddidit".

So, Lyion, as a supporter of ID, can you give ANY idea of what the predictive value of ID "theory" is? How is it useful in that fashion? Evolution certainly is, how does ID offer any predictive value?

I don't think it does, but hey, maybe I missed something.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

A person who can't differentiate the gaping difference between Creationism and ID isn't interested in true discourse, and it's no surprise they accept the many wholly divergent branches of evolution that are not factual with the portions that are under the same umbrella. Repeating ID and Creationism are the same thing is just silly. Most creationists are anti ID, and most of the brightest scientsts are Theistic Evolutionsts and very religious. Many in the ID camp are not very religious, but believe it to be correct based on science.

The video is good and you haven't made a single valid good point in regards to DNA, Biochemistry, or any of the very strong issues raised by it. Your posts were just a tangent that really had nothing to do with it. Plus, your rebuttal lacked anything nearly as cool as the killer graphics, spaceships, and cartoon dynamic that video presented.

In regards to ID/Creationism, I'll simplify for you taking a quote from freep.com, since you and many others are clueless in regards to what ID is. I doubt you or the others will read this and honestly discuss it, but there's always the chance so here it is:

Creationism is an a priori argument drawn from a particular interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. In the context of a public classroom, that means the God of the Bible is the starting point and assumed ground of life's origin and the origin of the cosmos. Drawing from a literal reading of Genesis, creationists postulate a "young Earth" and six 24-hour days of creation. All empirical data are subject to and analyzed within this interpretive grid.

Intelligent design, however, is an a posteriori argument; it is the inference drawn from examination of complex structures in living organisms and the universe.

As a matter of science, intelligent design theory is much more disciplined and modest in its claims than either the theory of evolution or creationism. Intelligent design theory merely infers, but does not attempt to identify a designer. Unlike creationism and the theory of evolution, intelligent design theory does not make dogmatic religious or philosophic claims about the origin of life.

Creationism and the theory of evolution, unlike intelligent design theory, are insular in their approach to science. Creationists reason downward from an article of religious faith and conduct their science within that paradigm. Evolutionists, too, reason downward from an article of faith and conduct their science with the same dogmatic zeal and selectiveness of their creationist counterparts.

Like creationism, the theory of evolution is an a priori argument drawn from the evolutionist's article of faith which holds that the origin of life and the cosmos can only be explained by undirected natural processes. This is a metaphysical claim, not scientific fact. Still, it is not in dispute that one may infer an evolutionary process from the data, but that is not what the evolutionist does.

Good science requires an open mind.

There is more than a little irony, then, in the evolutionists' attempt to paint intelligent design theory with the creationist brush when it is the evolutionists who have the most in common with the creationists.

Creationism requires a student to first affirm the creed that God created the heavens and the Earth, and the theory of evolution requires that a student affirm the creed that there is no God. Both are exclusive claims, neither is scientific, neither can be empirically verified.

Intelligent design theory, on the other hand, does not require that any creed about the origin of life and the cosmos be affirmed. It merely points to the evidence and suggests that the best explanation (though not the only explanation) for the design found in nature and the cosmos is a designer, whoever or whatever that may be.

I'll addendum that almost every biologist will concur that things have the appearince of design, but that design stems from nature. However, they explain that while appearing designed it really isn't, and nature is randomly responsible. The reason so many do not believe this, is simply because it is such an unbelievable claim, albeit one made correctly via science, but incorrectly via common sense.

[brinstar]

so ID is not religious enough to be a religion but not scientific enough to be a science

got it

[Arlos]

I ask you again: What predictive value, at all, does ID have.

If it doesn't give the ability to offer predictions of future observation/events/data, etc. then it is *NOT* a scientific theory. That is part of the DEFINITION of a theory: it offers useful prediction value. Just as some examples, Plate Tectonics Theory offers useful predictions, as does General Relativity and Quantum Theory.

It seems to me, at its very basis, ID specifically excludes any possibility of prediction. If all species change is due to the actions of some omniscient "designer", which is, as you say, unknowable, then it is by definition impossible to predict what changes may occur in the future. Therefore, no predictive component of ID "Theory". Therefore, it is *NOT* a scientific theory. QED.

your rebuttal lacked anything nearly as cool as the killer graphics, spaceships, and cartoon dynamic that video presented

That's about the most retarded objection I have ever seen. Sorry, "cute" graphics and 3-D models (which looked like they were done about 10 years ago) have no relation to the soundness of an argument.

the theory of evolution requires that a student affirm the creed that there is no God.

This is absolute, complete and total bullshit. Evolution makes no statement in any way on the existance or non-existance of any diety whatsoever.

BTW, I hate to break it to you Lyion, but in not one, not two, but THREE seperate places in that video, which you claim to be an ID paragon tract, they say that the designer is "The almighty God, lord of all the worlds", etc. Oh, also, you know that textbook that's being pushed as a ID text, "Of Pandas and People"? You ARE aware that it's the same book that was pushed last time as the Scientific Creationism textbook, right? Same book. Suuuuure, there's a huge difference between Creationism and ID. Riiiiight. Lyion, I've seen a video clip of one of the main ID proponents talking about how Dinosaurs lived with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

BTW, you once again claim there are legions of biologists and other scientists who support ID, implying indeed that it is a majority. This is categorically and flatly untrue. Indeed, ID proponents are an extremely small MINORITY in the scientific community.

Here's just one example of "Irreduceable complexity" being slapped to the curb:

Intelligent design proponents often cite the bacterial flagellum, a bacterium with a tail that propels it, Miller said. Behe and his colleagues claim bacterial flagellum had to be created with all of its parts because it couldn't function if any of them were taken away, Miller testified. But scientists have proved that the bacterial flagellum can be reduced to a smaller being, a little organism that operates in a manner similar to a syringe, Miller said.

An excellent article on the issue, and one that shows quite clearly the connection between the Creationist movement and the ID movement can be found at: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne05 ... index.html and is written by a professor at the University of Chicago.

Some excerpts, not that I expect Lyion to actually read them:

Yet evolution predicts not just successions of forms, but also genetic lineages from ancestors to descendants. The absence of such transitional series in the fossil record bothered Darwin, who called this "the most obvious and serious objection that can be urged against the theory." (He attributed the missing links, quite reasonably, to the imperfection of the fossil record and the dearth of paleontological collections.) But this objection is no longer valid. Since 1859, paleontologists have turned up Darwin's missing evidence: fossils in profusion, with many sequences showing evolutionary change. In large and small organisms, we can trace, through successive layers of the fossil record, evolutionary changes occurring in lineages. Diatoms get bigger, clamshells get ribbier, horses get larger and toothier, and the human lineage evolves bigger brains, smaller teeth, and increased efficiency at bipedal walking. Moreover, we now have transitional forms connecting major groups of organisms, including fish with tetrapods, dinosaurs with birds, reptiles with mammals, and land mammals with whales. Darwin predicted that such forms would be found, and their discovery vindicated him fully. It also destroys the creationist notion that species were created in their present form and thereafter remained unchanged.

The human body is also a palimpsest of our ancestry. Our appendix is the vestigial remnant of an intestinal pouch used to ferment the hard-to-digest plant diets of our ancestors. (Orangutans and grazing animals have a large hollow appendix instead of the tiny, wormlike one that we possess.) An appendix is simply a bad thing to have. It is certainly not the product of intelligent design: how many humans died of appendicitis before surgery was invented? And consider also lanugo. Five months after conception, human fetuses grow a thin coat of hair, called lanugo, all over their bodies. It does not seem useful ó after all, it is a comfortable 98.6 degrees in utero ó and the hair is usually shed shortly before birth. The feature makes sense only as an evolutionary remnant of our primate ancestry; fetal apes also grow such a coat, but they do not shed it.

Recent studies of the human genome provide more evidence that we were not created ex nihilo. Our genome is a veritable Gemisch of non-functional DNA, including many inactive "pseudogenes" that were functional in our ancestors. Why do humans, unlike most mammals, require vitamin C in our diet? Because primates cannot synthesize this essential nutrient from simpler chemicals. Yet we still carry all the genes for synthesizing vitamin C. The gene used for the last step in this pathway was inactivated by mutations forty million years ago, probably because it was unnecessary in fruit-eating primates. But it still sits in our DNA, one of many useless remnants testifying to our evolutionary ancestry.

Oceanic islands are simply missing or impoverished in many types of animals. Hawaii has no native mammals, reptiles, or amphibians. These animals, as well as freshwater fish, are also missing on St. Helena, a remote oceanic island in the middle of the South Atlantic Ocean. It seems that the intelligent designer forgot to stock oceanic (but not continental!) islands with a sufficient variety of animals. One might respond that this was a strategy of the creator, as those organisms might not survive on islands. But this objection fails, because such animals often do spectacularly well when introduced by humans. Hawaii has been overrun by the introduced cane toad and mongoose, to the detriment of its native fauna.

In addition, many IDers have more impressive academic credentials than did earlier scientific creationists, whose talks and antics always bore a whiff of the revival meeting. Unlike scientific creationists, many IDers work at secular institutions rather than at Bible schools. IDers work, speak, and write like trained academics; they do not come off as barely repressed evangelists. Their ranks include Phillip Johnson, the most prominent spokesperson for ID, and a retired professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley; Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University; William Dembski, a mathematician-philosopher and the director of the Center for Theology and Science at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; and Jonathan Wells, who has a doctorate in biology from Berkeley.

All of these proponents, save Johnson, are senior fellows at the Center for Science and Culture (CSC), a division of the Discovery Institute, which is a conservative think tank in Seattle. (Johnson is the "program advisor" to the CSC.) The CSC is the nerve center of the intelligentdesign movement. Its origins are demonstrably religious: as described by the Discovery Institute, the CSC was designed explicitly "to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

(Suuuure, no ties between ID and Creationism, riiiight)

Like earlier creationist tracts, "Of Pandas and People" simply denies that this evolution of the jaw hinge occurred. It asserts that "there is no fossil record of such an amazing process," and further notes that such a migration would be "extraordinary." This echoes the old creationist argument that an adaptive transition from one type of hinge to another by means of natural selection would be impossible: members of a species could not eat during the evolutionary period when their jaws were being unhinged and then rehinged. (The implication is that the intelligent designer must have done this job instantaneously and miraculously.) But we have long known how this transition happened. It was easily accomplished by natural selection. In 1958, Alfred Crompton described the critical fossil: the mammal-like reptile Diarthrognathus broomi. D. broomi has, in fact, a double jaw joint with two hinges ó the reptilian one and the mammalian one! Obviously, this animal could chew. What better "missing link" could we find?

<About the Eye> A possible sequence of such changes begins with pigmented eye spots (as seen in flatworms), followed by an invagination of the skin to form a cup protecting the eyespot and allowing it to better localize the image (as in limpets), followed by a further narrowing of the cup's opening to produce an improved image (the nautilus), followed by the evolution of a protective transparent cover to protect the opening (ragworms), followed by coagulation of part of the fluid in the eyeball into a lens to help focus the light (abalones), followed by the co-opting of nearby muscles to move the lens and vary the focus (mammals). The evolution of a retina, an optic nerve, and so on would follow by natural selection. Each step of this transitional "series" confers increased adaptation on its possessor, because it enables the animal to gather more light or to form better images, both of which aid survival. And each step of this process is exemplified by the eye of a different living species. At the end of the sequence we have the camera eye, which seems irreducibly complex. But the complexity is reducible to a series of small, adaptive steps.

The gold standard for modern scientific achievement is the publication of new results in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. By that standard, IDers have failed miserably. As William Dembski himself noted, "There are good and bad reasons to be skeptical of intelligent design. Perhaps the best reason is that intelligent design has yet to establish itself as a thriving scientific research program." IDers desperately crave scientific respectability, but it is their own theory that prevents them from attaining it. Thus, while IDers demand that evolutionists produce thousands of transitional fossils and hundreds of detailed scenarios about the evolution of biochemical pathways, they put forth no observations supporting the plausibility of a supernatural designer, nor do they show how appeal to such a designer could explain the fossil record, embryology, and biogeography better than neo-Darwinism.

Sorry for the length, but figured this was important.

-Arlos

[Gidan]

So if life was created by somne intelligent designer, does that not qualify it as God? You still have the same exact argument of goddidit.

Come up with 1 single argument, I dont care how outragous that could prove the ID was false. Just 1. When you do that, I will admit that ID is science. Until that day, ID is faith and nothing more.

[Lyion]

Gidan, if you saw an engineered high performance car on the side of the road would you consider immediately naturedidit randomly? The human body is a trillion times more complex than that car, and yet people have no problem due to years of piss poor science saying that exact same thing.

If you are Arlos, and that car was broken down, you'd admit there is no way it could be designed, because it isn't working perfectly, despite the fact you do not have a degree in mechanicial engineering and do not understand the why of it's problems. You could predict things about the car based on how it evolved, but er, they would be just that. Guesses without really understanding things.

Evolutionists universally ADMIT the look of design, but go against that to try and prove it was random solely due to naturalistic materialism. Most people do not buy this because it is not a good sell.

On to Arlos longer post which can be more easily refuted

Yet evolution predicts...

Proof and verifiable are two words I really like in science. Starting a scientific discussion with 'predicts' is bad.

Your whole article against ID is based on... guesses? Conjecture? That is not strong science. Really, you can predict the 49ers will win and call it good science, but I personally wouldnt.

That is my big issue with common descent. It goes against what scientists see, but due to the limitations is the best we have. Go back and look at how many similar pieces of conjecture were made and have been proven wholly false. My problem isn't that this shouldnt be done, it's the illicit and dogmatic way it is called 'factual' which it should not be in a lot of areas. It is done with an agenda, and that is often political, not scientific.

The gold standard for modern scientific achievement is the publication of new results in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. By that standard, IDers have failed miserably.

'

Bias and distrust, which in many cases is rightfully a fallout from Creationisms silliness still abounds and prevents a lot more peer review from ID, but it exists and it's getting more and more common, even if bias and a desire to prevent discussion, which is interestinging as it is the opposite of scientific, is wholesale among many.

93% of the National Academy of Science are avowed Atheists. I believe there is an agenda, and it's interesting the disparity between them and the overall Christian nature of our country. I see an agenda here, as can be seen from the numbers. You can see this with the people who debate this issue being mistreated in the news. It's overt.

open hostility from those who hold to neo-Darwinism sometimes makes it difficult for design scholars to gain a fair hearing for their ideas, research and articles by intelligent design scholars are being published in peer-reviewed publications. Dr. Stephen Meyer has published an article supportive of design in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution). Jonathan Wells recently published a pro-intelligent design article with one of the oldest still published biology journals in the world, Revistia di Biologia. Biochemist Michael Behe has defended the idea of “irreducible complexity” in the peer-reviewed journal Philosophy of Science, as well as publishing research critical of the mechanism of neo-Darwinism in the peer-reviewed journal Protein Science. Examples of peer-reviewed books supporting design include The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press) by William Dembski and Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (Michigan State University Press). There are others.

Support for ID comes from Intelligent design theory is supported by doctoral scientists, researchers and theorists at a number of universities, colleges, and research institutes around the world. These scholars include biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State Univeristy, and quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia, among others.

Anyways, my simple belief is that due to the appearance of being designed, and the lack of any proof about how we are here short of the extremely limited guesses and conjecture of evolution, I'll believe what appears right. I have no problems with people having faith in their personal belief, be it we came from a clump of goo or descended from a single cell organism. Just realize that isn't factual anymore than ID is, and we have something to agree on.

Let me see if I can find common ground. Evolution is BETTER science than ID, and is done the way science should be done. I have never believed ID should be taught in schools science, due to the fact it is not done via the scientific method.

If you want to disprove ID, that's easy. Wholly prove Evolution and Common Descent and prove that the human body naturalistically evolved and the overall appearance of design that evolutionists admit does indeed come from nature.

Addendum: This is a good write up from Dembski that answers more of your questions, Gidan.

To test ID, it is enough to show how systems that ID claims lie beyond the reach of Darwinian and other evolutionary mechanisms are in fact attainable via such mechanisms. For instance, ID proponents have offered arguments for why non-teleological evolutionary mechanisms should be unable to produce systems like the bacterial flagellum (see chapter 5 of my book No Free Lunch [Rowman & Littlefield, 2002] and Michael Behe’s essay in my co-edited collection titled Debating Design [Cambridge, 2004]). Moreover, critics of ID have tacitly assumed this burden of proof — see Ken Miller’s book Finding Darwin’s God (Harper, 1999) or Ian Musgrave’s failed attempt to provide a plausible evolutionary story for the bacterial flagellum in Why Intelligent Design Fails (Rutgers, 2004).

Intelligent design and evolutionary theory are either both testable or both untestable. Parity of reasoning requires that the testability of one entails the testability of the other. Evolutionary theory claims that certain material mechanisms are able to propel the evolutionary process, gradually transforming organisms with one set of characteristics into another (for instance, transforming bacteria without a flagellum into bacteria with one). Intelligent design, by contrast, claims that intelligence needs to supplement material mechanisms if they are to bring about organisms with certain complex features. Accordingly, testing the adequacy or inadequacy of evolutionary mechanisms constitutes a joint test of both evolutionary theory and intelligent design.

Unhappy with thus allowing ID on the playing field of science, evolutionary theorist now typically try the following gambit: Intelligent design, they say, constitutes an argument from ignorance or god-of-the-gaps, in which gaps in the evolutionary story are plugged by invoking intelligence. But if intelligent design by definition constitutes such a god-of-the-gaps, then evolutionary theory in turn becomes untestable, for in that case no failures in evolutionary explanation or positive evidence for ID could ever overturn evolutionary theory.

I cited earlier Darwin’s well-known statement, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Immediately after this statement Darwin added, “But I can find out no such case.” Darwin so much as admits here that his theory is immune to disconfirmation. Indeed, how could any contravening evidence ever be found if the burden of proof on the evolution critic is to rule out all conceivable evolutionary pathways — pathways that are left completely unspecified.

In consequence, Darwin’s own criterion for defeating his theory is impossible to meet and effectively shields his theory from disconfirmation. Unless ID is admitted onto the scientific playing field, mechanistic theories of evolution win the day in the absence of evidence, making them a priori, untestable principles rather than inferences from scientific evidence.

Bottom line: For a claim to ascertainably true it must be possible for it to be ascertainably false. The fate of ID and evolutionary theory, whether as science or non-science, are thus inextricably bound. No surprise therefore that Darwin’s Origin of Species requires ID as a foil throughout.

[Arlos]

ID = "We don't understand how it could've happend, so that must mean Goddidit!"

-Arlos

[Tikker]

I've never heard a more stupid arguement in my life Lyion



Normally, you're a pretty smart guy, but as soon as religion is involved, you get mindiaesque retarded

[Lyion]

ID = "We don't understand how it could've happend, so that must mean Goddidit!"

As opposed to Neo Darwinisim, which says "We don't understand it, but naturedidit. Randomly and non intelligently. This is better referred to as Shit Happens.

The most complex and intricate systems just appeared out of blind chance.

Tikker, I fail to see any religion involved, save the status quo 'Creationism' argument repeated ad nauseum. I have personally never been a Creationist, and I'm not at all over the top religious.

[Eziekial]

You want to know what the "scientific" answer of where we came from is?


Nothing.


What did God create the universe from?


Nothing.


Maybe all science is just a quest of man to know "how" god did what he did.

[KILL]

Maybe all science is just a quest of man to know "how" god did what he did.

problem is, it contradicts the bible, so that makes it impossible

[Tikker]

ID = "We don't understand how it could've happend, so that must mean Goddidit!"

As opposed to Neo Darwinisim, which says "We don't understand it, but naturedidit. Randomly and non intelligently. This is better referred to as Shit Happens.

The most complex and intricate systems just appeared out of blind chance.

Tikker, I fail to see any religion involved, save the status quo 'Creationism' argument repeated ad nauseum. I have personally never been a Creationist, and I'm not at all over the top religious.

if you believe that god created(or intelligently designed) the world/universe then you are indeed a creationist, of one flavour or another

[Ouchyfish]

Maybe all science is just a quest of man to know "how" god did what he did.

problem is, it contradicts the bible, so that makes it impossible

I believe God created everything, however I believe that the Bible is a misguided attempt at telling history and/or laying down guidelines from just some very outdated misguided guys. It is not meant to be taken literally or used as a life model like the religious nuts have done with it.

It's just a book. Until God comes to me as a burning bush, or something, that's all it ever will be to me.

It doesn't mean that I do not believe in God, or Jesus, etc, it just means that I believe a religious book written by mortals couldn't ever be correct.

[Lyion]

if you believe that god created(or intelligently designed) the world/universe then you are indeed a creationist, of one flavour or another

Wow, that is so wrong, inaccurate, and ignorant I can't believe you said that Tik. You are a smart guy. Do some research and find the difference.

As an addendum, many of the best and brightest scientists in the world believe God created everything. I assure you the majority of them are in no way creationists.

[Tikker]

if you believe that god created(or intelligently designed) the world/universe then you are indeed a creationist, of one flavour or another

Wow, that is so wrong, inaccurate, and ignorant I can't believe you said that Tik. You are a smart guy. Do some research and find the difference.

As an addendum, many of the best and brightest scientists in the world believe God created everything. I assure you the majority of them are in no way creationists.

Believing God created the universe = creationism

that's how it works, simple as that

check out your own website (jeje, maybe it was Rust that posted this one, but I'm 95% sure it's the one you quote from all the time Lyion)

Creation Faq

specifically:

Old Earth Creationism

Old-Earth Creationists accept the evidence for an ancient earth but still believe that life was specially created by God, and they still base their beliefs on the Bible. There are a few different ways of accomodating their religion with science.

* American Scientific Affiliation, Ipswich, MA.
(This groups has mostly OEC members, but it doesn't turn away members and has some YEC and Theistic Evolutionist members, too.)
http://www.asa3.org/index.html
periodical: Perpsectives on Science and Christian Faith


Gap Creationism (also known as Restitution Creationism)

This view says that there was a long temporal gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, with God recreating the world in 6 days after the gap. This allows both an ancient earth and a Biblical special creation.

* Armstrong, Herbert W., Mystery of the Ages. Dodd, Mead, New York, 1985.

again, if you believe God created the earth, you are a creationist, of one flavour or another

[Gidan]

Gidan, if you saw an engineered high performance car on the side of the road would you consider immediately naturedidit randomly? The human body is a trillion times more complex than that car, and yet people have no problem due to years of piss poor science saying that exact same thing.

Yet you still cant give a singe set of data or observaion the would prove ID to be wrong. If no set of data or observation could possibly prove it wrong, its faith not science.