The problem is that wind speed can be measured and detected independently, it has weight, it has mass, it has a color, we know what makes up air, it's used in known natural processes. We can't do the same with God.


The thing is that the history books use evidence to back up their statements. For instance, let's use Washington's existence versus Jesus'.

1) Dozens of independent sources for the existence of Washington, including by many of his opponents. One or two sources for Jesus besides the Bible and one of them was a Christian, not exactly impartial.

2) We have Washington's own writings that can, again, be verified to be his. We have none for Jesus.

3) We understand that some of the tales regarding Washington are merely legends. Jesus tall tales are supposed to have been true.

4) No one claimed that Washington ever did anything that defies the natural laws. Jesus healed people miraculously, died and came back to life, etc.

5) Some of history books and biographies are known to have errors about Washington. The Bible is supposed to be flawless.

So let's recap:

For Washington, we have mountains of credible, independently verifiable evidence that can be contradicted, if necessary, for acts perfectly within natural laws.

For Jesus, we have an allegedly flawless, millenia-old collection of contradicting stories, paraphrased, redacted, and edited for the last couple thousand years from completely biased, non-verifiable sources about acts that defy logic and natural laws.

Age has little to do with this. It's the extravagant claims that have no proof that we're arguing.

You idiot. You KNOW that was not what I was saying. I was asking a rhetorical question. I was asking the evolutionist WHY it hasn't changed. Your "spin" on my words have failed.

No. Without the ability to test scientific theories about supreme being(s) creating the universe, intelligent design cannot qualify in any way as science.

Also, Ben Stein and the movie producers were extremely deceptive in their tactics to get interviews. Why not be honest, if they're claiming their opponents are not being honest?

The problem is that wind speed can be measured and detected independently, it has weight, it has mass, it has a color, we know what makes up air, it's used in known natural processes. We can't do the same with God.


The thing is that the history books use evidence to back up their statements. For instance, let's use Washington's existence versus Jesus'.

1) Dozens of independent sources for the existence of Washington, including by many of his opponents. One or two sources for Jesus besides the Bible and one of them was a Christian, not exactly impartial.

2) We have Washington's own writings that can, again, be verified to be his. We have none for Jesus.

3) We understand that some of the tales regarding Washington are merely legends. Jesus tall tales are supposed to have been true.

4) No one claimed that Washington ever did anything that defies the natural laws. Jesus healed people miraculously, died and came back to life, etc.

5) Some of history books and biographies are known to have errors about Washington. The Bible is supposed to be flawless.

So let's recap:

For Washington, we have mountains of credible, independently verifiable evidence that can be contradicted, if necessary, for acts perfectly within natural laws.

For Jesus, we have an allegedly flawless, millenia-old collection of contradicting stories, paraphrased, redacted, and edited for the last couple thousand years from completely biased, non-verifiable sources about acts that defy logic and natural laws.

Age has little to do with this. It's the extravagant claims that have no proof that we're arguing.

Your the idiot, how could it change? If it had a different molecular structure it wouldn't be water. Bad rhetorical question.

To be fair, he wasn't claiming water evolved, he was asking why it didn't. While a good grounding in chemistry could tell him why water forms the way it does, he probably isn't interested in that as he was completely ignoring the fact that water is not a living thing subject to selection pressures. Ironically, water could be said to be the peak of 2H 1O "evolution", as less stable or more energy hungry compounds that could possibly form would be quickly dismantled by the water molecules bouncing around through molecular space...especially considering how water is such good a solvent.

Chuck Norris had a battle with the space ponies. This is how life was created. And, no nothing created Norris or the ponies. They just simply are.

Why should it have changed? Has something happened to make the universe less hospitable to it?

To all supporters of ID: You know you are less than a joke in Europe? Just think about it... Why do you think does ID have such a large base of supporting people in the USA? The country with the most religious fundamentalists in the western hemisphere? While all the other western countries are as good as untouched by this idea? ID is only a creationisms tapped a new label on top of it.

Another point to the op: So Nazis were because of the evolution theory? thats funny because than it wasn't the fault of my grandfather and his generation slaying millions of jews it was Darwins. Maybe I will tell him this when I visit him next. Please please just inform yourself about Nazi-Germany before you talk shit like this.

PS.: To all christians not thinking ID is a great idea no offense intended. Believe whatever you want to. It is not of my concern but please please don't let someone teach our kids that evolution is untrue because the bible says so.

If my memory is correct, the Greek sophist Gorgias said truth is elusive. It is(suprise).

I recently watched the movie V for Vendetta. Though most of the movie and the reasons why I watched it are irrelevant to the thread, it does say something about truth: Truth is perception.

One of the many arguments of philosophers of all time periods concerns whether or not truth is objective or subjective truth. Time and time again many people have said that truth is subjective and have been smacked down("I think, therefore I am" -Rene Descartes)

I, personally, think Intelligent Design should not be taught because you cannot just explain something and believe its logical. 5000 years ago people believed they could logically explain that the moon was a god. 500 some years ago people believed that thry could logically explain that the Earth was flat. 400 years ago people thought that they could logically explain that the Earth was the center of the Solar System. 100 years ago people thought they could logically explain that flight in general was impossible for humans.

Believe what you want to believe, don't impose it on others.

Nothing you say to me will change my mind.
Nothing I say to you will change your mind.

Go ahead and live and believe like there is no Heaven or Hell... like there is no God. You better hope you are right.

Romans 14:11:
It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' "

---------------------
I am so sorry that your eyes have been blinded by science... That you cannot accept anything that can't be explained scientifically. Science has become your god and your religion.

To be honest, this thread saddens me greatly. It shows just how shallow the world has become... it shows how many have been deceived by Satan himself, into believing that there is no God, simply because you can't "see" Him. He is that burning bush right before your very eyes, yet you look the other way. You don't even WANT to find Him, it seems. You aren't looking for truth. You are looking at man as the higher power. You have put science on a pedistal. You must have physical, hands-on proof before you believe. What a shallow and unfulfilling life that must be.

I have prayed for each and every one of the skeptics that posted here. I don't know your real names, but God does. Maybe, someday, your eyes will be opened, and you will be ready to accept the truth. Until that happens, anything I have said here, or could possibly say in the future, is falling on deaf ears, blind eyes, closed minds, and hardened hearts.

My role in this thread is over. That will make most of you think that YOU have won this "debate". Just the opposite, my friends. I am simply shifting my focus from typing to praying for each of you, and to find other ways to plant seeds of truth in the hearts of other skeptics like yourselves.

May God bless all those that believe and those that do not. As Jesus said, while on the cross... "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do".

also, as an edit to my post, 4years ago I believed that I could logically explain that america wouldn't elect someone with an IQ less than mine(age: 10[then])

no u

Translation: LALALALA I DON'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA

Cognitive dissonance must be hard on you.

Remember that, while on the cross, Jesus also said ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?’

Typical of your ilk. Just plug your hears and start saying "La la la I'll pray for you la la la." What is wrong? Were you starting to have doubts?


It's not that we cannot accept anything that can't be explained scientifically, its that we can't accept any claims just because some old book says so and it makes you feel good.


If he would just stop hiding in the gaps...


Burning bush? Where? Oh, you mean the one that nomadic tribe wrote about thousands of years ago when they though thunder and lightning were expressions of their god's anger and thought illness was a result of demons?


Trust us, we want to find him, he has a lot of answering to do.


Actually we are, you are the one assuming you already know it.


Not really, man is pretty insignificant in our view of the universe. It is your view that puts man at the center of it, or near it; with your claims that god created the universe just for us, and created us directly. If you didn't have such a need to feel important, you wouldn't have a problem with god creating evolution. You wouldn't have a problem with humanity not being the result of direct action by god, and you wouldn't claim to understand god either.


Not really, when contradicting evidence is brought forth, science does a pretty good job of throwing out the junk.


The depth or fulfillment of ones life has nothing to do with the truths or lack thereof of ones beliefs. As we have been stating, the truth is the truth, whether you like it or not.


Please don't, at least not for me. Aside from the undeserved ego boost you'll get from thinking someone as important as god actually listens to you, I'd really rather not spend an eternity with you and your god if you are right.


you guys really have no problem with self-contradiction, do you? I suppose it comes with the territory. How is you leaving the debate and giving up trying to make your case us not "winning"? In fact, how is it you winning? As that would be "just the opposite". If someone stops running, they surely aren't going to win the race, and if it is a test of endurance, you just failed.


Do even have any proof, outside of one book, and books that reference that book that he even said that? See the problem with creationists and intelligent design believers is that they think they have faith in god, when really they just have faith in a book and an organization built around that book.

Science does not contradict god(s), it make no claims about them whatsoever; it only contradicts religions. There is a difference.

Also, what would your god think of you abandoning all us heathens?

Funny that the same standard is now rarely applied to evolution. Without the ability to test scientific theories about what existed 50 million years ago, the theory of evolution (as an explanation of origins) cannot in any way be stated as scientific fact. Yet it is taught as such. When I was a child it was still properly and carefully referred to as theory.

Untestable theories are not necessarily unscientific, you just have to recognize that without the proof required to elevate them to fact, they must remain theories.



Agreed to a point. I think most of the ID crowd are really creationists, some of which have lost their nerve. Not like the other side is brimming with honesty however...

Until it is explained to be otherwise to my satisfaction, I simply believe in a creation lasting 6 literal days. I have no need to argue the point, I just state my beliefs. People believe what they want. Some can explain why.

And God said, Let there be light. And there was light. And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness. And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(Genesis 1:3-5)

And because God has demonstrated the ability to predict the future to my satisfaction, I believe his record of the past.

And now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens you might believe.
(John 14:29)

If you want to live forever, you must acknowledge the giver of life, in a manner acceptable to him.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes on Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.
(John 3:16-18)

I got through almost 2 pages before I zoned out, but I do want to at least point out a few things...

Edix said:



I don't know what "bible" you're reading, but if you are referring to the "Bible", or what most would consider the Bible, John Chapter 8 verse 44 says nothing of the sort. Funny enough it is Jesus talking to sinners, or "sons of the devil". What John 8:44 DOES say is:

"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar, and the father of lies." From the NIV Bible

Reading the Bible does you little, arguably no good if you have no plans to actually try and digest and understand the deeper meaning behind it. Quoting random scriptures, and quoting it incorrectly at that, doesn't help much.

Anyone can take a passage out of context and twist it to mean pretty much anything they want. In fact Satan does it repeatedly throughout the Bible. Perhaps you read that part, too? Interpreting that passage to mean what you said above, and to use it as defense that something other than evolution might be the truth simply because it is "excess" theory, is silly.

For all those who think like this person, let me enlighten you with what 'theory' means in science. A 'theory' is a model made of FACTS, observations, hypotheses and is used to predict and explain natural phenomena. A theory does NOT graduate to a fact.

That's why we still have the gravitation theory, germ theory, theory of computation, etc, etc.

Now, that we've hopefully gotten past the "but it's just a theory" part, let me tell you that there is over 150 years and thousands of scientists worth of evidence for evolution. Just like we don't have to travel to Jupiter to know what it's made of, we don't have to travel back in time to know that evolution is true. If for nothing else than for the simple fact that evolution is still occurring even today.




It is you prerogative to believe whatever you want, but don't try to sell creationism as science. It isn't.

Also, just keep in mind that while you believe the Bible and think that evolution is all lies, we are using evolutionary theory in medicine, therapy, biochemistry, biology, bioengineering, industry, farming, etc. We also have testable and demonstrable predications based on evolution. So, whether you or anyone else believes in evolution is really inconsequential since evolution works with or without belief. If you stop believing in the theory of gravitation, trust me, you'll still be attached to the Earth. So, keep on believing whatever you wish. Just remember that evolution works and that medicine you'll be taking was most likely based off work from evolutionary theory.

You're right. ANYONE can take the a passage out of context and twist it to mean pretty much ANYTHING. That includes us normal people, Christians, pastors, etc.

It's hard to know what the Bible truly means when everyone has a different opinion on what it says. I guess the hundreds of Christian sects are indicative of the clear message of the Bible.

I do believe in a "superior plane of existence" (call it God, Buddha, Valhalla, whatever) but that is what I feel to be right for an "afterlife". Imposing stuff on others is called "fanatism". And, in that, you are not much different than "muslim integralists".

To me, what is really important is the following:
- Religions (Roman Catholic, Islamic, Jew, ...) where created by MEN, and, as such, are FALLIBLE. They try to "explain" things around us and fail to do that completely.
- Science is another way for humans to "explain" things. Also created by MEN so far from being perfect.

That said, it's really a matter of choosing which one of the two suits better, for YOU, in a particular situation: i.e. Death and "afterlife" are better "explained" by religion. Science does a way better job of explaining how a bacteria grows and adapts to it's current environment.

Oh, and regarding all of us "scientists" going to hell, let me quote some lyrics, by a famous and one of the most highly regarded italian Singers (which you probably don't of, but who cares).
"Hell only exists for those who fear it." I don't, so guess I'm a scientists out of your prayers: I don't need any sort of book or person to speak with god, I simply do it.

Such theories can be tested, by looking at the fossil record, the elements and compounds in sedimentary rock formed from that time period. And for the quadrillionth time, evolution is not and does not attempt to be an explanation for the origin of life, nor one of the universe.


Umm, yeah, they are necessarily unscientific. Show me a fossil of humans from the time of the dinosaurs and it'll be proof enough to at very least severely revise current evolutionary theory. Unfortunately for you, it still won't be proof of your religion. If there is no way to disprove something, it is not relevant to science...and in a lot of cases, is not relevant or important to the everyday life we experience either.


I hear Nostradamus is just as good if you interpret his predictions as forgivingly, are you going to start worshiping him?


Not all do. In fact, most that believe what they want are the ones that can't explain why. For instance, I'd like to believe I will somehow become rich enough to retire comfortably at 40 (preferably now actually), but I realistically believe that I probably will be lucky to retire at 60. I'd like to believe that there is some nice grandpa in the sky looking out for me, only asking for my respect in return; but realistically, my life experience has indicated otherwise, and on some level I know I would be bored out of my skull if everything went my way. And my encounters with many of those who cling so desperately to such beliefs shows more to me their need to believe than any reasoned cause to believe.


Again, you are also believing that no person ever "doctored" his message to suit their own causes; such as rallying people to war, keeping their subjects obedient, or maintaining a steady cash flow of donations/taxes. And believing its message and literal interpretation has been kept in tact through several translations across several languages. Or do you read the Old Testament in ancient Hebrew and the new in Latin? I mean, if you are going to base your entire life off of such things, surely you have spent the time to learn the languages and cultural contexts of their times to read them as they were originally written with an understanding of the environment they were written in.

You must have missed this...

"...the theory of evolution (as an explanation of origins) cannot in any way be stated as scientific fact."

... and I totally missed the part where I was selling creationism as science, I thought I was selling it as truth.

It's really not a question anymore why evolution should be accepted. If evolution is philosophically- rather than scientifically- proven to be false, than what can you prove through human logic and reasoning? Certainly not the existence of God or the verity of religion. That being said, Science and Religion describe two very different things. They can logically coexist if they stay in their separate realms. Intelligent Design deserves no room in our science courses because there is no scientific evidence supporting it. If intelligent design should be taught anywhere at all, it should be taught as a philosophy, not as science.

Jeesus Christ what a post

As a European, but a big fan of US ideology (the ORIGINAL ideology, not the hyper comsumption over debt police state, no, the Jefferson and Paine stuff)I have often wondered why do people have to bring god out in the open so damn much and tell everybody that god explains everything. Education is different from faith and very FAR from organized religion (and ID is backed and funded by organized religion).
We have all seen what happens when you bring god to the equation with government and education.

Anyway "Intelligent Design" has been debunked already (so many times) so dont really see the point to teach it in schools? It is NOT science, keep faith and science separate.

Was it clean enough?

But dont worry, its not going to happen the science community (even the religious ones) dont like the idea. It is just well marketed hype that will go away...

Now back to more important stuff, playing SINS...

ps. Sorry for the typos