Evolution is not a belief. 
Theories are not beliefs.
Science doens't deal with beliefs.
You can't believe in a theory.
Evolution is not a religion.
Religions are not created around theories.

The bible is just another book.

^^^^

Evolution is not science !


"Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism—the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable."

Excerpt from http://www.icr.org/article/455/

A theory is a hypothesis backed by a growing body of evidence. It's an observation about natural phenomena explained in naturalistic terms without the need to add a diety to the equation. Theories can and are discarded or updated as need be.

A belief is assuming that your premise is true without a shred of evidence. Beliefs can't be updated nor discarded because there are no observations or evidence to falsify or test i.e it's a "sin" to doubt or test a god.

Martian:

Evolution is not a belief. 
Theories are not beliefs.
Science doens't deal with beliefs.
You can't believe in a theory.
Evolution is not a religion.
Religions are not created around theories.

The bible is just another book.

the joke is that people like you actually believe you understand science at all.

Martian:

A theory is a hypothesis backed by a growing body of evidence. It's an observation about natural phenomena explained in naturalistic terms without the need to add a diety to the equation. Theories can and are discarded or updated as need be.

A belief is assuming that your premise is true without a shred of evidence. Beliefs can't be updated nor discarded because there are no observations or evidence to falsify or test i.e it's a "sin" to doubt or test a god.

Really? So where is the "growing body of evidence" supporting evolution as an established principle? The only thing evolution has going for it is a pre-determined mindset that is unwilling to consider intelligent design as a possible explanation for existence.

Quote from: mail4gift2 on Yesterday at 05:34:42 PM
Boss-mi, no offence but if you were a Christian, i mean a real Christian who not only read the bible but also practice what you read, nothing on earth can make you change you believe, if you were indeed a Christian who has indeed read the bible, and came across the parable of the sower, and so many other parables, your only prayer to God through Jesus Christ will be to make you believe so you can over-come your unbelief, seriously boss i dnt think you were a true Christian/follower/disciple of JESUS CHRIST who has tested the many wonders and miracles of God, when you were a Christian, have you ever been in a deep problem like say losing your home and about to live on the street, then you prayed to God through Jesus Christ to give you a home and you give God a deadline (yes a deadline) to give you a home or an alternative but not to allow you to live in the street and a day to the deadline, HE DID IT, have you ever experienced this kind or any kind of miracle during your Christian years? and if you have not then sorry to say this, U ARE/WERE NOT A CHRISTIAN and if you have ever experienced this or any kind of miracle, can you tell us why you turned your back on Christ-ianity?


btw people is this what heaven feels like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9GLsVELApM if it is, GOD please give me your special GRACE to make it to my HOME.
Quote from: harakiri
My friend, you are the one who knows NOTHING about your bible or Christianity as a whole. I was not only a Christian but also active in the ministry. A lot of you who come here claiming to know your god and bible don't know jack! My journey into Atheism didn't happen overnight. It took years of asking numerous questions and intensive study of the bible. Believe me, i don't mean to boast but you don't know the bible half as i do. Trust me on that. The deeper i went, the more porous and vague it became. One simple question :

WHAT CONCRETE PROOF CAN YOU SHOW TO AUTHENTICATE THE BIBLE AS THE WORD OF THE CREATOR?

Very simple question but i can put all the money in my pocket down that you CANNOT answer it rather you will come here uttering dense reetarded sentiments and quoting from the same bible that is under contention (i know the old song and dance okay?). Defending Christianity with the bible is as ridiculous as defending Christmas with Santa Claus.

Nuff said!

You want me to answer your question without you answering mine, i asked you a simple question, during your active years as a (so called) Christian, did you actually experience any kind of Miracle like the one i mentioned above? have you ever started something and God reveled to you in a dream how it ended and it ended the exact way you saw it in our dream? have you ever prayed so hard and you felt the spirit of God descend and dwell in you? have you ever had a tooth pain or any other pain and place your hand where that pain is and prayed to God to heal you before going to bed and find out that the pain is gone the next morning? if you have ever experienced any of the above mentioned miracle/vision/healing then i know you were a real Christian and i will like to know why you really backslide, but if you did not experience any of the above miracle/vision/healing, then you are a F.R.A.U.D and a FAKE

So answer my question and i will try my possible best to answer all your questions, i even saw someone asking me who did Cain married  forgetting that  God crated Eve out of Adam and what makes you think he can not or did not create Cain's wife out of him too, you guys better stop asking stupid question and focus on Serving your Creator.

nuff said

mail4gift2:

Quote from: harakiri
My friend, you are the one who knows NOTHING about your bible or Christianity as a whole. I was not only a Christian but also active in the ministry. A lot of you who come here claiming to know your god and bible don't know jack! My journey into Atheism didn't happen overnight. It took years of asking numerous questions and intensive study of the bible. Believe me, i don't mean to boast but you don't know the bible half as i do. Trust me on that. The deeper i went, the more porous and vague it became. One simple question :

What is the meaning of that sentence? Mail4gift2 was quite clear with his comment - i dnt think you were a true Christian/follower/disciple of JESUS CHRIST who has tested the many wonders and miracles of God

Being a genuine disciple of Christ is NOT the same as being "active in the ministry" . . . Judas was "active in the ministry" too but ended up betraying the Lord. Not much different from you.

davidylan:

What is the meaning of that sentence? Mail4gift2 was quite clear with his comment - i dnt think you were a true Christian/follower/disciple of JESUS CHRIST who has tested the many wonders and miracles of God

Being a genuine disciple of Christ is NOT the same as being "active in the ministry" . . . Judas was "active in the ministry" too but ended up betraying the Lord. Not much different from you.

Thank you boss-mi, someone who is just a church goer probably because of one sister in the church, you will see him carrying bible up and down, always attending all the church services, some even create new service as a medium to see or date girls and you come here to talk rubbish.

When you experience the power of God, you will not come here and talk rubbish.

There was a man in the bible, (i will not quote the bible verse, if you have really read your bible, you will know where am quoting from) he came to Jesus Christ and ask him to hell his son and he told Jesus that he can heal his son if he wants to, then Jesus Answered him and said "do you believe", this man did not believe, but he said "Lord, make me believe to overcome my un-believe" so harakiri, you were just a church goer and not a True Christian, now i see the reason why God did not show you anything because you were not serving him, God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, please whoever this Harakiri is, make him/her believe to overcome his/her un-believe, Amen

davidylan:

the joke is that people like you actually believe you understand science at all.

Really? So where is the "growing body of evidence" supporting evolution as an established principle? The only thing evolution has going for it is a pre-determined mindset that is unwilling to consider intelligent design as a possible explanation for existence.

Really?
I wonder whether your alleged profession of Immunology is based on the principles of evolution or "intelligent design".  Huh, mr. scientist.

Martian:

Really?
I wonder whether your alleged profession of Immunology is based on the principles of evolution or "intelligent design".  Huh, mr. scientist.

Dumb. immunology is the study of both self-recognition and antigenic response in the human body . . . it isnt concerned with who or what designed the immune system.

davidylan:

Dumb. immunology is the study of both self-recognition and antigenic response in the human body . . . it isnt concerned with who or what designed the immune system.

According to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI), "an immunologist is a research scientist who investigates the immune system of vertebrates (including the human immune system).

What are the branches of immunology?
Classical Immunology- It studies the relationship between the body systems, pathogens, and immunity. ( in scientific circles, is the human body studied by using the principle of "intelligent design"?0
Clinical immunology is the study of diseases caused by disorders of the immune system.
Developmental immunology.
Immunotherapy
Diagnostic immunology
Reproductive immunology

Evolutionary immunology- Study of the immune system in extant species is capable of giving us a key understanding of the evolution of species and the immune system.
A development of complexity of the immune system can be seen from simple phagocytotic protection of single celled organisms, to circulating antimicrobial peptides in insects to lymphoid organs in vertebrates. However, it is important to recognize that every organism living today has an immune system that has evolved to be absolutely capable of protecting it from most forms of harm; those organisms that did not adapt their immune systems to external threats are no longer around to be observed.
Insects and other arthropods, while not possessing true adaptive immunity, show highly evolved systems of innate immunity, and are additionally protected from external injury (and exposure to pathogens) by their chitinous shells.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunology
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615443

Immunology had an unexpected and decisive part in challenging the claims of 'Intelligent Design' proponents at the US trial on the teaching of evolution in public schools in Dover, Pennsylvania.
http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/v7/n5/full/ni0506-433.html

The latest skirmish in the ongoing controversy about the teaching of evolution in US schools ended decisively on 20 December 2005, when the introduction of 'Intelligent Design' (ID) in a public school biology class was struck down by US Federal Judge John E. Jones as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The case, 'Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District', was brought by 11 parents from Dover, Pennsylvania, represented pro bono by the Philadelphia law firm Pepper-Hamilton, together with the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and assisted with scientific support by the National Center for Science Education, the Oakland, California–based nonprofit organization devoted to combating creationism. The parents challenged the school district's requirement that administrators read to ninth graders a disclaimer raising doubts about evolution, suggesting ID as a better alternative explanation for life's diversity and referring students to the ID supplemental textbook Of Pandas and People, 60 copies of which had been donated to the school library.



What else do you have Mr. Scientist? What did your sky daddy intelligently design?

Martian:

According to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI), "an immunologist is a research scientist who investigates the immune system of vertebrates (including the human immune system).

What are the branches of immunology?
Classical Immunology- It studies the relationship between the body systems, pathogens, and immunity. ( in scientific circles, is the human body studied by using the principle of "intelligent design"?0
Clinical immunology is the study of diseases caused by disorders of the immune system.
Developmental immunology.
Immunotherapy
Diagnostic immunology
Reproductive immunology

Evolutionary immunology- Study of the immune system in extant species is capable of giving us a key understanding of the evolution of species and the immune system.
A development of complexity of the immune system can be seen from simple phagocytotic protection of single celled organisms, to circulating antimicrobial peptides in insects to lymphoid organs in vertebrates. However, it is important to recognize that every organism living today has an immune system that has evolved to be absolutely capable of protecting it from most forms of harm; those organisms that did not adapt their immune systems to external threats are no longer around to be observed.
Insects and other arthropods, while not possessing true adaptive immunity, show highly evolved systems of innate immunity, and are additionally protected from external injury (and exposure to pathogens) by their chitinous shells.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunology
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615443

Immunology had an unexpected and decisive part in challenging the claims of 'Intelligent Design' proponents at the US trial on the teaching of evolution in public schools in Dover, Pennsylvania.
http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/v7/n5/full/ni0506-433.html

The latest skirmish in the ongoing controversy about the teaching of evolution in US schools ended decisively on 20 December 2005, when the introduction of 'Intelligent Design' (ID) in a public school biology class was struck down by US Federal Judge John E. Jones as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The case, 'Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District', was brought by 11 parents from Dover, Pennsylvania, represented pro bono by the Philadelphia law firm Pepper-Hamilton, together with the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and assisted with scientific support by the National Center for Science Education, the Oakland, California–based nonprofit organization devoted to combating creationism. The parents challenged the school district's requirement that administrators read to ninth graders a disclaimer raising doubts about evolution, suggesting ID as a better alternative explanation for life's diversity and referring students to the ID supplemental textbook Of Pandas and People, 60 copies of which had been donated to the school library.



What else do you have Mr. Scientist? What did your sky daddy intelligently design?

Just when are these ignorant mules going to stop copy-pasting things they dont understand? Evolutionary immunology? What a laugh . . . i guess you dont understand that what you see posted by an individual on a web doesnt necessarily translate to what actually goes on in the lab do you?

davidylan:

Just when are these ignorant mules going to stop copy-pasting things they dont understand? Evolutionary immunology? What a laugh . . . i guess you dont understand that what you see posted by an individual on a web doesnt necessarily translate to what actually goes on in the lab do you?

What a laugh indeed. Did you read the link about the dover trial? lmao. Maybe in your mythical utopia lab, you use intelligent design. What do I know though, you're a scientist!!! What goes on in the lab is science, what you believe in is a fairy tale. Why don't you start your own immunology research using ID. Hell, why don't you go work for the ICR?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615443

That's the US national library of medicine/ national institute for health. The only scientists who accept intelligent design seems to be the christians championed by Michael Behe (a man whose university has a disclaimer about). How ironic is it that it was Michael Behe's work that put the nail in the coffin for ID at the dover trail.

Martian:

What a laugh indeed. Did you read the link about the dover trial? lmao. Maybe in your mythical utopia lab, you use intelligent design. What do I know though, you're a scientist!!! What goes on in the lab is science, what you believe in is a fairy tale. Why don't you start your own immunology research using ID. Hell, why don't you go work for the ICR?

What does the dover trial have to do with immunology and its relevance to ID? Another stup[i]i[/i]d incoherent post from a clueless noisemaking fool. The dover case was clear . . . in America state sanctioned religion is against the constitution (note the case was with respect to a PUBLICLY FUNDED school). What the judge was talking about here was following the constitution to the letter, not the validity or not of the theory of intelligent design.

But i guess such nuance escapes you.

Martian:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615443

That's the US national library of medicine/ national institute for health. The only scientists who accept intelligent design seems to be the christians championed by Michael Behe (a man whose university has a disclaimer about). How ironic is it that it was Michael Behe's work that put the nail in the coffin for ID at the dover trail.

More foolishness, i work with a decent number of highly qualified research scientists who have a deeply held belief in ID. they dont just sit around on the web waiting for martian to validate their private beliefs.

davidylan:

What does the dover trial have to do with immunology and its relevance to ID? Another stup[i]i[/i]d incoherent post from a clueless noisemaking fool. The dover case was clear . . . in America state sanctioned religion is against the constitution (note the case was with respect to a PUBLICLY FUNDED school). What the judge was talking about here was following the constitution to the letter, not the validity or not of the theory of intelligent design.
But i guess such nuance escapes you.
More foolishness, i work with a decent number of highly qualified research scientists who have a deeply held belief in ID. they dont just sit around on the web waiting for martian to validate their private beliefs.

What the Judge was talking about is that Intelligent Design is not science but the christian creation story masked as science. If it was science, it would have been allowed. That's why it was thrown out uusing the First amendment.  Let it go, if it was science, the 6 month trial would have ended in favor of ID being taught in schools . IT"S NOT. The judge himself is a church going christian republican appointed by George Bush. I don't know where you live but republican christians in the U.S tend to be a little too zealous. ID was thrownb out becuase it's not science and aince it's religion, you can't teach it in public schools and that's why he used the 1st. If ID is science, the first amendment wouldn't apply. Immunology applies because that was one of the arguments that lost the case for your Intelligent Designer Sky daddy. Why were the good christian witnesses for ID lying under oath?A oath they took on the same f#ckiing bible they call the words of their Intelligent designer.
Yes indeed, you work with several highly qualified research cscientists who have deeply held beliefs in ID. Of course you do!!!! Where's your lab located, the ICR?

Martian:

What the Judge was talking about is that Intelligent Design is not science but the christian creation story masked as science. If it was science, it would have been allowed. That's why it was thrown out uusing the First amendment.  Let it go, if it was science, the 6 month trial would have ended in favor of ID being taught in schools . IT"S NOT. The judge himself is a church going christian republican appointed by George Bush. I don't know where you live but republican christians in the U.S tend to be a little too zealous. ID was thrownb out becuase it's not science and aince it's religion, you can't teach it in public schools and that's why he used the 1st. If ID is science, the first amendment wouldn't apply. Immunology applies because that was one of the arguments that lost the case for your Intelligent Designer Sky daddy.

Yes indeed, you work with several highly qualified research cscientists who have deeply held belief in ID. Of course you do!!!! Where's your lab located, the ICR?

Again stup[i]i[/i]d. No one in his right mind thinks ID is equivalent to science . . . it is NOT. It has and will always be a religious point of view, not subject to empirical lab testing. However in the US, driving a religious point of view in a publicly funded school is considered a breach of the constitution's stand on separation of church and state.

Again i repeat . . . no one but uninformed id[i]i[/i]ots with a preconceived bias alleges that ID is science, it is NOT.

davidylan:

Again stup[i]i[/i]d. No one in his right mind thinks ID is equivalent to science . . . it is NOT. It has and will always be a religious point of view, not subject to empirical lab testing. However in the US, driving a religious point of view in a publicly funded school is considered a breach of the constitution's stand on separation of church and state.
Again i repeat . . . no one but uninformed id[i]i[/i]ots with a preconceived bias alleges that ID is science, it is NOT.

So ID is not a science. Then why do you equate it with evolution?  Why do you try to replace evolution with it? Why try to teach it in science classrooms? 

You can repeat till you get blue in the face, die and let your family think that your "soul" went to Mythical Utopia, that doesn't change the fact that ID is promoted as a science that should be taught in classrooms.

davidylan:

The only thing evolution has going for it is a pre-determined mindset that is unwilling to consider intelligent design as a possible explanation for existence.

Why consider it when it's not not a science. You don't see Biologists running into your buildings of communal delusions called churches to teach you about evolution so why bring your sky daddy into a science classroom?
It seems you're the uninformed doofus  who thinks ID is a science.  If it's a religious belief then keep it at home or in your damned church!!!

If you allege that it's not supposed to be science, why does the organization that came up with it publish this on their website?
Scientific observations made in the seminal book The Genesis Flood are even more scientifically valid today than when they were first written. Although subsequent research has shown a few to be inaccurate, most of the perspectives that were laid out in the 1961 publication have been verified beyond reasonable doubt by ongoing observations.

Letting the Science Speak for Itself
http://www.icr.org/article/6408/
Indepth scientific and biblical information regarding the creation/evolution controversy

davidylan:

Again stup[i]i[/i]d. No one in his right mind thinks ID is equivalent to science . . . it is NOT. It has and will always be a religious point of view, not subject to empirical lab testing. However in the US, driving a religious point of view in a publicly funded school is considered a breach of the constitution's stand on separation of church and state.

Again i repeat . . . no one but uninformed id[i]i[/i]ots with a preconceived bias alleges that ID is science, it is NOT.

When will you stop telling lies?. . .ID is not science according to whom?. . . Definitely not its proponents because to them ID is a scientific theory. . .

"Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Pls stop talking about what you don't know. . . .To the advocates of ID it is a scientific theory that rivals evolution. . . Watch the Dover trial again. . .

I have a real hard time understanding how someone can be so incoherent but here we go again . . .

Martian:

So ID is not a science. Then why do you equate it with evolution?  Why do you try to replace evolution with it? Why try to teach it in science classrooms?  

1. ID was never a science, evolution was invented as an alternative to the "God created the world" perspective.

2. No one teaches ID in science classrooms . . . that is just an assertion that is flatly untrue. We had religious knowledge classes back in secondary school (which is what is now being killed in US schools based on the separation of church and state argument) . . . it was never as an alternative to science but as a perspective open to those of religious faith.

Martian:

Why consider it when it's not not a science. You don't see Biologists running into your building of communal delusions called churches to teach you about evolution so why bring your sky daddy into a science classroom?

Again i repeat . . . ID isnt taught in science classrooms.

Martian:

It seems you're the uninformed  who thiniks ID is a science.  If it's a religious belief then keep it at home or in your damned church!!!

Let me repeat what i have already said earlier since you cant read obviously - ID isnt a science.

Martian:

If you allege that it's not supposed to be science, why does the organization that came up with it publish this on their website?
Scientific observations made in the seminal book The Genesis Flood are even more scientifically valid today than when they were first written. Although subsequent research has shown a few to be inaccurate, most of the perspectives that were laid out in the 1961 publication have been verified beyond reasonable doubt by ongoing observations.

Very stup[i]i[/i]d again . . . this book was written NOT to support ID as a science but to show that certain biblical recorded events could be proven to have actually occured through scientific observation. Just the same way scientists try to use observational science to explain that a global ice age must have occurred to wipe out the dinosaurs.

mazaje:

When will you stop telling lies?. . .ID is not science according to whom?. . . Definitely not its proponents because to them ID is a scientific theory. . .

"Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Pls stop talking about what you don't know. . . .To the advocates of ID it is a scientific theory that rivals evolution. . . Watch the Dover trial again. . .

Some nameless individual wakes up and edits wikipedia and so we must take it as gospel truth? How appalling.

Advocates to ID do not push it as an alternative to science but as the only plausible explanation to the origin of life. By nature science has to be subject to rigorous empirical testing . . . something that is absent in the theory of ID.

davidylan:

I have a real hard time understanding how someone can be so incoherent but here we go again . . .

1. ID was never a science, evolution was invented as an alternative to the "God created the world" perspective.
2. No one teaches ID in science classrooms . . . that is just an assertion that is flatly untrue. We had religious knowledge classes back in secondary school (which is what is now being killed in US schools based on the separation of church and state argument) . . . it was never as an alternative to science but as a perspective open to those of religious faith.
Again i repeat . . . ID isnt taught in science classrooms.
Let me repeat what i have already said earlier since you cant read obviously - ID isnt a science.
Very stup[i]i[/i]d again . . . this book was written NOT to support ID as a science but to show that certain biblical recorded events could be proven to have actually occured through scientific observation. Just the same way scientists try to use observational science to explain that a global ice age must have occurred to wipe out the dinosaurs.

You don't have to tell me it's not science. Tel that to the ICR and your fellow christians like Olaadegbu.

Meet the ICR Science Team
Who are the scientists engaged in ICR’s mission to conduct quality scientific research within the realms of origins and earth history? Meet the team of individuals who are applying their training and expertise to questions that impact our understanding of the Genesis account of creation, the Flood, and beyond.
Click here for the bios of the ICR Science Team.http://www.icr.org/research/team/

The separation of church and state in the U.S has always prevented the teaching of religion in public schools. So the secondary school you went to in Nigeria doesn't apply.  They tried to get ID into public schools as a science, bury your head in the sand all you want, but that's what they try to present ID as. They didn't try to create a religious studies class, they sought to discredit and replace evolution.

Concerniing the follwing bolded quote. Who are you calling id!ts, the same people who came up ywith your intelligent design? Because this is on their website. I didn't jsut make it up!!!!
Scientific observations made in the seminal book The Genesis Flood are even more scientifically valid today than when they were first written. Although subsequent research has shown a few to be inaccurate, most of the perspectives that were laid out in the 1961 publication have been verified beyond reasonable doubt by ongoing observations.
http://www.icr.org/

mazaje:

When will you stop telling lies?. . .ID is not science according to whom?. . . Definitely not its proponents because to them ID is a scientific theory. . .

"Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Pls stop talking about what you don't know. . . .To the advocates of ID it is a scientific theory that rivals evolution. . . Watch the Dover trial again. . .

The guy has his head shoved so far up his own a$$ he can taste his prostrate glands. I posted the website of the Institute of Creation Research and he is still denying that they are trying to pass it off as a science!!!!

Meet the ICR Science Team
http://www.icr.org/research/team/

davidylan:

Some nameless individual wakes up and edits wikipedia and so we must take it as gospel truth? How appalling.

Advocates to ID do not push it as an alternative to science but as the only plausible explanation to the origin of life. By nature science has to be subject to rigorous empirical testing . . . something that is absent in the theory of ID.

Nope, from another source. . . .

"Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action. Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences. It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life."

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/832

I find it ridiculous that you are still arguing that the proponents of ID are not referring to it as a scientific theory. . .

Martian:


You don't have to tell me it's not science. Tel that to the ICR and your ferllow christians like Olaadegbu.
Meet the ICR Science Team
Who are the scientists engaged in ICR’s mission to conduct quality scientific research within the realms of origins and earth history? Meet the team of individuals who are applying their training and expertise to questions that impact our understanding of the Genesis account of creation, the Flood, and beyond.
Click here for the bios of the ICR Science Team.

The separation of church and state in the U.S has always prevented the teaching of religion in public schools. So the secondary school you went to in Nigeria doesn't apply.  They tried to get ID into public schools as a science, bury your head in the sand all you want, but that's what they try to present ID as. They didn't try to create a religious studies class, they sought to discredit and replace evolution.

Concerniing the follwing bolded quote. Who are you calling id!ts, the same people who came up ywith your intelligent design? Because this is on their website. I didn't jsut make it up!!!!
Scientific observations made in the seminal book The Genesis Flood are even more scientifically valid today than when they were first written. Although subsequent research has shown a few to be inaccurate, most of the perspectives that were laid out in the 1961 publication have been verified beyond reasonable doubt by ongoing observations.
http://www.icr.org/

more incoherent stup[i]i[/i]dity . . . a severe inability to join the dots in the article you reference. The ICR isnt pushing ID as a science! What they are doing is using observational science to prove that certain events recorded in the bible like Noah's flood could plausibly have occurred! That is not the same thing as claiming that God creating the earth is a scientific event that can be tested in the lab. Read your own posts dude.

mazaje:

Nope, from another source. . . .

"Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action. Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences. It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life."

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/832

I find it ridiculous that you are still arguing that the proponents of ID are not referring to it as a scientific theory. . .

Read your own post again especially this quote - Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences

davidylan:

more incoherent stup[i]i[/i]dity . . . a severe inability to join the dots in the article you reference. The ICR isnt pushing ID as a science! What they are doing is using observational science to prove that certain events recorded in the bible like Noah's flood could plausibly have occurred! That is not the same thing as claiming that God creating the earth is a scientific event that can be tested in the lab. Read your own posts dude.

A Legacy of Creation Science Research

For over 40 years, ICR has been the leader in scientific research from a biblical perspective, conducting innovative laboratory and field research in the major disciplines of science, as well as in ancient biblical studies. The institute’s mission has been to advance quality research that impacts our understanding of the creation model as described in Genesis.[/b]Since ICR’s founding by Dr. Henry Morris in 1970, [b]ICR scientists have endeavored to utilize their research to demonstrate the evidence for creation as understood in Scripture, with the ultimate goal of magnifying the Creator.“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)
http://www.icr.org/research/

Martian:

The guy has his head shoved so far up his own a$$ he can taste his prostrate glands. I posted the website of the Institute of Creation Research and he is still denying that they are trying to pass it off as a science!!!!

Meet the ICR Science Team
http://www.icr.org/research/team/

Woaah. How far up?

Martian:

A Legacy of Creation Science Research

For over 40 years, ICR has been the leader in scientific research from a biblical perspective, conducting innovative laboratory and field research in the major disciplines of science, as well as in ancient biblical studies. The institute’s mission has been to advance quality research that impacts our understanding of the creation model as described in Genesis.[/b]Since ICR’s founding by Dr. Henry Morris in 1970, [b]ICR scientists have endeavored to utilize their research to demonstrate the evidence for creation as understood in Scripture, with the ultimate goal of magnifying the Creator.[font=Lucida Sans Unicode][/font]“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)
http://www.icr.org/research/

and how does the above help us reach the conclusion that the ICR advocates that ID/the bible be taught as a science? Rather are they more interested in using science itself to prove that creation is perhaps the only plausible explanation for the origin of life?

While i can use science to debunk evolution or prove that there is no way nature could have orderly evolved a human brain . . . its not the same thing as claiming that God creating adam from dust is a scientific theory i can export to the lab to demonstrate. Geddit now? probably never.

davidylan:

. . . .

1. ID was never a science, evolution was invented as an alternative to the "God created the world" perspective.

. . . .

Amazing that I can agree with you on the point that ID is not science and never was. Though you should realize that evolution wasn't invented as an alternative but was discovered due to a desire to understand the diversity of life on the planet.

davidylan:

and how does the above help us reach the conclusion that the ICR advocates that ID/the bible be taught as a science? Rather are they more interested in using science itself to prove that creation is perhaps the only plausible explanation for the origin of life?

While i can use science to debunk evolution or prove that there is no way nature could have orderly evolved a human brain . . . its not the same thing as claiming that God creating adam from dust is a scientific theory i can export to the lab to demonstrate. Geddit now? probably never.

For 40 years, ICR has demonstrated that the proper development of science (the foundational discipline of “how things work”), particularly the study of origins, exalts God as Creator, the Bible as absolute truth, and mankind as God-appointed stewards over the earth.

Everyone interested in creation science but not interested in obtaining a graduate degree can take advantage of the self-paced and highly educational Creationist Worldview Professional Certificate program.

All Life Systems Were Created by God
http://www.icr.org/created-by-God/


Use science to disprove evolution then. Submit your work, let it get reviewed and you might even win a nobel prize. Genius, that's the beauty of the science you claim to practice. All you hae to do is debunk it. Neutrinos might be faster than photons like new research suggests. All you have to do is into your little lab with your feellow research immunologists who belief in ID and start debunking.

Martian:

For 40 years, ICR has demonstrated that the proper development of science (the foundational discipline of “how things work”), particularly the study of origins, exalts God as Creator, the Bible as absolute truth, and mankind as God-appointed stewards over the earth.

Everyone interested in creation science but not interested in obtaining a graduate degree can take advantage of the self-paced and highly educational Creationist Worldview Professional Certificate program.

All Life Systems Were Created by God
http://www.icr.org/created-by-God/

What's your IQ? 20?

Again let me break it down:

1. ID a science? Absolutely not . . . it is purely a faith-based approach to understanding the origin of life. You cannot demonstrate the creation of Adam in a lab for example.

2. But can science be used to validate the plausibility of intelligent design? absolutely! Can you plausibly demonstrate the evolution of the human brain by nature? No . . . the only plausible explanations? the brain either:
a. appeared from nowhere
b. was created by an intelligent designer

thehomer:

Amazing that I can agree with you on the point that ID is not science and never was. Though you should realize that evolution wasn't invented as an alternative but was discovered due to a desire to understand the diversity of life on the planet.

you forgot to add a "desire" driven by the need to write intelligent design out of the equation.