Cant have it both ways

[Riverwolf]

How do you get "most truth"? Certainly for many questions that's true. For example, obesity is likely to have both genetic and environmental causes. However whether the Earth if flat or not, whether we landed on the moon or not, whether the universe is expanding or not; all of these questions do not appear to have answers in the middle. The answers to these questions are digital, its one or the other. How you added up all the questions in the universe and concluded "most" don't have such a digital solution is beyond me.

Maybe the best way of looking at it is: "Some do, some don't."

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

And another thing, is that to me, there is no middle ground. Your either religious or your not. There is no middle ground, it either is or isnt. I dont agree that a person can pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to agree with, because if your a true christain, then you believe that the bible is divinely inspired, therefore every single thing in the bible should be thought of as correct.

I think there is more middle ground than most people, such as yourself, are willing to accept.

 

[imaginaryme]

But the dead know nothing say those who cannot accept the resurrection of this universal body which will descend into the seemingly bottomless pit (Black Hole) where it will be condensed into the infinitely hot, infinitely dense and infinitesimally small singularity from which we originated and from which we will live again in the next resurrection when the singularity will be torn asunder for the foundation of the new universal body which will be the resurrection of this world in its eternal process of evolution.

You are not chasing after the wind you are blowing out a wind comprised of senseless and meaningless words.

The first (and often only ) person I address my words to is myself, for no other place preserves my scribblings as well as the Internet. My argument was directed to the atheist within as well as the atheist without, and more as humor than scholarship. But when one reads the words of another only as a platform for a personal agenda, many words are going to seem senseless and meaningless.

Reads like taoism to me. Dead are still, not animated by worldly knowledge. Singularity? Resurrection? It seems to me that you put the hypothesis before the observation. Fine by me. This is debate, after all.

 

[imaginaryme]

See, thats another thing about religious people, is they usually get offended when trying to have a conversation.

I guess my big problem when it comes to the evolution thing is this:

Religious people claim: there had to be a first cell, so where did that cell come from?

I agree, i dont know, and science cant prove where that cell came from, but i also dont think that its fair to say, oh, i know where it came from, this omnipotent being just snapped his fingers and it was created like that.

Ill stick to the scientific process rather than fairy tales.

And another thing, is that to me, there is no middle ground. Your either religious or your not. There is no middle ground, it either is or isnt. I dont agree that a person can pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to agree with, because if your a true christain, then you believe that the bible is divinely inspired, therefore every single thing in the bible should be thought of as correct.

The scientific process includes doing the research. For instance, the cell is a relatively new phenomenon. There are computer simulations that show elements and simple compounds rolling around in the turbulent stew that was the early earth forming into the chains that were precursors for RNA. Order from seeming chaos from simple extrapolation of natural selection.

Furthermore, if one does a modicum of investigation into the Bible itself, rather than the rantings of thumpers; it becomes readily apparent that one must pick and choose. Not only is the text often contradictory, some of what is being advocated is patently illegal.

I'm not an atheist, so I am not one to speak for its doctrine. Yet, from listening to others; education is favored, blind faith is not. Your words lean towards the second category.

Oh, and I'm not religious, and I'm not offended. I'm debating.

 

[S-word]

The words say wary, yet more words follow... what is faith without works? A chasing after the wind.

But the dead know nothing... know... nothing. Really ain't no need for the other sixty three books. Self-similar over a single degree of magnitude... and all the experts are wrong, for the math proves itself.

The living know they will die, but the dead know nothing said the Satirist, it was Paul who believed in life after death and the resurrection, who knowing the satirical nature of the words of Solomon in the book of Ecclesiastes, once said, “If the dead are not raised to life, then let us eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.” Not that these were the words coined by Solomon, but by the great Philosopher referred to by Solomon.
Imhotep was called “God of medicine, Prince of Peace and a type of Christ. He was worshipped as a god and healer from somewhere around 2850 B.C. to 525 B.C. and as a full deity from 525 B.C. to 550 A.D. For 3,000 years he was worshipped as a god in Greece and Rome and early Christians worshipped him as the prince of peace (Salem). A poet and philosopher, it was imhotep who first coined the saying, “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”
Quote by Imaginaryme : But the dead know nothing... know... nothing. Really ain't no need for the other sixty three books. Self-similar over a single degree of magnitude... and all the experts are wrong, for the math proves itself.

If it is your belief that a few words of satire aimed at those who believe in neither life after death or the resurrection, cancels out the other 63 books, then you ridicule no one, other than yourself.

 

[imaginaryme]

The living know they will die, but the dead know nothing said the Satirist, it was Paul who believed in life after death and the resurrection, who knowing the satirical nature of the words of Solomon in the book of Ecclesiastes, once said, “If the dead are not raised to life, then let us eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.” Not that these were the words coined by Solomon, but by the great Philosopher referred to by Solomon.
Imhotep was called “God of medicine, Prince of Peace and a type of Christ. He was worshipped as a god and healer from somewhere around 2850 B.C. to 525 B.C. and as a full deity from 525 B.C. to 550 A.D. For 3,000 years he was worshipped as a god in Greece and Rome and early Christians worshipped him as the prince of peace (Salem). A poet and philosopher, it was imhotep who first coined the saying, “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”
Quote by Imaginaryme : But the dead know nothing... know... nothing. Really ain't no need for the other sixty three books. Self-similar over a single degree of magnitude... and all the experts are wrong, for the math proves itself.

If it is your belief that a few words of satire aimed at those who believe in neither life after death or the resurrection, cancels out the other 63 books, then you ridicule no one, other than yourself.

I am the fool, an object of ridicule; I am a man. Self-similar over a single degree, that which ridicules me, similar in other men, ridicules man.

Not a few words, six pages. Not cancels out, summates. The living do not know they will die, the living assume. Such things cannot be known; claiming such knowledge is a chasing after the wind. This is why I enjoy Ecclesiastes. It is a razor that is all blade and no handle.

 

[ftv1975]

Science and Religion Bruce R. McConkie said it best.

is there a conflick between science and religion? the answer to this basic query depends entirely upon what is meant by and accepted as science and as religion. It is common to say there is no such conflick, meaning between true science and true religion--for one truth never conflicts with another, no matter what fields or categories the truths are put in for purposes of study. But ther most certainly is a conflict between science and religion, if by science is meant (for instance) the theoretical guesses and postulates of some organic evolutionists, or if by religion is meant the false creeds and dogmas of the sectarian and pegan worlds. "Oppositions of science falsely so called" were causing people to err "concerning the faith" even in the days of Paul. (1 timothy 6:20-21)
There is, of course, no conflict between revealed religion as it has been restored in our day adn those scientific realities which have been established as ultimate truth. The mental quagmires in which many students struggle result from the acceptance of unproven scientific theories as ultimate facts, which brings the student to the necessity of rejecting conflicting truths of revealed religion. If, for example, a student accepts the untrue theory that death has been present on the earth for scores of thousands or millions of years, he must reject the revealed truth that there was non death either for man or animals or planets or any form of life until some 6000 years ago when Adam fell.
As a matter of fact, from the eternal perspective, true science is a part of the gospel itself; in its broadest signification the gospel embraces all truth. When the full blessings of the millennium are poured out upon the earth and its inhabitants, pseudo-science and pseudo-religion will be swept aside, and all supposed conflicts between science and religion will vanish away.

 

[McBell]

You can't make scrambled eggs in a cast iron skillet. You will fail. Don't even try.

hmmmm.
My grandmother, my father, and myself can make eggs in a cast iron skillet.
In fact, we all three have made them in the same cast iron skillet.

Perhaps I missed something...

 

[Minus Habens]

Hello everyone! Im new to this forum. I came here in search of people who could explain to me why they believe in god/gods. And possibly sway me. If i could be swayed to a religion that would be incredible.

To me it is completely ridiculous to blindly follow something just because someone 2000 years ago said, "yes this is the right way to live"

And the idea of science and religion going hand in hand is also completely asinine. You cant have it both ways. You cant pick and choose which parts of the bible you like and which ones you dont, it doesnt work like that.

Religons were created in a time when we didnt have good scientific procedure and religion was a convenient way to answer alot of the questions that couldnt be answered back then cause there was no scientific process.

It is a proven fact that people are afraid of the unknown. Religion seems to be an extremely convenient way of answering the question of what happens to us after death. Its also an easy way to control the masses. If you tell people that if they dont abide by these rules, which by all means are man made rules, then they are going to burn for all eternity in hell.

Another absolutely ridiculous belief is the belief in the 7 deadly sins. These are almost impossible for a person NOT to feel in almost every day life. It was a way for the church to keep people feeling ashamed and to keep them down. I ask religious people questions some times to see if they contradict themselves in there beliefs. Why would you believe in christianity if you are commiting sins? You are knowingly condemming yourself to hell by doing this.

Like there are countless numbers of "christian" girls these day who lie, cheat, steal, have sex before marriage, and all sorts of things, but then claim to be christian. Thats completely retarded.

It just seems to me that religion was basically science back then, and now that we have real science, its time for people to stop believeing in fairy tales.

Another thing i have a big problem with is when religious people start talking bad about evolution. If you do not believe in evolution, then you believe that we are exactly the same now as we were in the beginning of time. Which is absolutely not true, we have fossil evidence of early people the PROVES we have changed since then. Just because we dont have ONE skeleton to complete the chain doesnt mean a damn thing.

I also have another question for all the Christians. Christianity is a relatively new religion. So what happened to the people for all the thousands of years before christianity?

I am an agnostic, but science doesn't make me think it is less likely everything was created by intelligent design, it actually supports the idea, IMO. Have you heard about the Intelligent Design theory?

Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude 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. ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause. The form of information which we observe is produced by intelligent action, and thus reliably indicates design, is generally called “specified complexity” or “complex and specified information” (CSI). An object or event is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern.

Contrary to what many people suppose, the debate over intelligent design is much broader than the debate over Darwin’s theory of evolution. That’s because much of the scientific evidence for intelligent design comes from areas that Darwin’s theory doesn’t even address. In fact, the evidence for intelligent design comes from three main areas: Physics and Cosmology, the Origin of Life, and the Development of Biological Complexity.

Evidence for Design in Physics and Cosmology
The fine-tuning of the laws of physics and chemistry to allow for advanced life is an example of extremely high levels of CSI in nature. The laws of the universe are complex because they are highly unlikely. Cosmologists have calculated the odds of a life-friendly universe appearing by chance are less than one part in 1010^123. That’s ten raised to a power of 10 with 123 zeros after it! The laws of the universe are specified in that they match the narrow band of parameters required for the existence of advanced life. As an atheist cosmologist Fred Hoyle observed, “[a] common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.” The universe itself shows strong evidence of having been designed. To find out more, read Jay Richards, “Is There Merit for ID in Cosmology, Physics, and Astronomy?” and Stephen Meyer, “Evidence of Design in Physics and Biology.”

CSC - What Is the Science Behind Intelligent Design?

Not to mention the fact that the latest scientific theories are quite supernatural themselves, like M-theory with it's 11 dimensions and infinite number of universes or membranes...

 

[S-word]

I am the fool, an object of ridicule; I am a man. Self-similar over a single degree, that which ridicules me, similar in other men, ridicules man.

Not a few words, six pages. Not cancels out, summates. The living do not know they will die, the living assume. Such things cannot be known; claiming such knowledge is a chasing after the wind. This is why I enjoy Ecclesiastes. It is a razor that is all blade and no handle.

The living do not assume that they will die, the living know that they will die the first death; that is, the death of the body and its return to the universal elements from which it was formed, only a fool would believe that they will not die. Even the man Jesus was said to have been made dead in the flesh , but alive in spirit. Can you, with all your mathematical skills determine how many people have never died, or how many people will never die?

Although the living know they will die, they can only assume that the spirit does not survive the first death and that the dead know nothing, for such things cannot be proved mathematically; claiming such knowledge is a chasing after the wind.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Hello everyone! I'm new to this forum. I came here in search of people who could explain to me why they believe in god/gods. And possibly sway me. If i could be swayed to a religion that would be incredible.

You should read the rules here. That is not allowed.

Why would you believe in Christianity if you are committing sins? You are knowingly condemning yourself to hell by doing this.

I commit sins daily, (in my mind).

Like there are countless numbers of "christian" girls these day who lie, cheat, steal, have sex before marriage, and all sorts of things, but then claim to be christian. Thats completely retarded.

There is nothing retarded with dating the preacher's daughter.

Seriously, Christians are far from perfect, they are just forgiven. It is not about what we do, it is about the gift we receive. The gift is salvation.

its time for people to stop believing in fairy tales.

No, it is time for you to start following the forum rules and quit proselytizing.

I also have another question for all the Christians. Christianity is a relatively new religion. So what happened to the people for all the thousands of years before Christianity?

They died. It is not for me to judge, but I have a feeling I will meet some of them one day.:yes:

 

[S-word]

You should read the rules here. That is not allowed. I commit sins daily, (in my mind). There is nothing retarded with dating the preacher's daughter.

Seriously, Christians are far from perfect, they are just forgiven. It is not about what we do, it is about the gift we receive. The gift is salvation. No, it is time for you to start following the forum rules and quit proselytizing.

They died. It is not for me to judge, but I have a feeling I will meet some of them one day.:yes:

They may have died, but they travel on forever
In the stream of time that flows toward the end
Yet I know someday we'll all be back together
In the oneness of our saviour, Lord and friend....By S-word

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

hmmmm.
My grandmother, my father, and myself can make eggs in a cast iron skillet.
In fact, we all three have made them in the same cast iron skillet.

Perhaps I missed something...

I personally prefer to scamble my eggs in a cast iron skillet.

 

[imaginaryme]

The living do not assume that they will die, the living know that they will die the first death; that is, the death of the body and its return to the universal elements from which it was formed, only a fool would believe that they will not die. Even the man Jesus was said to have been made dead in the flesh , but alive in spirit. Can you, with all your mathematical skills determine how many people have never died, or how many people will never die?

Although the living know they will die, they can only assume that the spirit does not survive the first death and that the dead know nothing, for such things cannot be proved mathematically; claiming such knowledge is a chasing after the wind.

That's what I just said, only you clarified it. The body is irrelevant, food for worms. It is what animates it that is important. Now that we're getting along, what were we arguing about?

Thanks for the input on Imhotep, btw. I have seen god in the numbers, so something of god may be proven mathematically; I'm not the first nor only to recognize this, but I might be the one at the right place in the right time. Or, I'm chasing wind.

 

[imaginaryme]

I am an agnostic, but science doesn't make me think it is less likely everything was created by intelligent design, it actually supports the idea, IMO. Have you heard about the Intelligent Design theory?



CSC - What Is the Science Behind Intelligent Design?

Not to mention the fact that the latest scientific theories are quite supernatural themselves, like M-theory with it's 11 dimensions and infinite number of universes or membranes...

ID is not science, it is agenda. Feynman famously said, "no one understands quantum mechanics" due to the esoteric mathematics involved. A theory that employs math that is even more difficult is not a solution, I'm thinking. Seven curled-up dimensions that are only "accessible" in the mathematics? Infinite universes that make this one unimportant? I don't feel that any string theory is going to go the distance; and that the Many Worlds hypothesis will soon be discarded. I'm all for quantum decoherence. Takes god right out of the science and the mystery out of quantum mechanics.

 

[Minus Habens]

ID is not science, it is agenda. Feynman famously said, "no one understands quantum mechanics" due to the esoteric mathematics involved. A theory that employs math that is even more difficult is not a solution, I'm thinking. Seven curled-up dimensions that are only "accessible" in the mathematics? Infinite universes that make this one unimportant? I don't feel that any string theory is going to go the distance; and that the Many Worlds hypothesis will soon be discarded. I'm all for quantum decoherence. Takes god right out of the science and the mystery out of quantum mechanics.

You are probably correct. Most everyting is agenda driven. Who knows... My point being that the strangeness of science, at least to a laymen such as myself, is going the way of the supernatural.

Have you ever read String Theory and the Illusion of intelligent Design by Leonard Susskind? From that book I got the impression it was many physicists who were at least considering the idea of ID... Of course there are still many (maybe more) that disagree.

 

[skydivephil]

You are probably correct. Most everyting is agenda driven. Who knows... My point being that the strangeness of science, at least to a laymen such as myself, is going the way of the supernatural.

Have you ever read String Theory and the Illusion of intelligent Design by Leonard Susskind? From that book I got the impression it was many physicists who were at least considering the idea of ID... Of course there are still many (maybe more) that disagree.

'I done believe the universe was designed by any intelligence"
Leonard Susskind

http://bastardlogic.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/susskind-intelligent-design/

the vast majority of serious scientists simply laugh at intelligent design.

 

[Minus Habens]

'I done believe the universe was designed by any intelligence"
Leonard Susskind

Physicist Leonard Susskind Rejects Intelligent Design « *******.logic

the vast majority of serious scientists simply laugh at intelligent design.

Yes, he mentioned he did not agree with it. He didn't laugh at the idea, though.

I wonder who decides who "serious" scientists are?

 

[S-word]

That's what I just said, only you clarified it. The body is irrelevant, food for worms. It is what animates it that is important. Now that we're getting along, what were we arguing about?

Thanks for the input on Imhotep, btw. I have seen god in the numbers, so something of god may be proven mathematically; I'm not the first nor only to recognize this, but I might be the one at the right place in the right time. Or, I'm chasing wind.

Post 48...Quote...imaginaryme: Not a few words, six pages. S-words response:The number of pages depends upon which bible you are reading from. Quote...imaginaryme: Not cancels out, summates. S-words response:If you believe that Ecclesiastes, the satirical work of Solomon aimed at those who believe in neither life after death or the resurrection is a summary of the entire bible then you are surely blowing off wind. Quote...imaginaryme: The living DO NOT KNOW they will die, the living assume. Such things cannot be known; claiming such knowledge is a chasing after the wind. This is why I enjoy Ecclesiastes. It is a razor that is all blade and no handle.

Post 52...Quote...S-word:The living DO NOT ASSUME that they will die, the living KNOW THAT THEY WILL DIE. the first death; that is, the death of the body and its return to the universal elements from which it was formed, only a fool would believe that they will not die. Even the man Jesus was said to have been made dead in the flesh, but alive in spirit. Can you, with all your mathematical skills determine how many people have never died, or how many people will never die?
Although the living know they will die, they can only assume that the spirit does not survive the first death and that the dead know nothing, for such things cannot be proved mathematically; claiming such knowledge is a chasing after the wind.

Post 56...Quote...imaginaryme: That's what I just said, S-words response: No! What you said was that the living do NOT KNOW they will die, they assume, what I said was that the living DO KNOW that they will die although there are some who assume that the mind=spiritdoes not continue on after the death of the body.

Quote...imaginaryme: The body is irrelevant, food for worms. It is what animates it that is important. S-words response: How can the body be irrelevant when it is the womb in which you the mind=spirit were formed? You, the godhead that has developed in that physical body are but the compilation of all the knowledge and experiences that were taken into that womb as the spiritual food from which (YOU) were formed and from which you (The spirit) continue to evolve. Were that body born malformed, lacking the senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch, then you (The godhead) could not have been formed and the body would have remained nothing more than an animated lump of living meat until it returned to the universal elements from which it was formed.

Quote...imaginaryme: Now that we're getting along, what were we arguing about?
S-words response: Well I wouldn’t say that we’re getting along, and nor do we argue on this forum, we debate and we point out where we believe a person is mistaken and give support and added substance to those beliefs with which we agree, such as your belief that it is that which animates the body which is important.

The Logos that was in the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity of origin, is the divine animating principle that pervades the entire universal body that it has become; it is the life force into which all the experiences and information that is gathered by the living receivers that have evolved within the greater universal body is imprinted. When your body, skin, hair, muscles, bone, brain matter etc, have returned to the universal body of which it is one, the facsimile of you that had developed within that body will have been imprinted on the universal life force that once animated your body, and you will live again when the living universal body is resurrected once again after it has been condensed back into the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity of origin, and descended into the great abyss, and is once more blasted out to continue the eternal process of growth or evolution.

Origin held to a series of worlds following one upon the other,-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it.

The nights and days of Brahma are called Manvantara or the cycle of manifestation, ‘The Great Day,’ which is a period of universal activity, that is preceded, and also followed by ‘Pralaya,’ a dark period, which to our finite minds seems as an eternity. ‘Manvantara,’ is a creative day as seen in the six days of creation in Genesis, ‘Pralaya,’ is the evening that precedes the next creative day.


Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non being, and again from non being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence.” ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

In reference to the six Biblical periods of creation and the seventh period of rest, it is said in Genesis 2: 4, “These are the generations of the universe.”
The Hebrew word used here is ‘toledoth,’ which is used only in reference to descendants, as in, “These are the generations (toledoth) of Adam,” or “These are the generations (toledoth) of Abraham.”

And it is written in the words of righteous Enoch, that God created an eighth day also (The eternal cosmic cycle in which the seven foetal stages of each universal body in which a universal mind or Son of God develops, are forever repeated) and it is a day eternal, in which there is neither hours, days, weeks, months or years, for all time shall be stuck together in one aeon and all who enter therein shall be surrounded by great light and they shall know peace.

Thanks for the input on Imhotep, btw. I have seen god in the numbers, so something of god may be proven mathematically; I'm not the first nor only to recognize this, but I might be the one at the right place in the right time. Or, I'm chasing wind.

No receiver is chasing the wind, were it not for the Logos (The divine animating principle that pervade the enire universal body), the death of every person would be the destruction of an entire and wonderful library. May you achieve the peace that you seek on whatever path you choose to follow.

 

[skydivephil]

Yes, he mentioned he did not agree with it. He didn't laugh at the idea, though.

I wonder who decides who "serious" scientists are?

This statement form the National Academy of Science might help:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html


""Intelligent design" creationism is not supported by scientific evidence.
Some members of a newer school of creationists have temporarily set aside the question of whether the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe are billions or just thousands of years old. But these creationists unite in contending that the physical universe and living things show evidence of "intelligent design...However, the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproven by the findings of modern biology. Biologists have examined each of the molecular systems claimed to be the products of design and have shown how they could have arisen through natural processes...Given the importance of science in all aspects of modern life, the science curriculum should not be undermined with nonscientific material. Teaching creationist ideas in science classes confuses what constitutes science and what does not. It compromises the objectives of public education and the goal of a high-quality science education."


More importantly ask yourself how many peer reviewed scientific papers there are with ID as the conclusion? Almost everything you see justifying ID is in popular books written for the lay audience. They do not present their arguments in respected academic journals because as the National Academy of Science rightly points out their ideas are not scientific.

 

[Minus Habens]

This statement form the National Academy of Science might help:

Evolution Resources from the National Academies


""Intelligent design" creationism is not supported by scientific evidence.
Some members of a newer school of creationists have temporarily set aside the question of whether the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe are billions or just thousands of years old. But these creationists unite in contending that the physical universe and living things show evidence of "intelligent design...However, the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproven by the findings of modern biology. Biologists have examined each of the molecular systems claimed to be the products of design and have shown how they could have arisen through natural processes...Given the importance of science in all aspects of modern life, the science curriculum should not be undermined with nonscientific material. Teaching creationist ideas in science classes confuses what constitutes science and what does not. It compromises the objectives of public education and the goal of a high-quality science education."


More importantly ask yourself how many peer reviewed scientific papers there are with ID as the conclusion? Almost everything you see justifying ID is in popular books written for the lay audience. They do not present their arguments in respected academic journals because as the National Academy of Science rightly points out their ideas are not scientific.

Might help what? I am only saying the latest scientific theories are supernatural. I am not claiming any of them are credible... Do you think the idea of 7 extra deminsions is any more credible? How about infinite universes? Anywhooo... point taken, champ.

 

[skydivephil]

The latest scientific theories are not supernatural. Until Hubble no one knew that planetary nebula were actually extra galaxies. If there turn out to be extra dimensions or even extra universes then why is this any more supernatural than the discovery that the MIlky Way is not the only galaxy? Adding an extra number to a known value, like the number of galaxies or the number of spatial dimensions does not make it super natural. At the moment neither of these ideas are testable, but within a few years they may become so. The LHC at CERN might be able to demonstrate if extra dimensions exist. We shall see.

http://santitafarella.wordpress.com...e-big-bang-testing-the-multiverse-hypothesis/

http://www.lhccern.com/2008/05/19/cern-extra-dimensions/

The difference between these idea and religious ideas are that scientists wait for the experimental test before they jump to conclusions. I have read several books by many string theorists such as Brian Green and Michiu Kaku, none of them claim string theory is a fact, They always use phrases such as "if string theory is true" . Perhaps religious people should consider the same approach.