You assert that science, while having explained much about nature, will never be able to explain the origin of the universe and life using natural means. Your assertions, however, are based on nothing more than faith. And this is where ID comes in. ID is not used when science currently cannot explain something, but a crux theists use in order to attempt to falsify the findings of science because it contradicts one's faith. This is why it is illogical. Science has a much better track record of explaining things than the bible does. So, I prefer science over faith. I'd rather trust something that I can see and feel, rather than something that has refused to make itself known in a way that can be verifiable at least on the subjective level.
Are you paying attention?? What part of SCIENCE CAN NOT BE USED TO EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF ITS OWN DOMAIN aren't you understanding? Can you explain the origins of yourself by using yourself, or do you have to postulate an external cause (your parents). This is the same thing with the universe, it began to exist so an external cause is absolutely necessarry.
This article is basically saying "given the right amount of time, anything can happen". That is basically what it boils down to. That is the naturalists God, the God of time.
As it has been pointed out to you at least a dozen times on this thread, there is a huge difference between what's living and what's not. This may not make sense to you, but scientifically, it's huge.
You are right, there is a huge difference, but the matter that made life wasn't always "alive". It "became" alive.
You've shown the "research" you've done. You've stated on this thread, at least twice, the oft-repeated mantra of creationists that says evolution teaches that man evolved from apes, which is patently false. Evolution states that man and apes share a common ancestor.
So if man didnt always exist, it had to come from somewhere, right? So, OBVIOUSLY, man came from an entity that wasn't a man!!!! This is evolution!!! So what are you talking about??
You've also shown your "research" into astronomy, by stating that there are only eight known planets, when there have been dozens of extra-solar planets discovered.
Um, there are 8 planets in our solar system. All the other planets are dwarf planets. But either way, planets are irrelevant to the discussion.
You have also shown your "research" by saying that man is made of dirt, which is a bible teaching, but science has shown that man is made up primarily of water. So, pardon me if I don't place any stock in your "research".
First of all, if a human dies in a field and decomposes, the body will eventually turn to dust. Second, if it turns to dust, it has to be made at least made up of dust, and this can happen even though the body consist of water. Mud is the combination of dirt and water. If the mud can consist of dirt and water, then so can the body.
Dogs make dogs, cats make cats. They also sometimes produce genetic mutations that, over time, change into a new species. And, there is evidence that evolution is still happening. However, that you'll accept is, is not likely, as religious faith doesn't allow for that.
But the new species will still be a dog, and that is my only point. A new kind of animal isn't created, but a new species is.
Before you have evolution, you have to have life. No one is disputing this. What you are suggesting, however, is that evolution did not happen because life came from a higher power. Many theists believe life was created by a higher power, and then set evolution in motion. And what I find humorous in this statement, is that you say that man has not created anything more complex than a single cell, yet you use man's creation of the space shuttle as proof of ID. The irony is, illuminating.
Are you missing the point on purpose? Even if there are theists out there that believe God set evolution in motion, this is still Intelligent Design. Second, I use mans creation of the space shuttle to make the point of, if we can recognize intelligent design when it comes to complex things like space shuttles and airplanes, then how can we not recognize intelligent design when it comes to cells and dna, which are wayyyy more complex than space shuttles and airplanes.
This makes absolutely no sense. I don't even know how to respond to this. There's no logical-ness to it at all.
Are you freakin serious??? So lets see how my logical thinking is. Lets say I asked you to explain the origins of your computer. But here is the catch, you are prohibited from using any entity outside of the computer. You have to explain its origins by using just the computer alone. You have to use the computer to explain the origin of its own being. Can you do this? I will let you think about this before i say anything more, sense you are making it seem as if i am making no sense. Lets see you answer this question. And to the other thing you said, yes, all of the alledged evidence could mean common designer. You cant prove it otherwise, so you are in no position to say what happened or what didnt happen. You accept by faith that life came from nonlife, and you have no evidence of this whatsoever.
Improbability does not mean impossibility. The chances of someone picking the right lottery numbers in the Powerball jackpot are astronomical, but it still happens.
This lottery business is not a good analogy. In the case of winning the lottery, everyone has an equal chance to win. In the case of the universe, the outcome is specified. For example, lets say that for 10 consecutive years, the winners of the lottery just happen to have mafia connections. That is specifed. Sure, everyone had the same chance of winning, but it is even more improbable that the last ten winners just happen to have mafia connections.
No, I don't base my acceptance of evolution and that science will one day be able to naturally explain origins by "negating it's competitor". I base it on the fact that science has always explained everything thus far by naturalistic means. The fact that god is not observed, can not be observed, and has not shown him/her/itself, is just a byproduct. Science proves itself, it shows itself for what it is, while your god does not.
We are not talking about absolute origins. So far, no man has been able to explain how life could have arose naturalistically. Why was nature able to do something blind and unguided that humans, who are not blind and have intelligent, were not able to do?
I never said there was no evidence. We know what had to have happened. We know the conditions which were necessary for it to have happened. Now, there are several hypothesis that are currently being tested to figure out the details. No faith required. I had faith for 30 years, until I realized how useless it is. Science doesn't require faith, and I have no use for it.
You have faith that life can come from nonlife. This has not be scientifically proven, and you still believe it. This is faith!!! You just admitted that there is no evidence for it as of yet, but you still believe that it occurred. This is an example of faith. The problem is, you are trying to distant yourself from religious implications so much that you dont realize that the word "faith" doesn't have to be exclusively used in religious terminology. All faith is, is "belief and trust". Thats it. But since the word is almost always used in religous format, you are trying to distance yourself from the word, when the word perfectly describes what is going on here. There is no evidence so far that life came from nonlife, but you believe it. You believe it without evidence. You are placing your trust in science even though there is lack of evidence. You are using faith. There is no way out of it.
It's only irrelevant to the one who has more to lose. There's nothing irrelevant in accepting something that has proven itself time and again (science) over something that cannot, or at the best, will not (god).
Once again, science cannot explain absolute origins. That has not been demonstrated time and time again. Science explains how things work, it doesnt explain the absolute origins of things. You dont seem to know the difference.
Like a broken record. Science always proves the bible wrong. It has in the past, it will in the future. I base my acceptance on the fact that science works. You base yours on something that doesn't.
Always? Like when?
