I don't like ID because they completely rule out the thought of evolution when it's a process occuring all the time. It's why we get the same cold this year.
Less of why we get the same cold and more of why we're getting superbugs, resistant to antibiotics.
ibid said:Though, many who flaunt evolution also seem to miss its basis. It's a way of a species adapting to the changes of its environment through genetic mutation. Meaning genetic flaws appear and either they prove favorable in which they become the mainstream or unfavorable and are weeded out of the gene pool.
Indeed, many of those who argue in favour of evolution/big bang are doing so more to argue against creation, and forget what their argument is about, as The Big Al has well stated.
ibid said:Evolution still doesn't describe how matter suddenly became life however just like the Big Bang theory doesn't describe how the singularity that created the universe came into being in the first place.
Evolution was not meant to explain the beginning, but rather the continuum of change that has occurred since then. Big Bang theory, in its present form, is the same. The "Big Bang" is merely an extrapolation into the past based on known data.
ibid said:However, we're going by logic based on our limited knowledge of existance. For us everything falls within the realm of linear time. So it's logical to assume we can apply that to everything. Perhaps to understand the creation of the universe we have to accept the possibility of something not existing within linear time.
Time itself was created at that time. At the beginning of time, all directions point towards the future, just as at the North Pole, all directions are South.
ibid said:So while I believe God created the universe, I don't buy a fraction of the crap ID tries to sell.
The theory of "God set off the big bang" is one I can accept, though it's not one I believe personally. At this point, we've reached the limit of what science can offer at present.
Right --but from an agnostic's point of view -if you want to convince me that something is 'true", I'm going to need to see your proof.
I've seen far more proof from the scientific community than from the religious community. Granted the religious community often chalks it up to faith.
In any event nobody has ever been able to prove, to my satisfaction, that an intelligence guides existence.
I, too, have seen far more proof from the scientific community, or rather, "evidence" - a scientist's definition of proof falls well short of that of a mathematician - than from the religious (who, as you say, invoke the "goddunit" argument). However, as an atheist, I cannot provide any more proof to an agnostic of the non-existence of God, than a theist can provide for the existence of God. (By definition, non-existence cannot be proven.)
Last edited: