Welcome to Gaia! ::

Intelligent Design is not without factual evidence. Now, factual does not always mean true, as I am sure you will point out, but the same goes for facts about evolution.

Some "logical support" for Creationism:
First of all, I want to be "scientific" about this.
The basic idea behind the "scientific method" is this:
1) Formulate a Hypothesis
2)Collect Data through observation and tests
3)Form a Conclusion from your data and observation
{even the "scientific method" has changed throughout the years and you may have learned a slightly different version, but essentially this is it}

Creationism using the "scientific method:"
1) God created the universe through supernatural means
2)One of the basic laws of chemistry states: matter is neither created, nor destroyed through chemical processes. Thus, matter must have always existed, which introduces the concept of eternity. If eternity exists, then the Bible is true in that regards. If the Bible is true about eternity, then maybe it is true in what it says exists in eternity: God. Or, if matter did not always exist, than something not bound by the laws of chemistry must have created that matter. The only thing that would not be bound by the laws of chemistry is something supernatural.
One of the basic laws of physics states: an object at rest must stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. Suppose that the matter for the big bang did come about through some means other than God. That matter still had to be set in motion or it never would have gone through the big bang. The only way for matter to start moving is for it to be acted upon by an outside force. Therefore, for the big bang to be true, there has to be a force in the universe beyond the matter from the big bang.

If the matter for the big bang had come about from some means other than God and if something other than God had started the big bang, the chances of the big bang creating what we observe today is beyond the probability of normal mathematics, unless we account for events that can occur beyond our current understanding of science and mathematics. Thus, what we can currently observe in nature and mathematics does not account for evolution and we must assume that something beyond our understanding must have taken place for the world to have come to its current state.
3)I conclude there is some supernatural force that must exist to account for all the instances of the laws of science being broken in the creation of the universe.


Well, first of all, you have not given me any concrete facts. You just say that there are facts. However, I will say some of the facts that I do know about.

Carbon dating proves the earth is millions of years old:
A diamond is essentially carbon that has undergone extreme pressure so that the individual carbon atoms bond in a different way than coal. In nature, this process can take hundreds of years, maybe even thousands. However, scientists can now create diamonds. Just because you know a diamond can be created over hundreds of years, you can not say that every diamond you see is hundreds of years old. A similar things happens in nature. There are instances in which carbon decays much more rapidly than its normal half-life. For example, when Mt. St. Helens blew up, the rocks left behind from the explosion had "aged" thousands of years even though people had clearly observed these rocks being changed through the explosion of the mountain, which lasted only a few hours.

The wings of a lizard:
I have no problem with the fact that lizards have "wings." However, the picture hardly shows the "wings" of a bird. There are different kinds of wings and just because an animal has wings does not make it a bird or even related to birds. There are also mammals with "wings," fish with "wings" and yes, reptiles with "wings." Fish have "tails" and dogs have "tails." That does not mean the "tail" of a fish somehow turned into the "tail" of a dog.


Also, the very phrase "survival of the fittest" was not created by Darwin. It was stated by an Anthropologist called Herbert Spencer in his work "Principles of Sociology" and refers to the interactions between different human cultures not animals.

Well, if you have any other "fact," you will have to give it to me before I can show that it is "not completely accurate."

Finally,

Um....
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

First of all, yes, I have already said most of this, but since that information is currently unavailable, I repeated it here and not for you. I was responding to the question put forth to my by zz1000zz. I am sorry if this becomes a repeat of previous conversations, but perhaps I have learned something new since then.

I concede "maybe," as I have said, but my main point is that to believe in the big bang, you have to believe that something can break the laws of science, which means that there is something not bound by the laws of the universe.


Even an explosion is the result of chemical interactions. Chemicals also follow the rules of physics; however, most molecules have already been set in motion, presumably by the big bang. As you learn in chemistry, it is just a matter of them striking each other at the right time under the right conditions. If you pour gas on a stovetop, that does not mean it is going to explode. First, someone has to turn on the stove.


You have yet to explain the process by which carbon dating has classified the earth as millions of years old, yet you expect me to believe it. Yes, the word "miracle" is a little much, but I was copying from the book. My point is that we have never observed anything in nature to occur from that extremely small probability, and so we are only making assumptions that such an event is able to happen. And, this is only for one single protein. The chances for the whole world to have come about through evolution is a lot smaller.


Again, if eternity exists, why did we have to go through the process of evolution? Why could everything not have existed the way it does now for all eternity? The idea for the big bang came not because people first found evidence of it, but because they first theorized that there must have been a starting point for matter and energy. However, the laws of physics and chemistry clearly do not support the idea of any kind of starting point, unless eternal matter and energy exist.


Darwin's theory came from much the same process.
1. There is biological deviation amongst species.
2. The work of Sir Charles Lyell suggests that rock layers have changed through time.
3. Animals must have changed through time as well.
His idea was based simply on differences he saw amongst different species of birds. I could have seen the same thing and said that there must be a God because he created each type of bird uniquely. We were just operating under a different series of beliefs.


Irrelevant, the same things that apply to carbon apply to other substances. And, most people who are so convinced of evolution don't even know about these "other substances."


Plants from Mt. St. Helens. That was my fault; it was late. Regardless, the idea is still the same: natural disasters can interfere with carbon dating.

I don't remember conceding this point and if I did, it was because I had not fully worked out the idea yet. Longer scales do not equal longer jumps. If I tie a parachute to a person's back, they can't run faster. And, the longer scales are supposed to be weak and flimsy because they are turning into feathers, so they would not provide better protection.


Of course, so how is that picture in any way proof that birds wings developed from Lizards?

How is that any different from what evolutionists do? I remember the xrays of a whales fin and a hand next to each other in my biology book being proof that somehow we evolved from the same ancestors as whales.


Not quite. Darwin did not have the means to explain his theory completely and in fact, conceded that his theory was full of obvious holes. However, people believed in his idea so much that they went out looking for things to support it, even from unrelated and irrelevant sources. That phrase is used as support for Darwinism over and over again, when it has nothing to do with what we say it does. Another point is simply that a lot of information is taken out of context and shoved into the idea of evolution because it makes the idea work better, not because it is actually relevant.

sweatdrop This is starting all over again, but maybe we need to go over it again. I have learned a lot since then, and so have you, I assume. Besides, the original idea for this post was to let people, who had been left out of the other thread or simply came in too late, to be able to participate in the debate. Hopefully, some new people will bring in some new ideas.

First of all, I was combining my two points about the laws of chemistry and the laws of physics. To believe in the big bang, you have to say that something created the matter or that it always existed (not arguing God here) and that something had to set the forces in motion or the forces always had to be in motion (again, not directly referencing God at this point).


At this particular instant, I was countering your statement that an explosion is a force, which was before we got to the idea of eternal energy.

I could also look up the method Sir Fred Hoyle used. The point is that you did not give me the process for carbon dating, but then criticized me for not giving the process for his experiment.


There are a lot of things that you can calculate that don't exist. Calculus will show you that. For example, I can calculate the velocity of a ball as it drops. If I drop the ball from 10 feet in the air, I can still calculate the vertical velocity the ball will have after 15 feet, but in reality, the ball will have no vertical velocity (or negative) because it has hit the ground. To use an example with probability, I can calculate the probability that a metal ball will bounce 20 times based on its mass and the force put into the bounce, but if that ball were over a magnet, it would not bounce at all. However, the probability calculated before the experiment is still valid; it is just not able to happen in reality.


First, eternity changes our definition of time.
Second, matter does not change at a constant rate because there are other factors to consider.


First of all, people were working under the assumption of evolution and so did not attempt to explain the idea in other means. I know you are going to attack me for this, but there is another way to explain the light that I don't remember at the moment. My dad (who works with this light for his job and did his ph.d on this kind of light) told me about it. I will ask him the next time I have a chance (which may be a while because I no longer live with him as I am at college).

Most of that was after Darwin's book and by another person entirely, but Darwin still stated his theory with little evidence and Darwin's ideas were considered absolutely true because people liked the idea.

Honestly, my source is my dad who lived in Washington at the time and learned all about it. I trust my dad the same way you trust your teachers, but I could go look it up. So could you. As for ice cores, they can be thrown off just like anything else.

They would not be intimidating at first, but would hinder movement quickly. If the change took hundreds of years, the predators would have killed off the crippled lizards long before their scales got large enough to be intimidating. Also, lizards are still very small and there are a lot of predators that would not have been intimidated by a few extra inches of scales.


Then you also have to say that because lizards have a tail, dogs must be related to them. And, because modern fish have eyes we have the same ancestor. This may sound good to you, but you have to consider the fact that you are calling for a direct ancestor because of one trait. This idea is not supported by evolution because it would require animals to have much more common ancestors then would be possible. It would be like saying that because my dog has two ears and I have two ears we have the same grandmother.

I have a feeling this point is going to take a while to work through and I have homework, so I will leave it here for now and work more on it later. You have plenty to work with for now, and I really have to go get some work done.