Religion is a hypothesis.

CaptainObvious · Dec 2, 2009

Quote from stu:

You're still making up (/copying) your suggestions about things that science doesn't say,

Life is possible , not from big bang itself that produced only two elements, but because of coalescence, the production of heavier elements much later from the formation, and collapse and massive explosions of stars, hurling matter across the universe, to form planets , including earth.

Where do you get your ideas from? They are not science. It's the most ridiculous distortion of scientific information you could produce.

There is nothing to examine in ID. It starts out wrong and in fact ,it is not even as good as being wrong . It's worse than wrong. Why do you cling to ideas that can never even start to explain anything, including themselves because they are so fundamentally flawed?
How come you need an intelligent designer that bad you would jettison your own intelligence to hope for one?

I did not state that I am a follower of ID, I'm just presenting some of their arguments, of which I agree with a few. I am more inclined to be in the BioLogos camp, aka Theistic evolution, which has the following premises:
BioLogos rests on the following premises:

1. The universe was created by God, approximately 14 billion years ago.
2. The properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, it is possible that the development of living organisms was part of God's original creation plan.
4. Once life began, no special further interventions by God were required.
5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
6. Humans are unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanations and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the knowledge of right and wrong and the search for God

This is basically the brain child of Francis Collins. I would suggest you read his book, The Language of God. Don't let the title fool you. Some basic research on the guy and you'll note his prominence in science and politics. I will say that of you're a hardcore atheist, you'll probably remain unconvinced. If you're a hardcore creationist, you too will remain unconvinced. For those that can get past their own personal issues with religion and/or science you'll find it an interesting read.
A link to his website for those brave souls who dare to continue the search for truth, regardless of where it takes you. http://www.biologos.org/

kut2k2 · Dec 2, 2009

Quote from jficquette:

Actually, its pretty stupid to think that there is not a Creator since the odds of Life, even the universe(s) forming on there own are so small as to render it implausible.

Actually it's more than pretty stupid to think there has to be a Creator without postulating where the Creator came from. Who or what created the Creator? And who or what created the Creator's Creator? And who or what created the Creator's Creator's Creator? Ad infinitum, ad ridiculo.

"It's turtles all the way down, Dr. Sagan."

ROTFLMAO!!

bugscoe · Dec 2, 2009

Quote from Ricter:

I've said it before, but the whole God created the universe in 7 days story is totally unbelievable.

That is, until you consider the alternative story, that the random action of hydrogen atoms over time eventually produced the abomination that is the blue polyester leisure suit.

and the white shoes to go with it.

kut2k2 · Dec 2, 2009

For those theists who berate science for not having all the answers about Origins, there's the age-old question:

"Do you want it quick or do you want it right?"

Religion says: "We get it for you quick!"

Science says: "We'll get it for you right."

Index piker · Dec 2, 2009

Quote from kut2k2:

Actually it's more than pretty stupid to think there has to be a Creator without postulating where the Creator came from. Who or what created the Creator? And who or what created the Creator's Creator? Ad infinitum, ad ridiculo.

"It's turtles all the way down, Dr. Sagan."

ROTFLMAO!!

Science's version succumbs to the exact same line of questioning.

Get over it.

bugscoe · Dec 2, 2009

Quote from kut2k2:

Science says: "We'll get it for you right."

Science says: "we have tricks to hide the decline"

kut2k2 · Dec 2, 2009

Quote from Index piker:

Science's version succumbs to the exact same line of questioning.

Get over it.

You don't understand science. Get over it.

jficquette · Dec 2, 2009

Quote from kut2k2:

For those theists who berate science for not having all the answers about Origins, there's the age-old question:

"Do you want it quick or do you want it right?"

Religion says: "We get it for you quick!"

Science says: "We'll get it for you right."

Like with Global Warming LOL

Index piker · Dec 2, 2009

You can pretend all you want to, but I know better.
science's version of creation suffers from the line of questioning what precedes the first cause.
Just like the "who created God" conundrum.

CaptainObvious · Dec 2, 2009

Quote from kut2k2:

And not a bit of it is sourced. How convenient.

BTW there is no such thing as a pure vacuum in nature. And a vacuum is not free of energy "by definition", it is free of matter by definition. The coldest temperature in nature is the 3 degrees above absolute zero CMB (Cosmic microwave background radiation) that is evidence of the Big Bang explosion. Absolute zero has to be manmade in laboratories because nothing gets that cold naturally.

Not quite true. A pure vacuum has yet to be discovered or replicated in a laboratory. Quantaum "THEORY" can be used to predict that "no volume of space can be perfectly empty". Theory being the operative word.
I do however tend to agree that in the imperfect vacuum of space, at the beginning of time, there was energy. The 64 dollar question is what was that energy, specifically, and why/how did it explode? If you can answer that question, which BTW you'd be the first to do, then you can tackle how a pure energy explosion, in a vacuum devoid of matter, produces any matter at all.
I still contend that the real issue you atheists have is with organized religion. You simply cannot get past your inability to separate a creator from religion. Having been there for many years I know just how high of a hurdle it is to jump. Think of it this way. Religion hi-jacked a creator in the same fashion the radical left has hi-jacked the Democratic party. Just because the now Democratic party bares no resemblance to it's former self does not mean the Democratic party never existed. That should set your head spinning if you're a radical leftist AND a atheist too.:eek: :eek: