For Herepton and any others interested

Actually, in a way you could say that Darwinists also believe that things ARE designed. The question is by what? Have you ever heard of the monte carlo method? This is somewhat nonsense. Just because a program seems to be working fine with windows doesn't mean it was created by Bill Gates or Microsoft.Like I said, in a way of speaking, evolution is all about design. The real question is by what? Creationists say the judeo-christian god designed everything. Evilutionists say a natural algorithm, if you will, designed everything.

I wasn't referring to design. I was referring to appearance of design. I don't know. What I do know is that the universe looks more like a clock than a simple I/O arithmetic program. We're not dodging. We're just saying that going from "appearance of design" to "the designer must be the judeo-christian god and the holy bible (king james version) is his living word" is quite a big jump. As far as I know, no scientifically minded person would ever say he is "open" for evidence of god. Science is designed to deal with purely natural phenomena. In other words, we refuse to take the "goddunit" as an explanation for the unknowns, or gaps in knowledge.But if you will, if we had followed the path creationists suggest long ago, we would never have figured out that the solar system more closely resembled the heliocentric rather than the geocentric model. If we had followed the path creationists suggest we take, we wouldn't be having a satellite communication system at all.Why proceed with human endeavor if we start using "goddunit" to explain the gaps? "Goddunit" does nothing to further our understanding of the universe. How do we measure this designer? Do we fill the room up with water and calculate the difference between the calculated volume and the measured volume?Unless creationists can present evidence that religious inspiration can and do further human understanding of the physical universe, science stays an investigative tool purely for natural phenomena. First of all, we don't say that the appearance of design characteristics indicate anti-intelligent process. All we are saying is that purely natural explanations seem to be adequate enough to explain the appearance of design. Again, I must point to the monte carlo method, which has very similar characteristics as random mutation and natural selection. And we look forward to purely natural explanations to fill in the gaps of knowledge sometime in the future.But the even bigger reason why we must not and cannot accept "goddunit" as an explanation in scientific endeavor is it does absolutely nothing to further our understanding of the universe. The discovery of anti-biotics resulted directly from the theory of evolution and has saved more lives than all the faith healers ever did. No, I don't have any data to back this up, but I have studied enough history to know that if I can count more on anti-biotics than the local priest or pastor when I get a potentially life-threatening infection. Fortunately, science goes beyond words, otherwise we'd still believe that falling stars are actually falling stars. I don't understand what you mean here. Well, IFF there is a god, and IFF god created everything and intended for us to find him/her/it, nothing at the moment.How big do you suppose the universe is? How many "natural laws" do you think we haven't discovered yet? Admittedly, I haven't quite hit the big 30 yet, but I do know that what we don't know is a hell of a lot more than what we do know.Take a look at it this way. When you were little, did your father ever hid easter eggs for you to find? If not, just imagine it. Just imagine a loving father hiding easter eggs around the yard and around the house. Imagine how disappointed he would be if you, as a little child, refuse to go around finding the eggs and declare that all the eggs to be found are in daddy's possession.Now, imagine how disappointed god would be if we simply throw up our hands and declare "goddunit" to explain every natural phenomenon we discover, especially after he/she/it went through the trouble of creating this vast universe with all the natural algorithms just sitting there waiting for us to discover.Do you think at the moment it is more emotionally satisfying for daddy for you to find the eggs or for you to just sit there, worship daddy, and declare that all the eggs are in his possession?I must confess that I gave up on believing in a god some years ago. But if you really believe in god and love him/her/it, the more sensible thing for you to do is start investigating natural phenomena out there and try to find explanations for them other than "goddunit". In other words, if you really love daddy, go around and hunt for the eggs

I'm in shock. No replies from either Herepton or Randman? Knowing you guys as I do (mostly from lurking in your threads), you usually don't let people like Kuresu and me off that easily. What gives?

Perhaps I should have been more clear on this point.In another part of my post you were referring to, I specifically stated that science isn't equipped to deal with anything beyond the natural. God, by your very own definition, is supernatural, which, by your own words, couldn't be tested or measured. By claiming something as evidence of a supernatural being, you are essentially admitting that we are dealing with an unknown that can't possibly be tested or measured by any conventional mean. How does that further our understanding of the universe? After a while? I think this is the first time I've ever engaged in a direct conversation with you.

I have no argument with this statement. However, so far the only evidence presented of "god", is essentially non-evidence. For example, how many times have we seen the creationist/IDist make the argument that life is made up of irreducibly complex systems and this is evidence of a creator. Further more, how many times have we seen the creationist make the argument that the judeo-christian god is the one true god because the bible says so and we know the bible is god's true word because god says so?When I said no scientifically minded person should ever consider the so-called "evidence for god", I was referring to the non-evidence evidence.But don't mind me. I'm willing to sit back and wait for any creationist or IDist to present at least an outline of how god can be tested or measured. No, the holy spirit doesn't count.

Well, if you put it that way I guess there's nothing more to discuss.One thought though. That was somewhat gracious of you. I was expecting holy hand grenades flying my way

The answer is simple. Imagine if tomorrow we have a thermal nuclear war and most people die instantly from the blasts and radiation. Few that are left are faced with a 2 year winter, which kills off most of the survivors. Around the planet, only a hand full of people are left. Because of this sudden change, almost over night society has been reduced back to the very basics. The judeo-christian god is forgotten. Allah is forgotten.Fast forward 5 thousand years from now. Another technical society has been built. People have rediscovered the hydrogen atom because no matter what happens the hydrogen atom is still there. People have rediscovered how planetary motion works because despite all the commotion the planets remained. People have rediscovered calculus and other essential math concepts for a technical society to exist.And I have no doubt that they will have rediscovered religion. The thing is do you honestly think it will be the judeo-christian god they will rediscover?Actually, you don't have to imagine the future. Just look back at history. Knowledge of the natural world (mathematics, astronomy, etc.) were discovered and rediscovered over and over after each collapse of civilization. The interesting thing is we almost never see the same god being rediscovered.The answer, in short, is the natural algorithms will always be there to be discovered, lost, rediscovered, lost, and rediscovered again. The invisible guy you claim to be behind the whole thing (aka Hank) won't be there the next time around.

Ok, so let me get this straight. Say that everybody on earth dies off. Over time, everything is destroyed by the weather. An alien race stumbles upon this planet and finds a human blood sample frozen in the arctic. They use the sample to make humans and these humans are the first humans in 2 million years. Are you saying that through some miraculous thing the knowledge of christ somehow comes to these people?How is this natural?

You remind me of a debate I once had a few years ago with a holocaust denier. His whole argument was based on "christ was too good to allow something like that to happen."

I don't think it is inflammatory as long as you can tell me why what I said sounded like hitler's eugenic program.The holocaust denier I talked to used the same reason you used to argue that our culture could never go extinct. Obviously, christ never stopped the holocaust from happening. What you define as "natural" is drastically different than what the rest of us define as natural. You seem to think that a magical being like god with his doppelganger self jesus christ is purely natural. I'm sorry I'm going to stop talking to you after this post, or will try to stop anyway. I could never bring myself to believe that magic is natural.One more thing. Notice how we are talking about science and objectivity here and your entire post looks more like a christian evangelical rant.

Honestly, does anyone here actually take this seriously?