depending on your idea of what god is then that could be true.

I don't think there should be public schools. So ha, I don't have to partake in this headache!

__________________

Support FairTax!|Boortz|Vote Libertarian!
The People's Cube

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery." – Winston Churchill

Economic Left/Right: +10
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.85

Evolution is not an intelligent process. Both evolution and intelligence are examples of a more general concept, which I've heard referred to as an "optimization process". Evolution itself may not be entirely random, but it is stochastic. It is driven by elementary operations that are random: the mutation of genes, which are then tested against the current environment for survivability. One thing that some people don't seem to understand is that order can and does emerge from chaos. Mutation is random, but evolution is somewhat predictable.

And I'd agree that ID doesn't imply God. Human life could theoretically be the result of intentional actions performed by some more advanced alien species. This would be the intelligent design of human life. However if you're talking about the universe itself, I would equate the intelligent designer to God.

Time, although as illusory as space (see holographic theory) also began with the big bang because time and space are linked. They are actually one thing. And without time, nothing would ever change. So a "naturally" occurring big bang is not possible. It really does take a creator to make time and space out of absolutely nothing, even if the creation is just an illusion. Beyond that, evolution is not an exclusive theory to ID or Creationism. Creationism gets a bad name from people who insist that things went down just like in the bible, when in fact the existance of a creator does not mean that our ideas about It are right. It may just be that we need to devote more scientific thought (and less dogma) to the nature of God.

__________________
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.

It's a post 9/11 world.

I do have one reservation about the Theory of Evolution though. I read Richard Dawkins book The Blind Watchmaker (really a must read for those who would argue for evolution), and one thing he brought up is that when one species has, say, 20 chromosomes, and another has 15, the two are on what Dawkins calls different "operating systems" or "filing systems". This is why a dog can't breed with a cat. Their DNA cannot communicate with one other. My objection is this: when a "new" species is created (first 2,3,4,5,... chromosome creature) through mutation, how can the new creature with a one in a million mutation have anything to breed with? And if it was close enough to breed with some similar animal and created a sterile "mule" creature, that would also be an evolutionary dead-end. Also, the whole evolutionary process only works in miniscule increments, according to Dawkins, and the change from one "Operating System" to another has to happen in one step. You can't have 14.9 chromosomes.

__________________
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.

It's a post 9/11 world.

How evolution can generate species with differing number of chromosomes is a good question, one that is already answered by science. All you need to do is a little reading.

By the way, "miniscule" doesn't imply partial-chromosomes...

its funny how nobody can directly answer anything and just says "its proven by science". the fact is that youre trying to explain something you dont even understand yourself... its like going to the doctor and they guy next to you tells you what your problem is...

some evidence of your statements would be nice.

Surely I don't need to educate anyone... That's not the function of debate. There are plenty of texts out there which can be read freely on this subject. Science is not some mystical source of knowledge like God. It's something tangible and accessible to anyone who isn't intellectually lazy.

It seems that you argue against science based purely on the hearsay of what science says, rather than based on your own personal reading and knowledge about scientific research. Much of the time, such hearsay is drastically inaccurate, and so you're arguing against a skewed view of science.

You speak of "science" as though it were a separate entity from humanity. "Hearsay of what science says", isn't that what you are giving me? Isn't it, in fact, what anyone says about it? Who is this Science so that we may question him directly?

__________________
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.

It's a post 9/11 world.

Oh, I forgot to rebutt your first sentence about debate. No, education in debate is not required if you wish to debate for debate's sake. If, however, you wish to persuade others to your point of view, information that they did not previously have must be presented, otherwise why should they change their minds?

__________________
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.

It's a post 9/11 world.