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/
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!!
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."
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.
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: