Lets first examine the reasons why one can act like the atheist position is a stronger position. Do you have any explanation of the how the big bang happened? Did it just materialize? Since we know you can not answer any question prior to the first milliseconds after the big bang. Perhaps you would like to explain why some of greatest scentific minds in astrophysics state that the universe, we live in, looks spectacularly designed.
What was "time" before time started? You cannot answer questions that are illogical. The reason that "some of greatest scentific minds in astrophysics state that the universe, we live in, looks spectacularly designed" is very simple. Natural phenomena always appear to humans to be "spectacularly designed." The wonder is to find out the real reason behind these "designs." And we have done so, in many areas of science. If you're interested, read this review article in Review of Modern Physics, http://prola.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v65/i3/p851_1 Pattern formation outside of equilibrium And here is an example of pattern formation in a chemical reaction that mimics "birth" and "death" of life: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v369/n6477/abs/369215a0.html Experimental observation of self-replicating spots in a reaction−diffusion system Scientists have been working on these problems for decades. If you don't know anything about them, you don't have to expose your ignorance by spouting nonsense. By appealing to a "Designer" for all these phenomena, you would have denied our chance for all the scientific discoveries listed in these articles.
In order: You make the right point but the wrong conclusion. Time began after the big bang but we know there was a big bang before time. Therefore it is not illogical to say hey athiests you know nothing about the "creation" of the big bang so you no nothing more than someone who believes in a creator. That is not illogical it is a fact. Next while you seem to engage in the same misdirected sophistry that many anti IDer like to use. You really did not get the point I was making. Astrophysicists have put forth the anthropic principle. The founder of String theory and a chair of the physics dept at Stanford has said that our universe looks spectaculary designed and to combat the conclusion of IDers he has proposed that there are millions of universes. Your responses were feeble counters not adderssing the substance at all.
This is why I said you refuse to learn. I repeat again, neither anthropic principle nor string theory are established scientific theories. They are not on the same level as the theories of gravity or evolution which have been scientifically proven. You use unproven speculations to support your opinion. I tried to streer you to real science and you didn't even take a look. You just refuse to learn.
Gravity itself is a fact of life. Random ignorant chance theory of the origin of life from non design is not a fact of life. No surprise that you try to confuse a known quantity, i.e. gravity, with a complicated speculative theory replete with guesses and unverifiable assumptions...
Gravity itself is a fact of life. Evolution itself is a fact of life. Your "Random ignorant chance theory of the origin of life from non design" is not a fact of life, it is gobbledygook No surpise in your continuous use of such confused incomprehensible pompous jargon, it's a fact of life
you clearly do not undertand logic. It is not I who does not learn. I am learning about this argument every month. It is you who does not understand. baseline --- 1. No one knows what happened during the big bang or before. Therefore the athiest position is as much faith based as the designer position. 2. Given that we really do not "know" -- what is the best argument. Right now the argument for no design is virtually impossible to prove. (unless we find millions of parallel universes.) The argument for design is being argued by some astrophysicists. consequently the only rational positions. 1. No one knows or 2. If you had to pick it looks like some astrophysicists are saying our specific universe is designed. So if there is only one universe the best argument is design. 3. If there are millions I would say we are back to number "1" above. No compare my argument with the irrational crap you apparently like to argue. What is your argument. There is no design and no designer because I say so based on my visceral reaction to evangelicals?
You're just showing your ignorance. Physicists know a lot about what happened "during the big bang." Here is an introduction for your benefit: http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/InTheBeginning.html Then you're twisting scientists words to fit your own religion. The scientists are saying that the universe "appears designed." This makes perfect sense to me. There are things that we don't yet understand so these things appear to us to be "designed" by some superbeing. It's just a way to marvel at the beauty of the universe. It does not necessarily reflect a belief that there is a "Designer." However, such marveling is not part of scientific endeavor. I don't need to invoke a "Designer." Whether there is or is not a "Designer" is irrelevant to science. Up til today at least, all understood natural phenomena have physical explanations that do not need a "Designer." Phenomena not yet understood appear to us to have a "Designer" behind them. A scientist believes that in a matter of time, these will be understood scientifically as well - which means that they too, will be explained without the need to invoke a "Designer." The day we need a "Designer" to explain a natural phenomenon, is the day when science dies.
Ayone see a pattern forming up here? Z Alias: randomness bothers me The rest of us: Well, look. Here's how new developments in science approach the idea of randomness. Z Alias: evolution is speculative. The rest of us: Actually no, it's scientific. It evolves through a process of hypothesis and testing. Z Alias: I don't feel comfortable so I am just going to repeat the same phrase over and over again - random ignorant chance is unacceptable. That is the foundation of my arguments in favour of ID. If necessary I will repeat it another 500 times. This thread was dead a long time ago, ever since the ID'ers changed their stroy after first claiming that ID was a scientific theory and later claiming that the scientific method was like Devil Worship to them. Their story has changed here 3 times. Z is left with nothing except parroting the same phrase over and over.
TraderNik wrote: What is dead here is your brain. No ID'er on this thread has changed their story three times. This is all a figment of your imagination because you insist (without proof) that there is only one ID'er on this thread who is posting under different aliases. The fact that one ID'er claims that ID is a theory and another ID'er claims ID is not a theory should be a clue that you are dealing with more than one person. But no, you prefer to think there is just one ID'er here and they have changed their story! What a doofus!