Besides that, the battle is not between science and religion, but evolution theory and science. Evolution theory doesn’t have enough evidence to support it. People just want to believe in it so bad they just pretend that there is. Check out these sites for more information:

Center
for Scientific Creation
Has a free book online and is
a great resource. Dr. Walt Brown issues a debate challenge to any
who believe in evolution.
Science Ministries
Your source for news and commentary on bioethics
Discovery
Institute’s Center For Science and Culture
Another great source of evolution refutation material.
Study up to amaze your friends and school boards.
Institute For Creation Research
Get some facts under your belt.
Creation Research Society
If you already know about Creation Science maybe you better
join these eggheads!
Answers in Genesis
The group liberals love to hate.
Creation-Evolution
Encyclopedia
They have a great book you can order.
Arizona Origin
Science Association Does your state have a group like
this?!
The
Handy Dandy Evolution RefuterYou will soon become an expert.

Where did it come from? I have no idea. Thier is an awfull lot in this world that i don’t know. Alot that i will never know.

But the difference between me and you is that I don’t need to have a god to explain it for me.

Faith is, by definition, belief in somthing that cannot ever be proven. Unless religion goes through VERY radical changes, then no god will EVER be proven to exist.

SCience, on the other hand, can be proven. You can analyze it, you can dissect it. You cant do these things to god because, as I stated earlier, if you could then god would cease to be god.

I dislike ID because to me it seems like nothing but an easy way out. “Lets say god did it, lets say men from mars did it” (And belive me I would love it if it turned out that we came from some demented alien in his labratory)

But there is no evidence for it and, more importantly, it makes no sense.

Its like this: A tree is knocked over in the middle of a forest. The tree is badly burned although none of the trees surrounding it are harmed at all.

Now a scientists take is that a lightning bolt hit the tree and knocked it over (ITs called Occums razor, I think)

But ID would say no, because we didn’t see the lightning bolt and so instead of lightning it must have been an alien spaceship that hovered above the forest and then knocked the tree down with a death ray (I know the death ray is cheesey, stick with me)

Now, It very well COULD BE that an alien spaceship came down and zapped the tree, but which theory makes more sense? You decide.

Oh and im backtrackeing to the big bang, thier IS evidence for the big bang. Scientists have found background radiation reverberating throughout the cosmos that is an echo of the big bang itself.

This is getting technicall but you questioned the big band and how it started.

Thier is a theory (and at this point i use the word VERY loosely)that the universe that we live in exists on a plane that is moving in parralell to another plane. These planes are atracted to each other and when they touch, it sends out MASSIVE amounts of energy that basically starts the big bang. This sudden charge of energy pushes these two planes apart agian untill the explosion dies down and they tougch again, etc. You get how it works. I stress that this theory is VERY different from the theory of evolution in the way that concrete proof has been found for evolution and this is, so far, just a theory.

However, what separates this theory from your god-theory is that sienctists are actively trying to test and prove this theory wheras it is impossible to test your god-theory.

It is very possible that the plane theory will be proven wrong, however, your god-theory can never be proven right OR wrong due to the very nature of god.

What i was talking about in the firts comment about science destroying god was largely hypothetical because gods existance cannot be proven.

Unless, of course, you have an experiment that would test god. But untill then religion stays out of the science classrooms.

TD

Hi, I’m Terry Dillard of the Right Track blog. That’s how my post started, and I believe that those words were the very last that you comprehended, so let me set the record straight.

On the contrary, sir, I know plenty about evolution and ID. Besides having a Master’s Degree in Counseling and having qualified for Mensa (I paid my dues, got my card, and then dropped out to save money — I’d proven what I wanted to prove, right?), I’m a naturally curious kind of guy.

I know I’m a good-looking guy, but LISTEN to the post, why don’t you? The post is about how the ACLU doesn’t mind the blind theories advocated by science, but they do mind the theories advocated by faith. Technically, neither can be proved. My point is, why is “scientific” theory more accepted than the faith passed down through millenia, when it is absolutely no more valid? I mean, if there IS a God (and I believe that there is), then Creationism and ID are more valid than Darwin and the Big Bang.

You say that ID is crappy science. My friend, if you read the definition of “theory” that I pulled from my Merriam-Webster’s and placed prominently in the video, you’d understand that theories are JUST theories. Again, YOU have faith to believe in your God named Science, I have faith to believe in my God Jehovah, what’s the difference? You can argue till the cows come home, and the bottom line is that you’ll end up saying “just because”, because that’s the only reason you could get me to accept, AND LIKEWISE FROM ME TO YOU.

Your statement that science would dissect God until it could control him shows where you stand with science — it can do anything, can’t it? Well, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting on that to happen.

Neitzsche said that there is no God. We have no proof of that, but then one day God said that there is no Neitzsche, and with little effort I could probably pinpoint his grave.

You’re a believe in science, right? Then tell me — where did the MATTER come from that the Big Bang exploited to create the universe? It was just always there, right? That’s all you can answer. So how is that different from my belief that God has always existed, and create the heavens and the earth?

Expand your horizons a little, dude. Visit my blog at http://www.righttrack.us and take up the argument there.

TD

Oh, and GM: he’s using the “New English”–you know, kinda like “new math”. It’s not necessary that any recognizeable orthography be followed in “New English” since, in the philoophy that gave it birth, meaningful content of language is entirely relative. (Relative to a 100-monkey stenographic pool, that is.)

1. The universe has always existed, so we don’t need to address where it came from.

2. Everything in the universe, large and small, submits to a few well-understood deterministic laws.

3. Life is the love child of luck and chemistry.

4. Cells, basic units of life, are little more than blobs of Jello.

5. All the sophisticated organisms around us grew from natural selection.

ID on the other hand, is the argument that certain features of the natural world–from miniature machines and digital information found in living cells, to the fine-tuning of physical constants–are best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.

ID debunks the idea that 1) the universe has always existed and 2) everything submits to a few deterministic laws, 3) life is the love child of luck and chemistry 4) cells, basic units of life, are blobs of JellO, and 5) Natural selection.

The other thing about Darwinists is there is one God; matter–and science is its prophet. Darwinists believe as communists do; that scientists can believe whatever they want to in their personal lives, but they must appeal only to the material when explaining nature.

So Evolutionists make the unbelievable rule that anyone who dares speak of purpose or design within science is no longer a scientist. That’s simply preposterous.

The end result, of course, is that ID DOES fill in a lot of the “gaps” that Evolution fails to explain because of all of its ridiculous rules that shut out real science.

The theory that we are “designs” rather than “occurrences” actually spurs scientists on to find out more. With the theory of evolution, any scientific evidence that comes along that doesn’t agree with its tidy little dictums is cast aside as not relevant.

ID opens the door to new discovery because it doesn’t have those stupid rules.

Natural selection and random genetic mutations –as a theory behind what has happened over the centuries on the earth–is really very limited. ID opens the door to new possibilities in science, and is gaining more and more traction in the scientific community.