"Amarth" said:I'm quite happy to agree with a lot of what Amarth says here. I guess my only reservations are likewise, whether or not it's been proven that certain things portray ID. I'm glad to see us talk this over reasonably, and come to an agreement of sorts.
Irreducible complexity is very important. It is the part of evolution that makes it science. It's what gives it falsifiability. If it can be proven (well, generally accepted) that there exists indeed an irreducibly complex structure, one that could never have evolved, then evolution is proven false and a better [i]scientific[i] theory should be proposed. For now, I don't think we have a proven irreducibly complex structure nor an alternative theory.
I'm also not sure how one should go and prove that a certain structure has or does not have irreducible complexity. There might be millions of ways to evolve a certain structure. Anyway, evolution of the eye and evolution of flagella.
"Amarth" said:Since when are you an expert on the matter, and where is your source of knowledge that lets you make that kind of statement? I'm very firmly of the opinion that it is not a fallacy to take part(s) of the bible and interpret them literally. From over 10 years of Religious Education and Teen Talk (in which a group of local teens from varying religious standpoints, and even athiests) congregate to discuss issues that range from religion, to politics, to the environment.
"Crazy" said:It's neither a problem nor the basis of the Christian creation story.
Isn't omnipotence a paradox unto itself? The very basis of the Christian creation story?
It might be a problem if you apply scientific reasoning on it (the unmovable rock paradox) but that problem is inherent in language and other advanced structures. It's one you see everywhere, from jokes ("Caesar said that all Romans are liars") over logic paradoxes (Russell's paradox) to the very foundation of maths (Gödel's incompleteness theorem). But in religion, there's no need to question the omnipotence of God. No-one ever claimed that it's a scientific truth.
And the basis of the Christian (I assume you mean Genesis, actually having Jewish roots) creation story is that God is close to his people, not that we are some sort of offspring from his omnipotent abilities. It's a tale that is far older than about any scientific result, passed on for generations by oral recounting. It is also, for a great part, a political story about the rejection of the Babylonian religion by the Hebrews. It is nonsense to look at it in our current context and interpret it literally. If you do that, you cut away the essence of the text: tradition.
Obviously some parts of the bible are metaphors, and others are not. Which are and which are not is really not all that important. The vast majority if biblicial material is metaphorical, and that has a very important purpose those metaphors are meant to give lessons, teach, and so forth. Whether or not one should take a given passage literally isn't all that important, in most instances. Does it really matter if Adam and Eve were real people? In Hebrew, the name Adam (or rather it's hebrew equivalent) roughly means "Man." Given that, it's entirely possible that Genesis is not meant to be taken literally. However there's also the possibility that it is. The question I'd have to pose is, "Does it matter?"
"The Gemini" said:You are using an awful and sickening tactic yourself. That's the tactic of lumping religion into one gigantic group. Another, is that science and religion are compltely incompatible. This isn't the thread, and I'm not very eager to launch into a debate on that entire subject, by I myself as a "religious" person, just might be in a better position to evaluate (at least my own religion's) view on that matter, ne? I never said that evolution has never happened. I guess the statement that I'm trying to make is that I'm quite convinced that evolution has occurred, to a degree. The point of contention is, is that I do not find it feasible that evolution has occurred 100% naturally. I'm rather convinced that "something" (I believe this something to be God.) has lent a helping hand.
What I think is interesting is that many christians have accepted the evolution theory, and still they are christians. The basis of christianity, the genesis, is so important to why Jesus came to Earth, to remove the sin that had followed humanity since they first rejected God. The evolution theory however shows us that there were no Adam or Eve. With no Adam and Eve, there can't have been any Fall of Man, and thus it seems ilogical that God sent Jesus to Earth. By accepting evolution, christians and other religious people, becomes hypocrites.
Science and religion as it is today is not compatible at all, and the ID supporters know this. So, they come up with Intelligent Design in an attempt to be recognized in the scientifical community, or at least by the community as a whole. They know religion is unable to win a debate against science, since religion is in reality only based on assumptions while science is based on assumptions and observations. So, what do they do? They create some pseudo-science theory to get on equal footing. It's an awfull and sickening tactic, but the worst thing is that it actually works several places in the USA!
Lastly, addressing the issue of you labeling Christians as hypocrites. I'm hesitant to even go there.
Speaking frankly: You are a jerk.
You don't see me going out and labeling "all athiests" as "Horribly sinful blasphemers of the All Mighty and those who surely shall find an eternity of torment," do you? No, because it's damn well offensive and a hindrance to decency and any chance of getting something out of this. I'll thank you to leave shit like that on the roadside, when you're heading over to serious discussions.