If you asked me why i think that Jesus was supernatural i would probably have to gather my thoughts for a little bit, and give you a fairly long and detailed explaination (although not ridiculously long) on why i believe it so. So if someone asked you 'why is it that it is clear that it can only be this way thru common ancestry', what would be your semi-detailed explaination?

And by common ancestry you do mean that we all go back to one 'first' life form right? I'm pretty sure you don't believe that there were say 1,000 original life forms completely unlinked to each other and they all evolved into 10,000,000 life forms. That's what I believe, I don't believe we all can call the ameba our great ancestor, if you believe that then that is the explaination i would like to hear from you (and I'll research your response because I don't like to run away from view points that disagree with mine). I'll tell you what has me locked into my denial of macro evolution. Years ago I watched the movie 12 Angry Men and I remember one by one the jurors changed their minds to not guilty except 2 'guilty' jurors were left. So they asked the one guy for his thoughts and he said 'The woman saw him do it! That to me is IMMOVABLE evidence.' With evolution the lack of transitional fossils has always been immovable evidence for me, i just can't get around it. Every now and then they will come out with such and such a fossil that is the 'missing link' between A and B but it just makes me shake my head because the amount of transitionally minute changes a species would have to go thru to go from A to B is a lot, not one link! The fossil record would have to at least somewhat resemble Optimus Prime transforming into a truck (many inbetween stages). And this is where my debate with people at work usually ends because i simply don't know what else to say, I am genuinely very unimpressed by the fossil record

I agree that evolution is science, it is the very detailed examination of how living organisms function and change. Then there are other fields of science and they too are very detailed at taking us down to the smallest basement level details of the physical world. I agree with you that I have no more than the casual reader's knowlege of evolution or perhaps any field of science. But I guess we just don't see eye to eye. I will never understand how me attaining a master's degree level of information on how these things work will possibly help me to discover what is below that basement level. If it is a power source or just random mutation. We are all taking a leap of faith my friend whether we are theists or atheists. Surely you must know that there are people out there who do have masters degrees in biology and also believe in God. In all fairness can you really come back and say 'Yes all the theist scientists are idiots who think they know their field, but any scientist who has a clue would never believe in God.' I don't want to put words in your mouth but you have to know that such a statement is not true

The belief that the complexity of the universe, and of life, and everything, can not possible be the product of blind chance is held by many, probably purely by instinct and not by research. There are a lot of people out there that cannot ever come to believe that there is not a force/entity/God/thing, whatever you want to name it, holding all of this together. You simply can't blow these people away with impressive scientific concepts and change their minds because no matter what you reveal to them they will simply agree with your research and say 'uh yeah, sounds pretty damn impressive and organized, hence an organizer! (ID).

I'm sure you don't like the ID argument 101 which pretty much says everything we have ever observed in our life that has intelligent organization to it (a refrigerator, toilet, computer, etc.) has had a designer, therefore why would we not assume (based on a lifetime of experience not ignorance) that when we reach the top of the mountain (the universe itself and all in it, which is more impressively organized then anything) the same is not also true? Is not every single example in life of organization having an organizer good evidence to judge that which is beyond life (the power source of it all)? Is that really ignorant? I see it as a conclusion using simple probability. Do you really not see how holding this belief can totally have nothing to do with religion for people but merely a philosophical stance? All the facts you are telling me are the result of a designer or of random processes! I don't deny any scientific facts you point out but none of them can argue for or against intelligent design vs. random chance. Science is constantly observing and predicting and discovering new things about the physical world around us. But to make a claim about the driving force behind the physical world will always be totally unprovable, untouchable, you can't research it it's an idea without concrete data. It is a matter of religion or philosophy.

Einstein had a philosophy about the universe and so does your average high school drop out. But your philosophy about what power source drives this physical universe and your knowlege of how the universe opperate are 2 totally different things. Einstein knew 800 times more about how the universe works than I do, but he can't have a better guess than me about what is causing the universe to work that way because such a question can not be researched, it's philosophical. The whole ID vs randomness/evolution is actually a strange argument because it's not really a science argument anyway. Religious man sees scientific data, 'oh God's power is causing this'. Science man sees the same data, 'oh evolution is causing this.' How on Earth do you measure what force is causing it and tell the other guy that he's wrong? What me and you have basically been doing is going back and forth about who better understands how X operates, and how X changes, and how X reacts, and how X evolves, etc. THen saying to each other 'Well because I better understand how X works I am in a better possition to tell you what is 'causing' X to work. THat doesn't make sense, nobody has a better guess at what MAKES the universe work simply because they better understand HOW the universe works. Science can answer things like 'What', 'How often', 'Where', etc, it can't answer 'Why.' That is speculation for anyone.

What does germ theory or microbiology have to do with the origin of life or the origin of the universe. I'm sure you're well versed in telling people 'Sit down I am the authority on this subject' but you really need to realize that 'NONE' have authority on the subject of origins. You keep calling ID pseudoscience, where is the ground breaking evidence to the contrary of ID. What is your theory, that particles just magically started spinning the right way and Bam, life? Where is your proof? You take your expert status to levels where nobody is an expert. When it comes to origins all of us are limited to analyzing the different variables and making an intelligent guess on what makes most sense to us. You need to give it a rest on 'peer reviews' and 'the experts' on this subject

The theory of evolution keeps 'advancing.' Since the days of Darwin it has become more precise and exact! Have you ever asked yourself this question, is it true that everytime an objection is raised to evolution scientists tweak it's definition?

So why is it that evolution hard coded us with religious beliefs in a God that doesn't exist? Science suplies a brilliant sounding answer; you see this is how it works...

But wait, what on Earth would morality have to do with survival of the fittest? Science supplies another impressive sounding addition to the way it works; well you have to factor in this detail of the microorganism...

The more objections that get raised to evolution the more exact and detailed it becomes, and it always sounds so impressive and brilliant. No matter what objection you have to it science just say "Well yeah yeah see, that's how it operates..." Well what are they doing? Only thing they're doing is analizing how everything behaves and saying "Yeah that's how evolution works."

And again with the talk about peer reviewed papers instead of the actual arguements. I don't want to hear the term peer review when I ask why the Cambrien Explosion had a ton of life forms appear all at once when your precious evolution is supposed to be slow and gradual. I don't want to hear about 'peer reviews' when I ask you why there is no transitional fossils when even Darwin himself admitted that if they don't start popping up by the thousands then his theory is wrong. You do what I used to do all the time, you totally overrate what "They Say", what "The Experts Say!" It's Bullshit! THe whole world has an agenda. The universe is not comparable to your 'expert physician' analagy. Do you really think anybody has the entire universe on an operating table right in front of them like an expert physician does? Evolution has yet to give a good answer for the origin of life ever. You can't compare that to an expert who has all his data sitting right in front of his face. You are really giving these scientist way too much credit (as i once did) they have SO much undiscovered information it's ridiculous. They might as well be philosophers not scientists. I repeat myself, they don't even know where the oil went from the explosion in the gulf, IN OUR OWN PLANET, but they know how life started, they have the universe figured out, they know life evolved yet we have about 4 questionable fossils they claim to be 'transitions' when their should be millions and millions! You need to think about the specific factors for yourself and come up with your own conclusions (or your best guess). You can't say 'They Say' 'They Say' all the time, because 'They' are full of shit!

I have heard my share of totally brain washed religious people speak. People who are ridiculous at how rigid they are, who would never in a million years even admit that they question a part of their beliefs. Wow you are the scientific version of that. Bro, there are a lot of people out there who have serious problems with evolution who don't have a religious bone in their body. Lol, you would be screaming 'RELIGION!' at them and i would love to see the looks on their faces. I forget the name of the one guy, wrote a huge book trashing the theory of evolution, then he also wrote another book on how religious people are idiots. Like how on earth is the problem of irreducible complexity a religious rebuttle? Yes religious people point to it but you need to talk science with the non-religious people who have a problem with it. You can't tell those people to run back to church lol.

Now suppose cold fusion is a total joke like you say it is but a bunch of people believe it. Would you not see a reason to throw it into a high school science book? Even if you're right and the reason to put it there is to shoot holes in it? But if any ID arguement is impressing people your reaction is AHHHHHHH, RELIGION!! Stay away from science classes! Do they not teach even dead theories from before Einstein and Newton for reasons of completeness and science history? Your reason to exclude ID from science class is totally political

Whether you like the story line of the bible or not is a seperate issue. I do have a hard time with God's commands to wipe out this or that person or group. We are entering theology if we start talking about God's reasons for doing so and the greater good of his grand plan, etc. But here's the thing, you are correct that people murder in the name of the bible but the bible does not teach you to do that. That's like saying America, my great country, teaches me to murder and enslave. Can you imagine the things i can justify for myself by reading the history of the US and claiming to be a rebel for the forefathers. It would be like me killing a black person and saying i was taught to do so by the originators of the constitution, then throwing a bunch of civil war stories at you. You are all over the place with your interpretation of the bible.

The bible from the beginning tells us that prophets like Moses, Joshua, etc, are to do EXACTLY as God the father tells them! Now God the father's direct interaction with prophets and his orders to kill have long since ended. And even way back then you were not permitted to become a Billy The Kid and start killing without God's direct permission. Think of it this way, today it is a total different story for the government to commit capital punishment than for Joe Smith to take the law into his own hands. Many people understand and back up that distinction. How much higher is God's authority than the U.S government? If you admit more leniency for a government approved execution than a revenge murder than you should start to realize the difference between God ordering a death and a man just randomly killing someone. If you want to think about the issue a little deeper consider this, God kills everyone! If a 98 yr old dies of old age God just killed him. Anyway, God's direct interaction with prophets are over! These murder spree stories of the Old Testament are comparable to the president's orders to go to war with Germany and start murdering a bunch of innocent Germans who probably hated Hitler on the inside. Life has always had necessary evil, in the OT days God was the law, God was the sheriff, God was the King, etc. If you don't like that then that is not the point. The point is those days are long gone and christians are NOT allowed to play sheriff! They are NOT allowed to hang gay people because of Leviticus! If you are baffled that God would order the execution of gay people thousands of years ago then you are definately not alone i wonder this myself. But i can't help but realize that technically God murders everyone (because everyone dies). You can't play God nor can you take the law into your own hands, they are related concepts and people who murder in spite of the bible are playing God

Science actually doesn't know enough to be conclusive anyway. That's why the word 'theory' is still attached to everything. Don't get me wrong science knows a lot but the truth is that science does NOT know way more than it does know. Break thru discoveries always come along that make science throw out everything that they thought they knew and cause them to start over. To give a brand new example - Dark Matter. Now all of the sudden they are saying 'Damn, the rate at which the universe is expanding is inconsistant with the mass of the physical universe, along with the gravitational pull of everything. There must be some invisible force that lies outside of the physical universe. And they have the theory now that the answer is dark matter that composes 95% of the universe. Every field of science is still dealing with incomplete information!

I was going back and forth with one guy in here and he kept going on and on about how certain he is about the exact state of the universe right after the big bang...We don't even know where the oil went from the explosion in the gulf!! We seriously overrate how much scientists know, there is so much more info that they don't know then there is info that they do know.

And when you talk about evolution and hard coded morals i have no idea how you tie them together. Morals and evolution? Survival of the fittest is a good description for evolution. Why would evolution care about morality? In fact, why did evolution hard code us with an obsession to worship a creator that does not exist? And you're actually contridicting yourself, according to you the belief in religion has caused more murder and misery in human existance than anything else. Tons of people in here say it is the anti-morality. Well clearly evolution gave us the religion instinct because we are only products of evolution. But now all of the sudden evolution gave us the morality instinct. Which one is it? Did evolution hard code us with both morality and immoral religious beliefs? Why?

I'm telling you that people i know are pretty damn far from settled on the ID debate and you are telling me that the brilliant scientific community has 'settled' it! iT'S always a poor argument to quote experts or to quote 'the experts.' Every person should only interpret things according to themselves and how it makes sense to them. It is a cop out to say 'oh well since the experts say this is true than it must be true'

Wow! Seriously aveskde, you are not exactly talking to your prototypical christian here, not even close. I debate the history of the bible a lot and i enjoy the scientific view of deep subjects. So i like to read and watch dvds on the cases for and against evolution, intelligent design, etc. I side with intelligent design because of the scientific arguments, not a single shred of religion enters into it. For you to say something like 'It has been settled by the scientific community' is a total joke to me. I've let a few of my non religious friends watch some intelligent design dvds and they have all admitted that they make some strong points (even if they still don't believe it completely). To hear statements about the 'scientific community' settling this issue only leaves me with the impression that there is politics in popular science (politically correct science). There has not been a shred of religion talk in my ID material. On top of that there are anti-evolution scientists out there who not only publish books about their problems with evolution but these people also HATE religion lol. I mean come on dude, i don't need someone in create debate website to argue with me that ID has no scientific merit when i have personally witnessed quite a few non-religious people who were pretty damn impressed with ID arguements

If you want to talk percentages than my first does totally fit, the amount of christians who would murder because of the bible can not even approach the amount of christians who would restrain themselves from murder because of their belief in the bible, so my statement surely fits. Not to mention the person who is murdering because of the bible is WRONG. Now I would put a ton of money on the theory that their are more people who fall over the edge and murder because they have a core belief that there is no final accountability then there are people who would murder because the old testament says they should.

I disagree with gay threats of violence. THe christian who knows how to correctly interpret the bible also is against this. The main message constantly given in christianity is humility. To say to yourself 'I know that person A and B are sinners, but if i want to point a finger at a sinner all i have to do is look into a mirror.'

"intolerant of authoritarianism and charlatans?"

Untrue. A teacher in public school would get straight up FIRED for saying a prayer before class. You don't even have to aproach the level of authoritarianism to get in hot water with the liberal agenda

Neo Nazis can march anywhere and practice their freedom of speech but now liberals are turning any christian teaching that homosexuality is a sin into hate speech, and making it illegal. Now listen to what i'm saying, the BELIEF that homosexuality is wrong and that we should not hate homosexuals but pray for them is now hate speech! Whether you agree or not is not the point.

"Open minded and accepting new ideas?"

There are multiple cases now of science teachers being fired for entertaining the possibility of intelligent design (in a scientific way). Whether you think the arguements are weak or strong for intelligent design is not the point. The point is you will be fired for even mentioning the possitive arguements for it in public school. And i'm sorry but isn't science all about accepting challenges and testing out new hypotheses, etc. Make no mistake, liberals have a religion of their own and it is becoming more and more intolerant to oppose their beliefs (and even if their beliefs are true it is scary that religious people are being forced into silence). It is scary that people are not becoming freaked out that freedom of speech is in trouble

Was that the Biblical law in 3,000 BC? Yeah that sounds about right. I won't go into a Bible debate about the Law of the prophets vs the changes Jesus made to the law, all i will say is this; THis is such a typical reply from an anti-christian, to fire back with examples that are ancient. What else you got up you sleeve a speech about the crusades? TODAY, in this country and millenium, how many christians murder aduteress' and back up their actions with the Bible? I assume since it's 2010 we should use examples less than 5,000 years old! Even if you think the Bible is totally bogus and you simply view it as a tool to disipline the population then ok fine, go ahead and look at it like that. Go ahead and role your eyes when christians explain why the laws of Jesus have superceded the Old Testament laws. If you think this is illogical fine but you still need to admit that that is how christians think. They ARE NOT under the belief of the OT law anymore so why do liberals keep using the OT laws as a rebuttle to christian ethics in the year 2010?

Oh yeah God is the root of all evil! Tell that to the person who was about to murder their spouse for cheating but refrained from doing so because they believe that God is watching. How about that damn evil Mother Theresa too

Whether Christian, non-Christian, liberal or conservative I'm just saying that comon sense tells you that it is a very tasteless and disrespectful move (although i do agree it should still be in their legal right to do so). But why so terrified for a liberal to just admit it's a shitty move?

Now liberals are all for freedom of religion LOLOLOLOL! They don't even want Jesus mentioned at Christmas but now they are the icons of religious freedom. They contridict themselves all the time. Basically to be a liberal is to be in love with pointing the 'How dare you' finger at everyone and anyone. Now thousands of Americans who lost loved ones to 9-11 are evil religion haters if they oppose a mosque at ground zero. Nobody hates religion more than them!!!

I'm getting sick and tired of their holier than thou bullshit. There's no such thing as a liberal making a situational adjustment because something is of bad taste, liberals are spineless and hipocritical finger pointers. THey are hipocrites because all they do is preach 'Tolerance' 'Tolerance' yet if someone disagrees with anything they believe they are totally intolerant of them. 3,000 murdered at ground zero and liberals are too stupid and insensitive to see how a mosque built there is a total slap in the face to the victums and their families. Anyone with common sense would say to themselves "Hmmm, in this situation I wouldn't recommend it." But I'm not even saying that muslim's rights should be violated or it should be illegal for them to build a mosque there. What i'm saying is for the love of God you are out of touch with reality if you can't simply admit "Hey, that is a poor idea." (Even though a legal one). Liberals have no down to Earth common sense. On top of that i believe it's a terrible idea because of the violent reaction it would create. People are irate over 9-11 someone will burn that mosque to the ground within a year if it's built

If you can only obtain a gun illegally who will have guns and who won't?? Obviously the law abiding citizens are defensless and the criminals are uneffected

Huh? Aliens brought us here? Unfortunately humans are the smartest species on the planet but also the dumbest. Someone wanna tell me why China and US keep building nukes when we can already blow up the world 67 times over? We're so friggin dumb

No I don't think it will end but it would be great if something really cool happens when the galaxy lines up or whatever the hell it's supposed to do. Reality is a little too boring, give me some X-men mutants running around, give me some Clash of the Titans showdown on that day, i hope something fun happens. How about aliens pouring out of a worm hole on that day that everything aligns that would be cool. Something different

What is the opposite of 'LIFE?' Answer, 'DEATH.' Stop saying 'Pro-choice' the opposite of Pro-life is 'Pro-death' You're not Pro-choice you're Pro-death if you are for abortion

She's hot! Why on Earth do I need this to be 50 characters, She is Hot

-Molecular structure of a carbon atom has not changed

-A carbon or hydrogen atom today has the same structure as a carbon or hydrogen atom 10,000 or 10 billion years ago. Nor have the chemical reactions changed

-Nor was the big bang an explosion

-The level of radioactive decay for any given substance at the moment of origin will always be 0%

It's amazing how you know these things. If this isn't guess work what is? Nobody was around back then. Science is studying the past based on the present, there MUST be assumptions made. I get it the calculations and patterns are so predictable and exact it's amazing, but nobody can ever know what took place between now and the big bang because nobody was there. And don't think for a second that your perfect scientific dating methods have not been proven wrong before. People have sent rocks to multiple labs and gotten variations in the ages (on multiple methods) that stretched millions of years. They have found hellium molecules in rocks that are "Millions" of years old but yet it is proven that hellium is so light it would leak out of these rocks in no more than a few thousand years. I would have to look into the exact details I came across this stuff a long time ago but make no mistake there are some shady scientists out there covering up holes in their precious theories. Jaw bones of an ape that have been sawed and shifted forward to resemble a human more to just name one that I remember. I do think there is a lot of evidence to suggest a very old universe but years ago i did see a debate or 2 with a few young Earth creationist and no they did not just show up with their King James Bible claiming that science is of the devil, they made some interesting points that really made me think. And under no circumstance did they even mention religion, only science. I'm actually uncommitted to either old or new Earth because I think both sides have made interesting arguements. And like ANY scientist BOTH of these groups make assumptions because none of them were there

I actually agree with you. Science and religion both have their work cut out for them to actually be able to point towards the source of this universe. But anti religious people who believe in science are left with the same huge unanswered question and they are simply swapping out words. Person A says 'God', person B says 'Evolution' or 'Science.' I can just throw the same arguement right back at the science lovers; You tack 'Evolution' onto everything and that has no explanatory power. What is the definition of God? God is just a term used to define a certain eternal power, force, existance, intelligence, etc. that is the driving force behind everything. Science only measures this reality; how does gravity work, how does the sun work, how do the bacteria in our guts digest food, and on and on. Nobody has a clue. Philosophically we are all chasing our tails with our explainations, we are all left with the same question "What is the driving force that causes gravity, the sun, life, etc." Some people say God and when a scientist says 'Evolution' he's doing the same thing as the religious person who is saying 'God.' They look at science for new proof on how life forms work and say "Oh ok, that's how evolution does it!" And person B says "Ok, that's how God does it!" They believe in God but the name of their God is simply evolution. They assume a theist is ignorant if they say an intelligent force is causing it, but they are saying the same thing, an intelligent force of evolution. If you break it down neither the religious or non-religious person is being foolish it is a very very deep question. Religious people don't have their heads in the sand (not all of them) they know what science is, but science measures things it does not tell you the source of them. I think people are just freaked out so much by the term 'God' that they don't even realize they too have a term that refers to God when they say evolution (granted they are not attributing any personality traits to the source but they are naming the source - which they too know nothing about)

True, scientists have determined the effect the environment plays on decay rates TODAY. But what was the starting point, what did each rock look like one year after the big bang? It is absolutely impossible to know what the starting point was. Yes you can be right and thousands of years can be wrong, but there is no way to prove that the radiometric rocks could not of all started off with vastly different amounts of decay but yet all be the same age. If a house blew up you would have partially fried bricks, bricks that were barely burnt and absoluety melted bricks. No scientist on Earth can do anything more than quess how similar or unsimilar rocks were in relation to one another after the big bang. Is it not fair to compare a house explosition to the big bang? No matter how much math you throw out a 2010 Corvette will look a thousand years old if it was on fire for an hour