Now, surely the key word here is 'belief'. Why do you feel the need even to claim 'very firm facts and evidence' - even if they might exist - to support something that is a matter of personal faith? You say you have a belief in 'supernatural design' - by definition, this is not susceptible to scientific enquiry, as it is 'supernatural'.

I also think you have scientific method completely the wrong way round. Science does not involve adopting an absolute position, then seeking out such evidence as supports it. Rather, it it involves hypothesis, testing, and rejecting / accepting upon the basis of the observable outcomes.

I have absolutely no wish to 'beat up on' people like you - by which I presume you mean those who dismiss evolutionary arguments. However, I fail to see why such people often demonstrate the need to look for supposedly scientific evidence to support a personal position that is obviously far more concerned with faith than it is with science. Could it be that your faith is not quite strong enough on its own?

"I also think you have scientific method completely the wrong way round. Science does not involve adopting an absolute position, then seeking out such evidence as supports it. Rather, it it involves hypothesis, testing, and rejecting / accepting upon the basis of the observable outcomes." Indeed, you are absolutely correct. This is what I did. I was raised in a Christian home, but I do not share the beliefs they do. I started searching for evidence, then came to a well imformed conclusion. I believe that all things are based on intelligent design, but I'm not certain as to what to credit that intelligent design to. So you see, it really isn't a religious decision. Because of that your last statement is ludicrous. The fact that I really have no religious beliefs at this point make it so. And as far as your comments, did you even read the linkl. If so, try reading it again, if not, then try for a first time. It really is very good. I just wish I had more of a head for remembering scientific fact.

'Because of that your alst statement is ludicrous. The fact that I really have no religious beliefs at this point make it so.'
You believe in creationism and intelligent design, yet have no religious beliefs? Er ... does not really compute!

'And as far as your comments, did you even read the linkl'
Indeed yes. A site devoted to extrapolating and perverting dubious science in order to support a doctrinaire interpretation of Genesis, a chapter in a very old religious book. Exactly what I mean when I refer to getting science the wrong way round - by adopting an intransigent position, then seeking out such evidence (and ONLY such evidence) as might exist to support it. Their 'mission statement' is a clear giveaway of an agenda completely lacking in objectivity - 'Upholding the authority of the bible from the very first verse.' No room for open-mindedness there!

First off, I commend you for taking a very firm stance. Not many people are willing to enter into a conversation such as this because they haven't figured out what they actually think. Secondly, I will galdly explain how believing in creationism and intelligent design does not neccesarily go hand in hand.
I used to act like a Christian, and when I say acting, I mean according to most christians out there I was one. I went to church studied Christian literature and so forth. From that part of my life, I gleaned many facts and beliefs, but something wasn't adding up. I decided to find out what I believed myself. I was done blindly following. I believe that some things were true. Like intelligent design, though at one point I tried to deny it and prove to my friends that it was false. The problem with that is, there is too much evidence and scientific theory to deny it if you really study it. My problem is that I realize that there is intelligent design, but I am unsure of what the designer wants or is. That is how I believe, yet at the same time do not. I hope that explains it.
"extrapolating and perverting dubious science in order to support a doctrinaire interpretation of Genesis". That is of course your oppinion, but I believe in science, and the lecture was clearly given from a very scientific point of view. As for seeking out evidence that ONLY supports the intelligent design, well it's rather hard to find real evidence that supports anything else. The missing link, and the dust on the moon, and the moons orbit, are all very tangible elements of support. I have seen very little real, By real I mean not hypothisized by scientists that are desperately trying to prove their own theory with no facts to back it up, evidence that supports evolution.
As for objectivity, secular scientists are out to prove something of their own, and there really are no completely impartial people. They just don't exhist. And your last statement, "'Upholding the authority of the bible from the very first verse.' No room for open-mindedness there!" First I think that statement is open to interpetation, and you have a right to take it anyway you want. I believe it means that the Bible is scientifically supported throughout the entire thing. And, as I can tell you have fairly staunch views of your own, and I know I have very staunch views of my own, we're really not able to complain about being "open-minded" are we.

Indeed yes. A site devoted to extrapolating and perverting dubious science in order to support a doctrinaire interpretation of Genesis, a chapter in a very old religious book

You should go look again and this time keep your mind open. The Dr lays out "scientific" theory FIRST! Then they discuss his beliefs. And just what the hell should the name of the site have ANYTHING to do with the again "scientific" data he presented? The man has a "very" good education and backround (Dr. Eric Norman has a B.S. in physics, B.A. in chemistry, and a M.S. and Ph.D. in biochemistry.) Can you say the same?

The man has a "very" good education and backround (Dr. Eric Norman has a B.S. in physics, B.A. in chemistry, and a M.S. and Ph.D. in biochemistry.) Can you say the same?

Irrelevent -- the factual and logical basis of an argument are not affected by the standing (education, position, etc.) of the presenter or the evaluator.

I thought we had gone over a lot of the so-called "scientific" claims the creationists make in other blogs. Especially (and I can hear Draginol repeating this until he goes red in the face) that evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life, just the origin of species.

they decided to take the one with the least amount of evidence to back it up

This has got to be the most unintentionally hilarious thing I've read on JU in awhile.

Especially (and I can hear Draginol repeating this until he goes red in the face) that evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life, just the origin of species.

When you can't prove your point, start trading degrees. Don't let it get you down. Once they provide some concrete proof of an intelligent designer, then we'll be forced to admit we were wrong. That's how science works. But there's got to be some proof. A burning bush on C-SPAN maybe?

I thought we had gone over a lot of the so-called "scientific" claims the creationists make in other blogs.

We have. But it isn't really science that these types of people are interested in. It's religion. They play fast and loose with scientific fact and procedure in a vain attempt to make it all fit with their religion.

I'm still chuckling about that first phrase I quoted. That stuff is golden.

The man has a "very" good education and backround (Dr. Eric Norman has a B.S. in physics, B.A. in chemistry, and a M.S. and Ph.D. in biochemistry.) Can you say the same? Irrelevent -- the factual and logical basis of an argument are not affected by the standing (education, position, etc.) of the presenter or the evaluator

"TOTALLY" relevant! Since his doctorate is on the subject of his data. Without his Phd his data would be irrelevant. Lets see you "refute" his scientific data!

Problems with the formation of a cell by naturalism include: Laws of probability: The odds of correctly forming an average 200 amino acid protein are 10260, but statisticians state greater than 1050 is impossible. (Bliss, Parker, Gish, Origin of Life, 1979.) Laws of chemistry: All amino acids in proteins are “L” which would not occur randomly. DNA would not form in a water solution. My master’s thesis was in the area of DNA synthesis. Irreducible complexity: For many biological systems to properly function, all parts must be present at the same time. (Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, 1998.) Information: You do not obtain useful information from random processes. Have you read a good book authored by a computer lately, I asked tongue in cheek? I mentioned that the formation of the first cell is now recognized by many evolutionists as not possible by naturalism (i.e., I argued that this means supernaturalism had to be involved: a Designer). Difficulties for a cell developing into advanced life-forms: Dr. Duane Gish, ICR biochemist, while visiting the Smithsonian Institution, was told they had no undisputed intermediate fossils. Mutations do not increase useful genetic information. A teacher at my lecture mentioned he had read a book that stated that the universe could not be old enough for life-forms to develop by genetic mutations. I added that I had read a scholarly book by an Israeli scientist (Spetner, Not by Chance, 1996) confirming that view. Where does all the information in the human cell come from? If you typed the four letter alphabet for the DNA code for a bacteria, it would take 2,000 8”x11” single-space pages. However, for a human cell, the length of the code would require a million pages.

Thank Dr.Miler! I appreciate the fact that you can see the scientific facts, and your judgement isn't clouded by hate for any foorm of religion.

Thank Dr.Miler! I appreciate the fact that you can see the scientific facts, and your judgement isn't clouded by hate for any foorm of religion.

This will be my last post for quite a while. The problem with the left in general is when you stick scientific data in their face that they can't refute, they tend to shut up rather quickly! As far as religon goes...I am a believer in creationism. I personally do not buy the "entire" evolution theory. But then I don't buy the "entire" creation theory either. ID seems to fill in some holes in both theories.