| jv103 said: @ Nirvana I don't know about the whole crystal thing. It seems that evolution would be much more plausible than intelligent design as we can observe it and observe past traces of it occuring. About your whole debating of intelligent design vs evolution. It couldn't be a natural debate because the paradigm would naturally be in the scientific realm and as far as I have read, intelligent design doesn't have any scientific facts. Anyway the only way you could debate intelligent design is probably in a realm of philosophy or something abstract...which would never resolve the debate. I mean you could debate whetere creationism (intelligent design...what's more 'intelligent': infinite possibility or a static planet) vs evolution is a more powerful idea toward the creative potential of human beings, or something along those lines. Something that probably, isn't currently being quantified by science. Of course this type of debate would never give any more credibility to creationism. I myself can say that I think that one of the greatest written works in English is inspired by the creation story (Paradise Lost) but that gives it no more truth. Anyway |
The crystal thing is actually a popular theory believe it or not. Suprised me too.
My point is that i believe the scientific community should be more open to allowing debates because some of these guys for I.D do have interesting arguments and they do use scientific facts to support there theories. You have to take a look at what scientist from that side of the spectrum are saying instead of what the Evolutionists claim there points are.
I mean if there was an equal opportunity for funding as well there would be more room to grow and larger opportunities for testing different theories instead of just pointing out flaws in the evolution theory to explain why it can't be possible.
To each his own though.
" Rebellion Against Tyrants Is Obedience To God"
