I never said they were trying to talk about intelligent design, just that the word design implies intelligence by it's very definition. Instead of actually debating, you have resorted to basically insulting me. I am not 'playing' symantecs with words by posting their actual definition directly from the dictionary. I'm simply stating a my argument in a logical fashion.

On the left, inventions of humans, intelligent design. All of could never happen by chance. On the right, things seen in nature, much more complex, same principles, but 'scientists' argue they happened by chance.

*God did not lead this post*

As for scientific arguments vs. God.

Timmah!, is absolutely correct in his points. Every belief that has no absolute bound requires some sort of faith/trust. There is nothing purely factual that disproves or proves the existence of God and to say so is an admission of some level or amount of ignorance.

Another take:

Those who have felt God before and can hear God when He speaks to them could never deny completely that He exists because that feeling or memory is real to them. It is only those that have never opened themselves to this as stated in my last post, who completely denounce the existence of God, which should actually be obvious.

An even further take (can get dangerous in here):

We only know things exist through how we interact and input them. If you were to take away your sense of touch, sight, sound, taste, smell then you would not be able to tell that most things exist. To you, almost nothing would exist.

There is a 6th sense though that is not as easily documented and you cannot discover it through a "thought process." This sense is more spiritual and sensing. It is an invisible force that radiates around things and moves into places that we cannot see or factually document. I know this sounds "science fiction" but if you have ever been caught up in a classical music piece, sunset, movie, or prayer then you have had a taste of this sense. It extends beyond these more inward responses though. This sense helps you detect if someone is in a room, if there is danger present, if someone is angry or if a mood is happy. It's the chills you feel when you think your mom is in the room though she has been dead for years, the dread you feel just before your child miles away has a car wreck, the dreams you have that come true weeks later, the feeling of deja-vu when something seems so familiar or like it was meant to be. All of these feelings are rooted in this same sense. People who indulge in this sense are usually considered "artistic," "clairvoyant," "in-tune," "empath," "enlightened," "spiritual," even "emotional" and those who are EXTREMELY influenced are sometimes dubbed "insane."

The problem with this sense is that analytical minds normally refuse to experience or cannot easily experience this sense and completely ignore it, but for others this sense is too real to ignore. This sense is where hope, human spirit, fear, and courage can come from and we all possess these things but for those that have conditioned themselves to push it to such minimal levels, there is hardly any ability to open them to such "nonsense" and they are ever left to ignore this informative human sense. When combined with the other senses and an intelligent mind, many new skills can be acquired that could even be considered inhuman to some. This separation from the different types of minds is what ultimately results in the traditional argument of whether God exists, whether people can predict the future, or if ghosts exist. If we all used this sense prominently and toward the same topics then there would be no question to at least parts of these arguments, but as in many things people are insistently and sadly blind.

My "personal" take:
It is kind of ironic that non-spiritual people call spiritual people blind without any factual evidence to adequately back up their claims, relying purely on the specific person's mental ability to create a comeback, though in reality since they refuse to look at matters in a different way (gathering information from this "6th sense"), then they are truly the ones that might be "blind." See, spiritual people rely on complete trust in God, so they do not "themselves" readily go and figure everything out, so in turn they aren't going to have answers for every single little argument that you put forth, but that does not mean that what they experience is not real or not important.

People do not follow something if there isn't an obvious reason to them why they believe it is real. For the same reason that one may think they are justified in not believing in God (through deductions based on their currently used senses), other people are justified in believing in God (through deductions based on their currently used senses).

The reason they use this word is that there's no other word that logically fits. The complex systems seen in nature all have a purpose because they were designed. I believe that scientists work so hard to explain God away, ignoring evidence to the contrary, because they don't like the existence of something they can't explain.

I agree. The '6th sense' of hearing God talk, and communicating with Him (or any other spiritual experience) is the driving force behind faith. Explaining this to someone who has not experienced it is like trying to explain the color orange to someone who is colorblind. It's very difficult to do. There are definitely things I've seen (broken legs healed, fused spines gaining movement instantly, etc) that I cannot explain except by the existance and involvement of God. We cannot quantify Him in human terms, because he trancends our understanding.

Scientists dont work to prove god doesnt exist, they work to prove their theories correct. Evolution wasnt proposed as a way to prove the bible wrong, it was proposed because it had scientific merit and now is accepted by the scientific community as virtual fact simply because so much evidence points towards it.

The fact is very little evidence points towards the bible being fact and much scientific evidence contradicts the bible directly. Geology in its entirety is contradictory to the bible, its simply impossible for the earth to be a mere few thousand years old, Astronomy is contradictory to the bible, the light from distant stars could simply have not reached us in the few thousand years the bible proposes the earth is old. Paleontology contradicts it, the fossil record doesnt make sense, why arent dinosaurs mentioned? How can bones millions of years old be a few thousand years old?

Science and religion arent incompatible, science and christianty are. 

The methods used to come up with these dates are flawed. Basically, scientists have an assumption of the age and keep the carbon date that bests fits what they believe. Some dates taken from rock known to have been formed during the eruption of Mt St Helens dated anywhere from thousands to 3 million years old. Scientists should use the facts to form their theories, not search for the facts they want to prove their theories.

ARBITRARY, A. HAYATSU, Dept. of Geophysics, U. of Western Ont., "In conventional interpretation of K-Ar age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon." Canadian Journal Of Earth Science, 16:974.

DISSENTERS EJECTED, R. L. Mauger, E. Carolina U., "In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor or the discrepancies fully explained.", Contributions To Geology, Vol.15 (1): 17

"THE IMPERFECT ART OF ESTIMATING GEOLOGICAL TIME" BATES MCKEE, U. of Washington, "If the laboratory results contradict the field evidence, the geologist assumes that there is something wrong with the machine date. To put it another way, ‘good’ dates are those that agree with the field data. ...the geologist has more faith in the fossil evidence than in a machine date, and this reflects some of the uncertainties of radiometric determinations and the interpretation of results." CASCADIA, The Geological Evolution Of The Pacific Northwest, p.25, 27

"C14 AGES IN ERROR", ROBERT E. LEE, "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better under-standing, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates." Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, no. 3, 1981, p.9

FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTION, Report on C14 Conference (145 International Scientists), Science, Vol. 150, p. 1490. "Throughout the conference emphasis was placed on the fact that laboratories do not measure ages, they measure sample activities. The connection between activity and age is made through a set of assumptions. ...one of the main assumptions of C14 dating is that the atmospheric radiocarbon level has held steady over the age-range to which the method applies."

Evolution is not by ANY stretch of the imagination a 'virtual fact'. It is still a theory.

And what is this evidence contradicts the bible? It's great to say it's there, please present it.

and the bible does mention dinosaurs-

The Bible mentions two dinosaurs by name and describes them in great detail. "Behemoth" (Job 40:15-24) and "Leviathan" (Job 41:1-34) From the description found in Job, scientists have attempted to identify these animals. They believe "Behemoth" is a Hippo and "Leviathan" is a Crocodile. But these scientists limited their choices to non-extinct species and did not consider the possibility of dinosaurs because man and dinosaur never coexisted. Oh really? Even in my own personal Bible a footnote suggests these two animals were a hippo and a crock! But there are some obvious reasons why this conclusion is wrong.

First, "Behemoth" cannot be a Hippo because of Job 40:17 "He bends his tail like a cedar". A hippo has a short tail like a pig. Behemoth, had a large tail shaped like a cedar tree (large and tapered). I believe a better choice is that Behemoth is a Brachiosaurus type of large land dwelling dinosaur. It fits the description perfect.

Second, "Leviathan" cannot be a Crocodile but is probably a Elasmosaurus type of large water-dwelling dinosaur. Here is what Job 41 says with my comments in brackets, "v9 you be laid low even at the sight of him? (This was a large animal) v10 No one is so fierce that he dares to arouse him; v25 When he raises himself up, the mighty fear; (crocs don't raise up at all but are always low) Because of the crashing they are bewildered. v26 (This animal was large! This animal made seismic thunder as it walked. You know...that slow, low, terrifying thud that Jurassic park portrayed so well.) v26 The sword that reaches him cannot avail; (crocs are quite easy to kill with a good spear) Nor the spear, the dart, or the javelin. (Croc wrestling is a sport, the croc usually looses) v31 He makes the depths boil like a pot; He makes the sea like a jar of ointment. v32 Behind him he makes a wake to shine; (crocs make little wake if any) v34 He looks on everything that is high" (again it was a tall animal with a long neck).

What is significant about this is that if "Behemoth" and "Leviathan" are dinosaurs, then is it crystal clear that Job had either seen them personally, or there was a recent memory of them. This of course flies in the face of current evolutionary theory.

I wonder if you've ever seen this picture, it's fossilized human and dinosaur tracks side by side in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas

Also, the Bible doesn't say the universe is only a few thousand years old... it says the earth was 'formless and void' when God began creating life. It doesn't say how long it exested before God created life on it.

This is a carving in an ancient temple in Cambodia

I believe that dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth at the same time. This flies in the face of 'common knowledge' among scientits that 'proves' evolution. Also, what about the medieval stories about dragons? Or the Chinese fascination with Dragons? Legends of dinosaur-like creatures permiate many cultures. This is completely ignored by those who subscribe to the idea of evolution.

Edit: You can't see it, but there's a plain carving of a dinosaur next to the guy in the first picture. Right-click, save as to view.

Sorry to go off on a dinosaur tangent. Got drawn in by the comment about dinosaurs in the Bible...

Wow, this topic is still going on. Anyways, i think that if people read what was posted before they wouldn't be asking/saying the things they are now.

3# Imagine God created man, woman dinosaurs etc.etc.etc. I wonder who created God to create us. (but that would be the same question for scientists, what caused the matter for the big-bang). -moe nl

I posted about this before. I really don't want to answer it again, so my reply to this would be my first post in this thread (i think).

Science and religion arent incompatible, science and christianty are. -Rath

I posted about this before as well, in this thread, but i'll recite my point. It isn't science and religion, science and christianity, science and nescience, that are incompatible. It is people. Because people are out for each other and thier ideas is why these two things cannot co-exist. It is because people want to get rid of science, or get rid of religion why this is a problem. People are crossing a line between science and religion, and that line shouldn't even be there. Science, Religion, Politics, and Philosophy shoulod all be able to co-exist in a proper human society. But that doesn't happen because we are human. Because Humans, by thier sinful nature, war against peace.

EDIT: And to Timmah, This is probably a problem with people of today. They feel that the ancient peoples lacked the knowledge that we have today, hence Geico's "Caveman Commericials". But in reality, our human brains have not evolved from what they were. We all still have the same intelligence and the same capacity that we always had and always will have. Because people don't understand this, some people believe that aliens helped the egyptians build the pyramids, because they can not believe that so much was accomplished by a primitive civilization. But thats all foolish, because what was a man before is a man today. Nothing is new under the sun. So all in all, i agree with you 100%. 

The fact is very little evidence points towards the bible being fact and much scientific evidence contradicts the bible directly. Geology in its entirety is contradictory to the bible, its simply impossible for the earth to be a mere few thousand years old, Astronomy is contradictory to the bible, the light from distant stars could simply have not reached us in the few thousand years the bible proposes the earth is old. Paleontology contradicts it, the fossil record doesnt make sense, why arent dinosaurs mentioned? How can bones millions of years old be a few thousand years old?

Science and religion arent incompatible, science and christianty are.

^^^

that's a bit of a reach there. There are several interpretations of the Creation account, and it looks like you're familiar with the "young earth" or the creation account which literally ages the earth at around 6 or 7 thousand years. This is taken from the scripture that says "a day in God's eyes is as a thousand years". They took that and in turn figured that each creative "day" in the book of Genesis was a thousand years each.

However, in the Genesis account, God created the heavens and the earth first. And then a little bit after that came to be a first "day." So that means there was an indeterminate amount of time that occured from "in the beginning" and when light first came to reach the Earth.

Second of all, I don't recall there ever being an end to the 6th day of creation. This means that the 6th day from when humans were created is still going on until today.

And later on, the Bible goes on to describe the entire creation as created in one "day"

So really, the Bible writer intended to make demarcations in time periods in the creation account, but did not necessarily specify exact time periods.

 So what of the scripture saying that one day being 1000 years? (2 Peter 3:8) Well first of all it's a simile and it was used to show that God's timeframe is different from Man's time frame. Peter could have said that one day in the eyes of God is like 1,000,000,000,000 years for humans and it probably would have made the same point. Though saying 1000 years would probably be a significant hyperbole for most people to understand. Kind of like saying "a picture is worth a 1000 words"

Memo to everyone:

Most people here are pretty familiar with scientific concepts and principles. However, I'm not sure if everyone is similiarly familiar with Biblical accounts. I ask that everyone please do their due diligence before making blanket statements about the Bible. Some have a lot of pre-conceived notions about the Bible, but those notions may not have come from the Bible at all (i.e. when the church once throught that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe).

And to quasi-quote Galileo:

Two truths shall never contradict each other. :-p