I think the idea of God is comforting and I envy the people who have found him in their lives. Personally, I'm a pretty empty soul. While I believe in a higher power, it's not a "God" in the sense of the commonly used word.

While I don't believe in religion or God, I also won't look down on those who do. I wish I had that kind of security blanket covering myself.

You obviously cant maintain a level of maturity when in a discussion if you have to make a comment like "you don't know what your talking about" Being ignorant doesn't make your argument vailid.

It's not full of false propaganda, have you even watched it? Have you looked at both sides of the spectrum ? judging by your comments I assume you haven't. The people in the movie were never contacted to defend themselves as usual, but we'll take the word of what some of the Universities said because they wouldn't lie and be unbiased.

Also I don't consider public forums and internet chatter proper debates. The only publicized debate that comes to mind was the Kirk Cameron one and he's not a scientist by any means, it was more of a joke than anyhting because (a) they didn't represent their side of the argument that well and niether did the gentleman and the big breasted bimbo who threw more insults than intellect in the supposed debate.

THey need real scientists up there from boths sides and give it actual coverage  in a debate forum. I would consider that proper, wouldn't you?

Lets remember now that Evolution is not a scientific fact, it is a theory he did.

Your biggest problem is that you sound just like every other person who claims they can debunk I.D, from the evolutionist side. When your give answer a statement made by someone you you use swear and use BOLDED letters and expect people to listen as if you were giving an educated response instead of an adolescent rant(or a fanboy rant for that matter).

 Honestly if your taking you I.D information off of youtube then there is your first fail. You should check out http://www.frontlinescience.com/. Dr. Kazmer Ujavorsy, has come up with some really interesting theories and below I'll give you some exerts from an article from the American Chronicle as well as a link to that.

 "Dark energy, that drives the expansion of the universe, is one of the deepest and most exciting puzzles in modern science. We posit that dark energy is the field manifestation of the parent seed of the universe, just as the cosmic vacuum’s zero-point energy. They all originate from the cosmic seed’s biophoton emissions, which blackbody radiation provides a holographic biofield for the generation of the physical universe. Based on the fact that the biophotonic radiation emitted by DNA is coherent, we predict that the cosmic seed's biophotonic field or "dark energy" is equally coherent."

"The elusive Higgs boson – so vital to the Standard Model of particle physics that it is dubbed "the God particle" – is identical with the genotype of the phenotype universe, and each human genome is its reproduction. Based on this identification we posit that mass-giving is life-giving because the elementary particles that come into contact with the cosmic seed's biofield or quantum vacuum receive their mass and property as a result of that interaction. "

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/18585

Read the article and his site, then you'll be at least able tohave an educated look at the I.D side of the story before making retarded comments like "Do not pass go, do not collect 200$"

http://www.bridgewater.edu/campus_info/pr/evolution%20debate.html

Either you are ignorant of the fact that this debate and others took place, or you don't consider these guys "real scientists" or the debate format "proper".  I allowed for both of these possibilities in my post, although I admit I think one explanation is more likely. 

I call it false propaganda because -- well, did you even look at the Darwin misquote criticism?  I have indeed looked at the Intelligent Design viewpoints, albeit with a skeptical mind but not with a closed one.  I have found the ID arguments to be interesting, but all over the place.  The arguments don't seem to promote any ID theory as such nearly so much as just trying to poke holes in current evolution theory.  This allows ID to, hydra-like, ignore arguments that get chopped down and simply grow new ones. 

I haven't watched the entire movie, but IIRC I watched a significant portion of it, enough to know that it was a hack job of one-sided information and "creative" editing techniques, with "OMG HOLOCAUST" thrown in just to stir the pot.  I seriously doubt there are any arguments about ID in it that I haven't heard before. 

I'm usually agnostic about this sort of thing but c'mon, we all know that Zues and Hera are looking down on us at this very moment.

Firstly you misunderstand what I scientific theory in fact is, it is a hypothesis backed up by experiment. It is considered tested by science.

Secondly those passages you quoted are pseudo-scientific twaddle that make no sense whatsoever. Anybody with even the slightest hint of knowledge of the stuff they're talking about can see that. For one thing they know few to none of the properties of the Higgs Boson apart from the fact that it is an elementary particle - a human genome is an organism and made of billions of atoms. They are so completely different that to claim one is a reproduction of the other is just absolute twaddle. The other passage is just as bad.

To me it seems like they just threw in as many scientific terms into one paragraph and hoped that nobody would know what they were talking about other than the fact that it sound really really smart.

First let me ask you a question, how is 5 paragraphs of ranting considered a good argument without giving a proper reason as to why you claim it is bullshit. You did not address what Dr.Ujavorsy was saying but just claimed it was again "bullshit" without stating scientific facts as to why it is but more or less giving your own opinion.

Read through all of the the articles he had published through that site, he does bring up some interestesting points and claims some of his theories can be tested. I'm obviously no scientist an I have an average understanding of it, but, at that same point I just believe that it makes more sense to me that we were created through intelligent design, instead of by chance.It's also that I believer that Evolution and the support of it is New World Order propaganda but that a completely different subject that I'm sure you don't want to go into.

I don't really consider it hostility I just don't think that in this sort of discussion we need to swear and bold letters to insult the view of one another. Given another subject I'd probably be swearing right back : ) Read through the articles, the guy isn't an idiot, and personally I find he has some compelling points on I.D

I am well aware of what a scientifc theory is, I have not misunderstood what that is, now I may be no scientist (I do have an understanding of it on an average level) I just believe that as far out as it may sound we were created through intelligent design, not by chance of evolution.

According to this Dr.Ujavorsky, his theories can be tested, and in all honesty I find that he does bring up some compelling arguments. I will also proivide a link if you would care to read it where you can look over some of his articles because he does bring up some interesting matters regardless of wether you want to call it pseudo science or what not.  http://www.frontlinescience.com/3.html.

I looked at one of your links and ... OMFG.

So ID’s claim that the inferred intelligence is not supernatural doesn’t sound plausible simply because no such intelligence can be the cause of design in nature. The only unquestionably existing intelligence that qualifies to be the designer, observer and measurer of nature is human intelligence. Design by human intelligence is evident from nuclear engineering to genetic engineering, and for us the universe is observable and measurable. We have models of the universe based on our observations, we measured its parameters, and we calculated the proportions of its content. The fact that we are the observers and measurers of the universe constitutes evidence that our intelligence exists beyond the bounds of the universe. But if human intelligence exists beyond the bounds of nature, then by definition it is not only supernatural, but eternal as well.

At this point let me note that Anana, the chief scribe to Seti II, wrote the following in an Egyptian papyrus: “Our religion teaches us that we live eternally. Now eternity, having no end, can have no beginning, it is a circle. Therefore if the one be true, namely that we live on, it would seem that the other must be true, namely that we have always lived.”

Naturally both ID theorists and evolutionists could argue that human intelligence is neither eternal, nor the pinnacle of existing intelligence. Indeed, whether it is true or not, we can’t be absolutely certain. Precisely for this reason the theory that human intelligence is everlasting, and constitutes the pinnacle of existing intelligence, is tentative, just as scientific theories are supposed to be.

Utter bullshit, just as WessleWoggle said.
1. We observe and measure the universe.
2. Therefore our intelligence is beyond the universe, i.e. supernatural
3. Supernatural = eternal
4. This theory is tentative due to complete lack of proof, like all scientific theories ought to be.

Wow. I mean ... wow. Really? Wow.

I was going to leave it at that, but it occurred to me that you may not see anything wrong with this logic. After I stopped shuddering at the thought, I decided to give a short overview of objections:
1. Our understanding of the universe is very incomplete, especially with respect to observation and measurement of its contents.
2. I could see an argument for this if we had complete understanding of the universe and its contents, but we don't. We sooooooo don't.
3. LOL WUT. I don't see any justification for saying that supernatural entities necessarily wouldn't have finite existences.
4. I strongly suspect that this person has no understanding of how scientific theories are supposed to be made. First you look at the evidence, then you come up with an explanation for it, then you see how consistent the explanation really is with the evidence. Not come up with a bunch of philosophical bullshit and then -- if you feel like it -- see if there's any evidence for it at all.

Your new link: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/3942

Even worse bullshit!

The Principle of Causality -- having no relationship to creationism, fundamentalism, or any kind of ism -- stipulates that no cause can produce an effect superior to itself, or give more than what it has. If a cause could produce anything greater than itself, the extra part of the effect would be without a cause, and that is contrary to reason -- and, by extension, to rational science.

So the Principle of Causality tells us that when we try to derive the richness of life from a simple beginning, as Darwin did, we are deluding ourselves. We try to get from a simple cause what it clearly does not have, namely greater complexity.