Welcome to Gaia! ::

Sorry. Maybe I don’t always explain myself well. I meant that if they ever want Intelligent Design to be taught as a science, they should first get some scientific data. It may very well be impossible. Even if they manage to figure out what was evolution and what was design they’d still have to find proof such as ‘why’ and ‘who’.





100 years ago who would have thought we could map the human brain? But scientists are doing it. Technology keeps evolving. 100 years down the line who knows what technology will be able to detect? Perhaps not some ‘invisible hand of God’, but maybe something that will be able to answer some of the many questions that plague human kind.





What I've found interesting is that while ID’s claim evolution has many holes in its theories, they seemingly avoid presenting absolutely any evidence towards their ‘theory’ besides evolution having some holes in it.

At some point, organisms obviously "grew" reproductive systems. I think what Payne-sempai was saying was that eventually two organisms did have to have compatible reproductive systems or we would still be dividing.

I'll do what I can.

Where did the space for the universe come from?
This is the subject of it's own debate, as are most of the questions you asked. As such, I'll try to be brief and relevant. There are many theories about the origin of the universe, none of which, obviously, can be proven or disproven, since none of us were there. Science tells us that the universe is expanding at a constant rate, and that evewhere coalsces into a single point of origin that began expanding about 13 billion years ago.

Where did matter come from?
Matter is what makes up everything we are familiar with, but anti-matter exists to counteract it, and combining the two leads to a massive output of energy, which allows for the assertion that one can create matter by using large quantities of energy to separate anti-matter from matter.

Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
Firstly, gravity isn't a law, it's a theory. Secondly, physical laws of the universe, by nature, are a set of principles which matter abides by, meaning that they've always existed based on the properites of matter itself.

How did matter get so perfectly organized?
This assumes that matter is perfectly organized. We very well could be the product of a very random assortment of matter when the universe started, setting in motion for us to end up like we are. Had the matter of the universe's origin been shifted one iota, we very well could look completely differnt. Butterfly effect.

Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
Again, this assumes that the universe is organized. Energy and matter are related, and neither can be created nor destroyed, and therefore must have existed for all time in some form or another.

When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
Non-living matter is a broad term, but the earliest signs of life were organic compounds and chemicals, similar to genetic material, which began replicating itself, much like how proteins are created. The entire process a bit complicated, and would take a lengthy post for me to explain. PM me if you're very interested.

When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
This assumes that life had to "learn" to reproduce. It is an instinctual process, as explained below. As I mentioned above, organic compounds began to replicate themselves (sometimes imperfectly) and gradual changes led to more complex compounds, and eventually true life forms.

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
There are a few ways to anser this question. Firstly, it is possible that there was no "first" cell, but a number of those capable of reproducing sexually that existed in the same time frame long enough to be the first beings on the planet to pop a cherry. This could have arisen from either one cell spawing multiple cells with this ability and the offspring mating with each other, or multiple cells spawning sexually-capable cells independently.

Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
Plants don't feed their offspring. In fact, many plants die after releasing seeds. In any case, individual organisms have a base survival instinct because any organisms that did not have this instinct died off and did not pass on such a trait.

How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Poor analogy. Mutations produce different traits from the parental generation. If the new trait is poor (50% possibility) the animal will have no significant increase in reproductive success or survival. If the new trait is beneficial, it will lead to increased chances for survival, and thus increased chances for reproduction and passing down of that successful trait.

Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
Anything is possible.

There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
Symbiosis does not defy evolution. Explain why you believe this, and I'll clarify.

When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
Emotions are the product of our sentience and higher brain functions, meant as a guidance system for our subconscious thought processes.

*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
really gets you thinking huh?

Okay, you asked a lot of questions, and I was planning on answering them all with more detail, but my time is short, so I'll make it even quicker. Of course something cannot come from nothing, but that assumes that nothing was there for evolution to be set in motion.

If you have any other questions, or would like something clarified, please say so.

In the begining there was Psi-oft, the state of maximum energy. then it expanded very slowly because of quantum fluctuations. this continued until it was large enough for matter to form out of the energy. this resulted in a massive burst of energy as matter and anti-matter were almost equally likely to form. this then accelerated to remaining matter away at C in relation to the initial point. this eventually slowed down and compacted enough to begin the transition from sub atomic particles to hydrogen. this then compacted until it hit the density/temperature required for fusion, thus creating 1st gen blue stars. these went through fusion until they created elements too dense to stustain fusion any further in the amounts present. they then contracted as there was no longer the outward force from the fusion reaction. they hit the density/temp to start the fusion of these elements and then explode due to the massive release of energy. this then seeded the universe with the heavier elements needed for life. more stars with planets and other objects formed out of this in the nebulas. the elements acted on the electro-weak principles to bond, creating several organic compounds. these compounds were subject to gravity which would have caused them to clump on the bottoms of lakes and such. this would then allow for the normally "impossably improbable" reactions and colisions required to form and sustain life to take place.

but not as science right?

the point of the bible isn't to be historically accurate. it's not supposed to be. it's to tell us a religious and moral truth, which is often times different than a historical. for example, the point of the babylonian exile wasn't that the ancient jews were exiled to babylon during certain years, but the reason WHY they were exiled--they broke a coventant with God.

why the Old Testament is so much less forgiving and much more full of fire and brimstone is because the people of that time period werent ready for what Jesus came to teach, first they had to follow God. just like you have to learn adding/subtraction multiplication/division before you can do algebra.

besides, isn't science based on belief? don't people have to believe something is or is not possible before they can form a hypothesis and perform an experiment. even then, you can choose to deny the results, no matter how in your face they are.....

and why can we teach "scientific theories" (let me reiterate HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN YET) and yet religious "theories" can't be? what's teh difference? neither have been proven true or false.

and there isn't a standard bible. first of all, protestants use teh king james version and catholics use the new american. and, we didnt cut books out canon (way back in the early days of hte Church) just because we felt like it, or because things were contradictory factually, but because they contradicted teh deeper truths the bible is supposed to get across to us.


anyway, i'm catholic, and i (basically) believe in "Intelligent Design." because, honestly, what's the point of God's not making everything happen? how would all of hte seemingly random things that make our universe possible exist? i saw a show on tv that went over some of the one in a trillion kind of things that exist in our universe. for example, if the way gravity worked or the speed light traveled, was just slightly different then the universe would be physically impossible? now, how about the probablility of both of them being just right in the same place? or the fact that life evolved just the way it did? i mean, think about dna....first of all, you need the atoms to form....tehn you need them to create the molecules, then they can join up and form chains of dna. but what good's dna if it doesn't have a "host" or if it doesn't code for anything?

Regardless of whether or not something is proven, the division between science and religion is the use of logic and experimentation to derive the core "truths" which scientists must believe in. One does not have to believe in science to test it to see if it still works. No matter how much you may wish it to be untrue, 1 plus 1 will always equal 2, and baking soda and vinegar will always yield carbon dioxide. You cannot prove nor disprove any religious matter, since there is nothing that can be measured or experimented with.

The biggest misconception about the "theory" of evolution is discrepancy of language. A theory in colloquial language is more similar to a guess or hypothesis in scientific language, whereas the scientific definition of a theory is "logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Simply because it was improbable that all of creation came into existence the way it is today doesn't mean that it's impossible. According to your logic, you could very well believe in "last Thursday-ism," which states that the entire universe came into existence last Thursday, including all of your current memories and circumstances. Like any other religious or philosophical matter, there's nothing that can be done to prove its merit either way.