Is there scientific evidence for an intelligent designer aka God?

I have no idea who is responsible for this, but it is no coincidence: Seen from the surface of the Earth, the Moon has the same visual diameter as the Sun. Not only that, the Moon needs 29.5 days per rotation (around Earth or itself) and the average rotation of the solar surface is 29.5 days with 24 days at the equator and 35 days at the poles. The only life-form on Earth which might notice that, is those whose female fertility cycle has the very same period of almost 29.5 days.

"We need to understand"... you forgot something. prove this god exists in the first place.

otherwise, no, we don't need to understand.

Great, so that's over 100 then in relevant fields, and that is by no means a complete listing.

Here's at least 400 more PhD's from major universities, most of which are in the field of biology and natural sciences.


"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

[link to www.discovery.org]

Go find the dentist and tell us how its all bunk :P


Now let's try and guess the number of scientists that are skeptical and do not wish to be troubled by going on the record and getting tarred and feathered by the naturalist community... hrmmmm..



And I really don't care how many scientists question or don't question it. Science is not democratic. I just think it's hilarious that Naturalists believe macro-evolution is not questioned by "qualified experts"

LOL. That is gold.

This is one of those questions.

The choices are:
Intelligent Design (some higher being kicked things off)
Stupid Design (simple evolution)

Intelligent design has problems explaining the dinosaurs.

Stupid design is like the big bang theory. Something magically defied entropy and started moving and reproducing. Yeh, right.

The problem with stupid design is it is kind of stupid and has no explanation for how life originated but is ok on explaining the sequence of species.

Last Edited by Poriwoggu on 08/17/2012 09:21 PM

Questions the Big Bang Does Not Answer

A major challenge to the big bang has come from observers using the corrected optics of the Hubble Space Telescope to measure distances to other galaxies. The new data is giving the theorists fits!

Astronomer Wendy Freedman and others recently used the Hubble Space Telescope to measure the distance to a galaxy in the constellation of Virgo, and her measurement suggests that the universe is expanding faster, and therefore is younger, than previously thought. In fact, it "implies a cosmic age as little as eight billion years," reported Scientific American magazine just last June. While eight billion years sounds like a very long time, it is only about half the currently estimated age of the universe. This creates a special problem, since, as the report goes on to note, "other data indicate that certain stars are at least 14 billion years old." If Freedman's numbers hold up, those elderly stars would turn out to be older than the big bang itself!

Still another problem for the big bang has come from steadily mounting evidence of "bubbles" in the universe that are 100 million light-years in size, with galaxies on the outside and voids inside. Margaret Geller, John Huchra, and others at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics have found what they call a great wall of galaxies some 500 million light-years in length across the northern sky. Another group of astronomers, who became known as the Seven Samurai, have found evidence of a different cosmic conglomeration, which they call the Great Attractor, located near the southern constellations of Hydra and Centaurus. Astronomers Marc Postman and Tod Lauer believe something even bigger must lie beyond the constellation Orion, causing hundreds of galaxies, including ours, to stream in that direction like rafts on a sort of "river in space."

All this structure is baffling. Cosmologists say the blast from the big bang was extremely smooth and uniform, according to the background radiation it allegedly left behind. How could such a smooth start have led to such massive and complex structures? "The latest crop of walls and attractors intensifies the mystery of how so much structure could have formed within the 15-billion-year age of the universe," admits Scientific American—a problem that only gets worse as Freedman and others roll back the estimated age of the cosmos still more.

Questions the Big Bang Does Not Answer

A major challenge to the big bang has come from observers using the corrected optics of the Hubble Space Telescope to measure distances to other galaxies. The new data is giving the theorists fits!

Astronomer Wendy Freedman and others recently used the Hubble Space Telescope to measure the distance to a galaxy in the constellation of Virgo, and her measurement suggests that the universe is expanding faster, and therefore is younger, than previously thought. In fact, it "implies a cosmic age as little as eight billion years," reported Scientific American magazine just last June. While eight billion years sounds like a very long time, it is only about half the currently estimated age of the universe. This creates a special problem, since, as the report goes on to note, "other data indicate that certain stars are at least 14 billion years old." If Freedman's numbers hold up, those elderly stars would turn out to be older than the big bang itself!

Still another problem for the big bang has come from steadily mounting evidence of "bubbles" in the universe that are 100 million light-years in size, with galaxies on the outside and voids inside. Margaret Geller, John Huchra, and others at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics have found what they call a great wall of galaxies some 500 million light-years in length across the northern sky. Another group of astronomers, who became known as the Seven Samurai, have found evidence of a different cosmic conglomeration, which they call the Great Attractor, located near the southern constellations of Hydra and Centaurus. Astronomers Marc Postman and Tod Lauer believe something even bigger must lie beyond the constellation Orion, causing hundreds of galaxies, including ours, to stream in that direction like rafts on a sort of "river in space."

All this structure is baffling. Cosmologists say the blast from the big bang was extremely smooth and uniform, according to the background radiation it allegedly left behind. How could such a smooth start have led to such massive and complex structures? "The latest crop of walls and attractors intensifies the mystery of how so much structure could have formed within the 15-billion-year age of the universe," admits Scientific American—a problem that only gets worse as Freedman and others roll back the estimated age of the cosmos still more.

Open your eyes and SEE,
don't just look around,
observe... is not the
intricate complexity
of our Universe
not proof enough?

Yes. There is massive amounts of scientific data. The Fibonacci sequence, golden phi ratio, to name a few.

It's not about proof or evidence.

A fundamental naturalist is NOT ALLOWED to accept intelligent design, no matter what.

read, learn.


Yes it is true, there have been many designs, and at least two designers at work.

There is no evidence for any gods, period.

the bits we don't know are down to Odin, allfather of the Norse gods. Fact!

Who worships Odin? anyone?

I know atheists worship the spaghetti monster.

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Planck, physicist.

We are all part of the infinite mind\matrix\consciousness of God.

Ok, how about this.

Evolution takes thousands of years to develop a trait, right? Ok, so mankind, this go around, has only had transmitted sound for a little over 112 years (Marconi sending radio waves in 1898). We have had transmitted video for 103 years (Georges Rignoux and A. Fournier 1909. So, there has been very little time for any evolutionary traits to develop. However, from the very beginning of these broadcasts, continuing up until today, there has been a trait in women that was DESIGNED in. That is the ability of your wife, daughter, significant other to talk, walk in front of, or otherwise disrupt anything you are hearing or watching at the EXACT moment that the plot is revealed, your favorite part comes on, or the winning pass or shot is taken. This is not an evolutionary trait, as it does nothing to further the species. Indeed, the near homicidal rage that overtakes most males after having this done to them for the THOUSANDTH time would indicate that this ability in women is counter to continuing the species.

This is something that had to be designed in, by a being with a very good sense of humor.

Well, yes it's true. But we know you're much better off paying attention to us than polluting your mind with that other kwap.

Of course the great Quran has the answer for this. You sock your wife in the jaw, that bitch! Allah Ackbar!

on second thought, scratch what I said above, mr. miracle. I can't possibly hope to compete with the attention demands of our glbtq atheist scold-friends.

Love it when creationists haul out and dust off 20-year-old quotes. The age of the universe was reliably determined to be 13.75 billion years +/- 0.11 billion years several years ago. Any prior findings are obsolete.

...and that a supreme being did the same thing ?....now you have the same odds PLUS the odds of a God doing it all...soo the chance of that is?????? 20 to the 830th power?
..that one reason doesn't solve a question doesn't have any relationship to a 2nd reason...each must stand on it's own...WE are here...how the hell did that happen...there are presents under my xmas tree and my parents say they didn't put them there..must be a Santa...to say one reason could not happen therfore a God did that thing I just said couldn't happen...really?...there may well be a God...but unless God makes a showing....no evidence

Thread: WOW!!! scientists Store Thick Book With Images And Software In DNA!

Well, I do pay more attention to my wife than most men do to theirs, but I do like to blank my mind on occasion with mindless crap. However, I still think that we have been designed. If not, then why are we the only species that has "evolved" to our current state? No other apes, reptiles, or others have ever moved past their wild state.

I've watched it. Boy, that was tedious. Why are creationists so big on long slow videos? Can't they write stuff down?

Some issues:

1. Misquotes Dawkins - in addition to ignorant, stupid, or insane, he mentions wicked. Wilson doesn't include that option.
2. Claims that evolutionists accuse creationists of denying species multiplying. I've never heard that.
3. Admits that Darwin dissenters have a variety of views. You'd think that if they were right and Darwin were wrong that the Darwinists would be all over the map, and they'd all agree. But - as he notes repeatedly - it's completely the other way around.
4. Claims that intelligent design proponents are different from creationists when there's overwhelming evidence that's exactly what they are. By their own admission ID is just a way of getting creationism into schools and colleges.

He does make an interesting point about trying to explain nature using nature. I'm going to have to think about that.

On the other hand, I listened to bits from the follow-on lecture ( [link to www.youtube.com] ) and pretty much every claim he makes there about creation science has been solidly refuted.

I think there is scientific evidence. When you decode DNA, it is a language. Language needs intelligence; it cannot be formed through evolution.

I'm agnostic BTW.

Opinions are like assholes--everybody has one, and most of them stink. And that's a fact, not an opinion.

"The latest crop of walls and attractors intensifies the mystery of how so much structure could have formed within the 15-billion-year age of the universe," admits Scientific American—a problem that only gets worse as Freedman and others roll back the estimated age of the cosmos still more.

Article says 'it couldn't have happened WITHIN 15 billion yrs', and then says 'and now universe is thought to be even younger', paraphrasing.

If you're implying I'm a creationist, I'm not. That usually means,I think, a young-earth-er, whereas I don't have an opinion on that.

I replied this before :
"Well, yes it's true. But we know you're much better off paying attention to us than polluting your mind with that other kwap."

I thought what you said was funny and tried to respond in kind.

I was referring to the sarcastic, angry quran comment as being from one of our glbtq atheist scold-friends.

I believe in 'Design' too, especially when I see how suppressed and lied about it seems to be, and how ridiculously over-angry its' detractors seem to be. And OY VEY! Always with the straw men set up as foes!
But I don't think we're evolving but degenerating, so that we're somewhere in that process, rather than in process of evolution.