Taffy, You’re taking my comments out of context. Never in any of my comments about how many believe creation science, or ID have I suggested that this makes the beliefs true. It has always been in the context of uniformed people claiming things like ‘ID is a religious world view held by a small number of religious people mainly American right wing extremist.’ or that ‘evolution being incredibly well supported’ is a basic fact.

Also, your selection of only 2 data points to conclude decline in belief is sloppy.

Itsnoteasybeing – ID is not creation science. ID may be compatible with creation science, in so far as they both believe that natural causes apart from design are not sufficient to account for the observations, but this does make them equivalent. Using the logic as you do to make the equivalence claim I could claim that because (apparently according to Deuc) evolution is compatible with religion, then evolution is nothing but religion trying on a poorly fitting science coat in an attempt to find some validity.

Re: predictions. You continue to misrepresent my words. I don’t expect to convince you because your mind is already made up and so even if creation science has made successful predictions, you will ignore them and go on as if it hasn’t. As it was only a side point, and you hardly seem objective, it is a waste of my time and 350 words to go into depth on the subject. However DavidLatimer has given one prediction that has been successfully made by creation science, there is no need for others. Lets see how open minded and objective you really are.

Deuc- Hume was quoted precisely because he was a hostile witness. He understood quite well that the claim that nothing could case something was absurd and irrational. If this is what you believe then ….

Virtual particles are generated from a quantum energy field. This is not nothing. To argue that this is evidence the generation has no cause is an argument from ignorance.

Perhaps your self-claimed ape brain is having trouble with logic.

jeshua,
I’d first like to point out that I did not say or imply that a belief in God was “a fantasy or delusion”, you concluded that. My point was that a proper belief in God does not require scientific validation, and in fact science can’t prove or disprove the existence of God because God is outside the realms of science.

No one doubts that there are statements in the Bible that we can verify and thus can be considered to be factual; places, some events, historic characters, etc. But there are other statements in the Bible that science and history tells us are just plain wrong, eg global flood. So one has to be careful when talking of the Bible as a source of scientific facts. Of course the inconsistencies are only a problem for those “believers” who take the Bible literally, and don’t take into consideration the time and cultural aspects of when it was written.
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/bible-science.cfm

Your argument that the fact that lots of people believe in a Christian God is somehow scientific proof that God exists, holds as much weight as me saying because there are more people in the world who don’t believe in a Christian God there is scientific proof that such a God doesn’t exist. Neither statement is logically valid or correct.

If you have a personal experience of God that allows you to believe in Him/Her, well and good. But because it is personal I can’t see it, touch, measure it or verify it, so in what way does it represent a scientific fact?

There was a time when, and indeed are, people who have claimed personal experience with other gods. This by your argument implies that their god(s) also exist. Do you believe in multiple gods? If not how do you empirically measure that your personal experience is somehow truer than another person’s personal experience?

And at the end of the day ID is still not science and should be an insult to the intelligence of any thinking person with or without a belief in God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement

Deuc– I understand you have no interest in justifying any of your points. You just try to shift the burden of proof away from yourself (YOU are making the claim). This isn’t how debate is done. The person who makes the claim has the burden of proof. Deal with it.

I made a specific claim about your understanding of IC in that you made an untested claim about evolution to refute IC. We can see by observation in other areas that IC implies design, it is an INDUCTION to generalise this to biological life. I am not using a false dichotomy as I am relying on observational evidence as the basis of the induction. That your evolutionary claim (or any other non-design cause) hasn’t been supported observationally means that it is not a supported competing explanation, hence the best explanation based on the evidence is ID.

DavidLatimer: You have yet to support that you were misquoted. Yet here again, you have misquoted me. I have never claimed that nobody else is properly arguing.

The Magnetic field prediction is here http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=329

So now that there has been a successful prediction, who thinks there is perhaps some science to creation science?

Btw, the light travel problem exists for big bang too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem
Note: inflation (the proposed solution to this problem) has essentially been falsified http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v628n2/19153/brief/19153.abstract.html

“Grey is declining to argue and being a hypocrite about it.” Asking a question before I answer is hardly declining to answer.

Lets face it David. Your post (23/10) misrepresented what I said and you have yet to correct that misrepresentation. You instead accused me of misquoting you, but without explanation this is just a lame attempt to distract from your own mistakes. Just as your attempts to focus on the prediction issue are. Your lack of understanding of creation science is evidenced when you contrast natural selection and creation science (24/10). Creation science has natural selection as part of its theories. You beg the question with regards to similarity indicating common descent. Instead of dealing with these short-comings of your own position you try to distract.

ARJAY: "Science explains the relationships and laws that govern interactions in our world..."
Not to argue with Arjay but to point something out;

#There are some things Science CAN MEASURE but still CANNOT EXPLAIN:

Why do two masses attract eachother?
Although science can measure everything to do with this phenomenon (even discovering the univeral gravitational constant: 6.67x10^-11) but cannot actually explain WHY it happens.

Why do opposite electric charges attract and same charges repel?
Similarly, the laws have been found but the reason WHY this happens has eluded Science.

Why do opposite magnetic poles attract and same magnetic poles repel?
Similarly, the laws have been found but the reason WHY this happens has eluded Science.

These are just a few things I have selected to mention.

#Conversely, ID is something that CAN BE EXPLAINED, but CANNOT BE MEASURED.

Just thought I might share that.

PS. Use of capitals was to ensure that a pattern was detected ;)

This realy is a silly thread ID is an attack on science full stop.

For those of you who might have had trouble with the technical document that grey linked to (relating to a possible problem for the Big Bang Theory) you might find this one a bit more digestible:
http://uahnews.uah.edu/read.asp?newsID=572

Some ID supporters, most notably Michael Behe; do believe in Evolution by natural selection and the fact that we all evolved from a common ancestor. They however feel that some of the structures that occur are too complex to have evolved by chance and are divinely designed. Behe’s argument for Irreducible Complexity has almost universally being rejected by the scientific community as bad science. However, other ID supporters like the founder of ID, Philip E. Johnson, don’t seem to support either concept (evolution or common ancestor) and view ID as a political tool to get religious creationism taught in US public schools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

On the theme of science and religion co-existing (with the exception of creationism) you may find interesting these statements by a number of religious groups of their support of the Theory of Evolution, their belief that religion and science should be taught separately and that the use of the Bible as a scientific text is not only bad science but bad theology,
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7445_statements_from_religious_org_12_19_2002.asp

a couple of extracts follow:

“…the dispute [Creationism vs. Science] is not really over biology or faith, but is essentially about Biblical interpretation, particularly over two irreconcilable viewpoints regarding the characteristics of Biblical literature and the nature of Biblical authority”
United Presbyterian Church in the USA (1982)

“Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible — the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark — convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey information but to transform hearts.”
Extract from a letter signed by 188 pastors from Baptist, Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist and other churches in Grantsburg, Wisconsin.