Viewing Thread:
"The Chicken Or The egg?"

Surely the chicken must have come first. I feel that a creature before the chicken must have evolved slightly, creating a egg laying animal. This is because when I turn the question around I see that the egg must have come from somewhere - right?!

Geffdof wrote:
> Ive just said in the other topic that they think its about 10,000
> years old.


10,000 years old eh? They might want to tell that to T-Rex and his pals, though in regards to that i have read people saying that the fossils were put there as a test by god in people's faith so ermm.. quite

Ive just said in the other topic that they think its about 10,000 years old.

Personally I have no idea how old the earth is and I dont think it really matters to me.

Geffdof wrote:
> I dont think the universe appeared by accident.


Why does the universe have to appear from somewhere yet God can transcend the boundaries of time? Why can't the universe just be an infinite thing that has always been around and will always be around

Doesn't creationism say that the earth is only about 6,000 years old or something?

Well thats part of the problem. People either dont believe in God or dont want to believe in God and are therefore forced to find an alternative theory. A way of explaining things without needing faith. They start with the answer being "there is no God" then find a theory that will fit to this conclusion.

I understand that this can work in reverse too with religious people starting with the assumption that God exists and then fitting a creationist theory to that.

Essentially you can neither prove or disprove the exitence of God.

Ironically (im a science student at uni) I find the evolution theory rediculous as a form of science.

Evolution has flaws, yes; but these are things which science is more likely than not to uncover. They will alter the theory, perhaps change it totally maybe, but it's probable that the argument will remain similar, based on our current knowledge.

So yes, it has flaws.

The trouble is, Intelligent Design relies on faith, and that's simply not acceptable in ANY form in terms of an adequate explanation of the Earth for many people. If science is the baseline, then ID is not adequate, because it relies on something outside of science. Yes, it works if you believe, but so does my theory that I believe in an omniscient dog, and therefore all trees are in fact secretly alive. It's a sound logical argument, because I said it was.

Sure, you can believe it. But it CANNOT compete with evolution on an equal footing because it is not a scientific theory. It relies on a God who many have enough trouble understanding/believing in as it is. Myself included.

Evolution is full of inadequecies. The only "fault" with the intelligent design theory is that you have to believe in an intelligent designer. If you accept that then it all works perfectly.

argh intelligent design, deary me.

The God creator argument overlaps with so many inadequacies it's scary, and a far sounder evolutionary argument is dismissed (by others) as being a heretic 'faith'. RAR

Have a read, fairly good overview.
Intelligent Design

The reason I asked is because its a theory thats pushed by christian groups as the "rival" to evolution.

I believe that life on earth (in fact the whole universe) was designed and created by an intelligent supreme being (God from the Bible). I dont think the universe appeared by accident. I dont think that we evolved over millions of years. I think the world was inticately planned and that the complex nature of the universe shows signs of an intelligent creator rather than a mere accident.
If thats what you mean by intelligent design then I guess I believe in that.