The irrationality of the rational

"But we are getting closer and closer to prove that unless an intelligent and purposeful element in the building blocks of life was present and active, life could have never come into existence. The evolution theory is loosing ground with every new scientific discovery in the discipline of microbiology and genetic science."

That is the most innacurate statment I have heard in a long time. Though I agree that atheism is just as misguided as beliving in God, you provided no basis for statements like the one made above. Personally, I am agnostic. Since God has never made himself evident to me I am unaware of his existence but on the other hand, there are no scientific means by which I could disprove his existence. The idea of God is beyond the scope of science. But that is where you make your mistakes. You bring science into your argument for the existence of God. Belief in God is based on faith and faith alone.

I agree that belief in God is based on faith and faith alone. Science will never reach the point to actually detect, measure, observe and describe God by mere scientific means. Being God infinite and eternal in all His attributes, the only way science could credibly prove the existence of God is when it reaches the same level of infinity and eternity as God, and that will never ever be possible.

But I am not discussing the belief in God, I am talking about the manner in which the scientific community reaches stumbling blocks over and over and unless they get to think outside of the box, they will remain enclosed in a narrow, limited, insufficient and incomplete explanation of all things.

Does the Bible specifically say species do not evolve and adapt?

Does the Bible say specifically how God created the Heavens and the Earth? If not, then a "Big Bang" is certainly possible for the first step in the creation of the universe.

The day referenced in Genesis 1 means "period of time". Is it beyond the realm of possibility that this period of time can also mean millions of years per "day"? Considering that Man was created last, there were no people around to witness the previous creation.

As for me, I believe the Truth is somewhere in between was Creation-only believers believe and what Man-evolved-from-single-celled-organisms Evolutionists believe. There is enough evidence of both. By that, I mean that there is a Grand Design evident in all living things and there is also evidence that species evolve and adapt to their environment over time.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

I am familiar with the theory that the Creation days were not precisely 24 hours days. As a matter of fact, I tend to lean towards this theory, especially since the "markers" that were placed in order to measure time were created in the 4th day of Creation. But I have thought on another option: could it be that time, as we know it was different in the first few days of creation than it is today? We must not forget that even time was created by God, hence He could have made it different then than as it is today. My premise is based on the fact that light from stars and galaxies located perhaps hundreds of billion light years from us are visible. Not only that, but if we could somehow stand at a point 100 billion light years from Earth, we might be able to see further into the Universe and detect light that is billions of light years even further away from Earth. I believe that light from the whole Universe, as infinite as it is, would be visible from Earth, even if it were coming from trillions of light years away, we just don't have yet the devices and instruments sensitive enough as to capture it or observe it.

When God said "let there be light" i strongly believe that at that moment, light became instantaneously present in the whole infinite Universe.

Anyway, I guess I am kind of getting off the topic.

"The beauty, the precision and ultimately the purpose of clear and specific information found in the most elemental particles of living cells is calculated to be virtually impossible without an external and intelligent factor or force"

precision? please explain? and do you mind presenting the specific calculations of which you speak? However, you cannot just insert your god as an explanation for something which is not known like your suggesting. That is truly random practice , and that's why science rejects the concept of intelligent design, it is too random and it has no foundation other than faith itself. Faith in some arbitrary god or intelligence. If we were depending on faith alone we would not even know about these particles of living cells you mention. that's the nature of the scientific method, it's not comapitble with faith. If you're interested in educating yourself about this topic I suggest you read Richard Dawkins "the blind watchmaker" a book he wrote as a response to the argument of design popularised by theists as proof of god's existence. You should at least make an effort to educate yourself about the scientific concepts you're attempting to rebut, especially since you have suggested in previous articles that atheists are just people that are afraid of change or people that never made an effort. Is that too much to ask?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_design

"We must not forget that even time was created by God"

Time is an illusion, it's a man-made concept. A tool to understand and organize our surroundings. Ask Einstein

http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm

"Science claimed once that the Earth was flat. Science claimed once that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Science claimed once that flight is impossible. Science claimed once that breaking the sound barrier was impossible. Science claimed once that light speed cannot be broken. All these scientific and indisputable claims were once accepted as truth. Yet, they all were proven wrong."

and these claims were all proved wrong by?? Hmmm.... SCIENCE??

How does this "argument" work in favor of faith? You're effectively arguing against yourself. Parts of Science was once halfway compatible with the concept of god as well you know but it has developed.. no EVOLVED beyond that by now. (Science itself is an example of somthing complex having evolved from something simple)

"it all points out to the logical fact that what we claim today to be true, may one day be proven wrong"

I don't deny this statement. However, No reliable empirical evidence ever existed to suggest that the earth was flat. Science like everything else is EVOLVING and it's EVOLVING more away from the concept of god than towards it.

I feel it's appropriate to end this comment with a quote by Homer Simpson that loosely describes your way of arguing against the scienctific method.

"sometimes the only way you can feel good about yourself is by making someone else look bad. And I'm tired of making other people feel good about themselves"

Homer Simpson

Nothing can exist without the time dimension. Even a simple electron need a certain amount of time to complete a revolution around the nucleus of an atom. Without time, the electron would collide with the nucleus and the atom would not exist. Earth takes 24 hours to revolve around its axis, and 365 days to revolve around the Sun. If all that is based on an illusion, well... I am sorry my friend, you need help.

You couldn't be further from the truth, Science is progressively turning to a view point that there is intelligence and purpose in the existence of all things. Perhaps if you stop reading frustrated atheist and read some of more advanced and recent reports and documents you would eventually catch up with the reality of the world we live in.

But then, there a Spanish say: "No hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver."

And I couldn't agree more with Homer Simpson. Is he your other study subject?

Surely I need help! Did you read the article i linked to? did you make an effort? Or do you just want to make me look bad? are you trying to insult me? Well, I'm not as easily insulted as you are so Good luck! I will not end this conversation but i have a feeling you will...

anyway, "hours" is a man made concept so are "days", they are just descriptive terms and they do not describe time itself they simply describe (as you say) movements of electrons and heavenly bodies. Other than that are you able to tell what time actually is? no? Einstein wasn't sure either and he thought long and hard about this concept with a very able brain.

"You couldn't be further from the truth, Science is progressively turning to a view point that there is intelligence and purpose in the existence of all things"

Ok, you are making a claim supposedly based in science. Could you be so kind to reference your sources? give some examples? present some scientific theories? It would be appreciated, if anything could convince me it would be science.

However even if you are right with regards to this claim you've already stated clearly and concsiely that you personally do not trust the scientific method so where does that leave you?

anyway, bring on the science, and please do it without arbitrarly inserting your god as the ntelligence and purpose you are referreing to!!!

Never in what I have stated so far I have claimed that I do not trust the scientific method. So your assumption is ill willed and misleading. Science is developing new and revolutionary methods that provide more and more evidence of an intelligent factor behind the existence of all things. Yet, as many in the middle ages have resisted any advance in scientific method and explanations, so are many resisting today any evidence which would place their position in the same level of close minded, medieval state of mind and practice.

"Science will never reach the point to actually detect, measure, observe and describe God by mere scientific means"

Are you sure abotu this claim? as you said yourself about all the previos mistakes in science: "It all points out to the logical fact that what we claim today to be true, may one day be proven wrong. And so on"

I'm not assuming and I'm not ill willed. Your article as a whole titled "the irrationality of the rational" suggests that you don't trust the scientific method especially here:
"Science claimed once that the Earth was flat. Science claimed once that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Science claimed once that flight is impossible. Science claimed once that breaking the sound barrier was impossible. Science claimed once that light speed cannot be broken. All these scientific and indisputable claims were once accepted as truth. Yet, they all were proven wrong. It all points out to the logical fact that what we claim today to be true, may one day be proven wrong. And so on."

But you haven't answered my request. Give me some references or examples from the scientific works you are referring to those new and revolutionary methods that provide more and more evidence for intelligent design. Come on! I'm interested, give me the names of some of the authors or scientists give me references. Is that to much to ask?

No need to waste my time giving you any evidence pointing to Intelligent Design. The Internet is full of articles, essays and other writings that support the theory. Any article or paper that I could mention, would encounter an opposing viewpoint that would take this debate well into the 22 century. The evidence is out there. You either accept it or reject it. In either case, it will not go away. I have debated these issues for many years over the internet, and I know for a fact that it is a neverending process. There is nothing I can do to make you change your mind, and neither it is my intention. You will oppose any reason or explanation, so what's the point? Eventually, somehow, sometime, you will increase your knowledge and understanding and things that today seem irrational may become perfectly rational.

I have been where you are now. But you have never been where I am now. But this may change, because I believe in a God to whom nothing is impossible.

Equally you oppose,deny and overlook my arguments. The fact that you cannot (or will not) even reference a single article, book or text that scientifically supports your claims about intelligent design tells me that you have been basing your recent comments on false premises. There must be something you have read or know of that illustrates your point better that if I would randomly do a google search for "Intelligent design"? You have no suggested reading for me? What about the revolutionary stuff you were talking about earlier?

You say there is nothing you can do to change my mind yet you are desperately trying. By the way, I have never been where the Imam in the local mosque is either and I don't intend to go there.