|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4869 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What's the problem with teaching ID? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
A few things need to be pointed out.
First, there is no conflict between Creation and Evolution. The Theory of Evolution is accepted by many if not most Christian Clergy. Claiming that it is some religious issue simply won't fly here. Second, disproving Evolution does not add any weight to Biblical Creationism. If Evolution was somehow disproved, and so far no one has been able to do so, the alternative would not be Biblical Creationism but rather "I don't know." Third, if you want to support Special Creation or Biblical Creationism you will have to present models that stand up to examination and explain what is seen better than the currently accepted models. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
But if creation is true then there should be loads of supporting evidence which is why I support the cause -I know of loads of facts that defy evolution and confirm creation and they just don't come up in your average bio text.It's a logic and truth matter, not a conspiratorial motion. Then now is the time to step up to the plate and present the support for Biblical Creation. Please remember that your task is to present those models that explain the evidence seen better than the existing ones. If you wish to introduce God or God did it into the models, you will need to place God on exhibit where She can be examined by secular science just as any other piece of evidence. Frankly, I don't think you can do it but we are always hoping even one Biblical Creationist will try. Remember, your task is to provide supporting models for Biblical Creationism. Good luck.
If the Genesis account of creation is not true, then exactly when in the Bible does truth kick in? I say if Genesis 1-11 is not true then we can safely say that the Bible is not Gods Word at all (even though He promised to preserve it through His people for all generations to know the truth of what they are doing here).If the Genesis account is not true then we may as well throw the entire Bible out as questionable at best and certainly not to be relied apon. Of course if we do that then man's words will have to do but man was not there when the world began so their words would be historical speculation at best and major invention at worst. Taking Genesis as myth leaves the entire Bible open to personal interpretation. Just a Special Pleading. If you are a Type 1 poster, then fine, announce your Special Pleading and be done with it. Do not try to pretend though that you have anything more than a Special Pleading or that you are proposing science.
Type 1 If someone is going to support some form of Biblical Creation, they have several choices; they can take the emotional route and use special pleadings to the Bible. This relies solely on appealing to authority, saying that regardless of the evidence the Biblical Creation myth(s) will be all that is accepted. Sorry, the whole Bible is open to interpretation. In Genesis there is not one Creation account but rather two mutually exclusive ones. If the Bible is to be examined literally then the only possible conclusion is that the Bible is false from the very beginning and there is NO truth to be found in the Bible. If you honestly think you can support Biblical Creationism, then please, by all means, propose a topic and present your support for the position. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sorry but there is only one model for how life began that has any evidential support whatsoever, and that is that life began through normal, common, chemical reactions.
There is no other model. There is no evidence of any designer. There is no evidence of any magician. There is no evidence of any planner. The only evidence is of entirely natural chemical reactions. Sorry but thems the facts.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Normal is the same chemical reactions we see today. Two hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen atom to produce one water molecule.
There are models involving chemical reactions. There is no other model. There is no ID model. There is no Creationist model. If you can present the model that shows how the claimed designer influenced anything then please do so. Did the designer use duct tape, tie wraps, bubble gum? Did the designer use little waldoes? Present the evidence for anything other than normal chemical reactions.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
More just plain nonsense, sloppy thinking and willful ignorance.
Some basic facts. We know life exists and so whatever the atmosphere was when life first started it was conducive to life starting. The only model of how different elements can combine to form molecules which combine to form compounds is through normal chemical reactions. If you wish to contest those facts then you must present the body of evidence that supports the model you propose. It really is that simple.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
I am a Christian and almost all major Christian sects support abiogenesis and Evolution and oppose ID and Creationism.
Science is not about belief, it is about evidence.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Unless ID actually proposed a model to show the method the asserted designer uses to influence evolution, the answer is either magic or supernatural.
Edited by jar, : fix sub-titleAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You have NEVER presented the model or method the asserted designer uses influence evolution.
Until you present that model, whether it is little tweezers or a John Deere front loader, you have presented nothing but word salad.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The way to develop Intelligent Design is to bring the designer in so that the designer can demonstrate the model of how evolution is influenced.
It really is that simple.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Until you present the model showing the method and process the asserted designer uses you have nothing but word salad.
There is no ID model. Edited by jar, : appalin spallinAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The answer is still the same.
It really is that simple.
a. I have already provided you with a mechanism to shape the course of evolution. Bullshit. Totally false. You have NOT presented the method used to front load a genome. How was it done? What tools were used?
b. What if the designer(s) is extinct? Not my problem. You asserted there is a designer.
c. Where do you propose to search for this designer first? Mars? Or the Andromeda galaxy? Possibly, if we sent a man to the Pleiades we'd find the designer? Where in the galaxy do you think we should look for the designers first? I'm curious. NMP yet again.
d. We don't need to have the designer(s) present to infer intelligent design. You can infer any damn thing you want. Pink elephants with green stripes. Again, that's not my problem.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sorry you feel that way, but it really is that simple.
Until you can present and defend the model and method, the mechanics, Inept Design will remain just a joke. There is no ID model.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So you are claiming that the asserted designer used the tools and techniques used today?
I assume that you have evidence of the lab?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
SETI has not asserted that they have received such a signal.
If and when they do, yes, they will have to present a convincing model of how the signal was generated. Incredulous Design is still just a joke.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
ID is a joke. There is absolutely nothing to take seriously about ID.
And "Yes, SETI will have to have the lab or at least the location of the lab that generated the signal." They will have to show where the signal originated, document there actually is something at that location, and then the criticism will begin. They will have to be able to duplicate the lab, the tools, everything involved in generating teh signal. The data, the assumptions, the source, the model, the method, the mechanics of the signal will be challenged and they will not be able to infer design. Further, until some other independent unaffiliated organization can duplicate the findings it will still be labeled as "Unknown". AbE: and so far all the evidence supports Inept Design over Intelligent Design. It really is that simple. Edited by jar, : see AbE:Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024