Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design Creationism
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 106 of 154 (126487)
07-22-2004 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by CK
07-21-2004 7:17 PM


Re: Just Assert IC Systems are Random
Things must be going badly when they reach for that old chestnut!
which chestnut?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by CK, posted 07-21-2004 7:17 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by CK, posted 07-22-2004 6:47 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 107 of 154 (126517)
07-22-2004 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by arachnophilia
07-22-2004 2:41 AM


Re: Just Assert IC Systems are Random
Sorry - I clicked the wrong button, that was aimed at willowtree - the "evolution is the theory of racists and murderers!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by arachnophilia, posted 07-22-2004 2:41 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by arachnophilia, posted 07-22-2004 7:47 AM CK has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 108 of 154 (126520)
07-22-2004 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by CK
07-22-2004 6:47 AM


Re: Just Assert IC Systems are Random
oh. i see.
yeah, that was pretty lame. luckily, about five of us had the stock answer prepared! lol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by CK, posted 07-22-2004 6:47 AM CK has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 154 (126605)
07-22-2004 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Cold Foreign Object
07-21-2004 8:11 PM


Re: Just Assert IC Systems are Random
quote:
I notice you had to conveniently ignore the slander which produced my factual statement.
Perhaps I am being selective, but slander is slander no matter what caused you to do it. You will notice that I freely admit that there are racists in both camps of the evolution debate. I just happen to believe that someone can say something true while still being wrong about other things. A truthful statement is a truthful statement no matter what a person does or believes outside of that statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-21-2004 8:11 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-22-2004 5:02 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 110 of 154 (126650)
07-22-2004 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Cold Foreign Object
07-21-2004 5:00 PM


to consider evidence is to entertain God.
Weren't you the guy that said if 10,000 scientists produced reports saying porn is not harmful to kids then they were all liars and secret pedophiles?
Pure rant. Your reaction betrays the hate in you.
Well, given the tone of that same post I mentioned above, plus the fact that you never answered my reply, that would make you a ranter as well... and a hater.
Perhaps, those in stained glass houses should not throw stones.
Your moronic rant against Paul diametrically reveals the truth of his apostleship.
Awesome, imagine what that means about me!
Now the above was just a gentle reminder of your hypocrisy and the fact that you have left a reply unanswered.
The following goes specifically to this thread...
Evolution: the precious theory of the philosophy behind fascism, Marxism, and the Holocaust.
This is curious to me. Intelligent Design theorists, even the full on Creationist kind, accept "microevolution". That means that humans can evolve to some degree or other within human "kind".
So how does this charge NOT effect IDC as well as modern evolutionists. The only thing standing between us is one kind to another.
And indeed modern evolutionary theorists, believing all kinds come from same origins, tend NOT to view any species or race (if there are even such things as races) as inferior/superior.
You have linked a scientific theory to political movements which at times misused parts of that scientific theory to attack their enemies.
But this can easily be shown to be true for religious beliefs as much as, if not much more than for scientific theories.
And in this case, neither evo nor IDC can claim some magical divide from how "evolution" was misused by racists, as the portions able to be misused are shared by both.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-21-2004 5:00 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-22-2004 5:59 PM Silent H has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 111 of 154 (126722)
07-22-2004 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Loudmouth
07-22-2004 1:19 PM


Re: Just Assert IC Systems are Random
You will notice that I freely admit that there are racists in both camps of the evolution debate. I just happen to believe that someone can say something true while still being wrong about other things. A truthful statement is a truthful statement no matter what a person does or believes outside of that statement.
Agreed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Loudmouth, posted 07-22-2004 1:19 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 112 of 154 (126738)
07-22-2004 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Silent H
07-22-2004 2:46 PM


Weren't you the guy that said if 10,000 scientists produced reports saying porn is not harmful to kids then they were all liars and secret pedophiles?
You are the "guy" defending porno exposure to kids is not harmful.
The position is only taken because it is.
It is called a brute fact - not a matter of opinion.
that would make you a ranter as well... and a hater.
I am a hater - everyone is, but the vocal anti-hate crowd lies about their human nature to hate. They hate anyone who does not agree with their politically "correct" litmus tests/nonsense, therefore this hating is acceptable.
I hate the double standard here. Arach claims to be a christian, but he/she instantly used politically correct smear nonsense the moment I referenced Romans, which is a source for ID philosophy (obviously).
This means Arach vehemently despised what Romans says and sought to slander the source via a politically "correct" hate argument, an argument which has nothing to do with the text and its relation to ID.
Imagine a "christian" who rejects Romans ? Now that is an oxymoron.
What Arach is really saying is that the Bible MUST pass his/her politically correct litmus test OR it aint inspired.
Did it ever enter Arach's mind that this current militantly secular generation and its values are the problem and not what Romans may or may not argue ?
Arach's objective frame of reference is the views of the crowd/secular world at large to be indisputably correct and any other conflicting source (Romans) wrong - and he/she is a christian !
The source of ALL ID philosophy is the Bible, namely Genesis and Romans which makes Arach's outburst of hate rant against Romans silly and indicative of the infuriating truths contained therein.
Romans speaks for God, this is the claim of the Canon, and Romans tells us what God thinks of evolution. You know nerves are struck when Romans is "refuted" with non sequitors about women and gays.
So how does this charge NOT effect IDC as well as modern evolutionists. The only thing standing between us is one kind to another.
That "only thing" is the alleged evolution. There are no transitionals from one species to another.
And indeed modern evolutionary theorists, believing all kinds come from same origins, tend NOT to view any species or race (if there are even such things as races) as inferior/superior.
At least you are honest enough to place the word "theorists" following "modern evolutionary", it is called theory because of the paucity of facts.
The only reason these theorists believe all kinds come from same origins is because Genesis is not an option. Genesis is not an option because that would admit God created, therefore philosophy is driving the science and not evidence.
Charles Darwin and Huxley sure viewed races as superior/inferior. Need I post the quotes ?
But, of course, modern evos reject Darwin's racism, I only remind them of evolutions origin when they "refute" the Bible via Arach's subjective secular rants.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Silent H, posted 07-22-2004 2:46 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by NosyNed, posted 07-22-2004 6:11 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 114 by jar, posted 07-22-2004 6:20 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 115 by Loudmouth, posted 07-22-2004 6:31 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 116 by Silent H, posted 07-22-2004 8:25 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 113 of 154 (126741)
07-22-2004 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Cold Foreign Object
07-22-2004 5:59 PM


Transitionals
There are no transitionals from one species to another.
Please go to Message 1 to supply what you mean by a transitional.
I'm sure, by the way, that you didn't mean to include "species" in there. Since species is only a little fuzzy there are, of course, not many or any "transitionals" betweent them. I think you meant something else? Genera? Family? "kind"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-22-2004 5:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-22-2004 9:44 PM NosyNed has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 114 of 154 (126745)
07-22-2004 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Cold Foreign Object
07-22-2004 5:59 PM


Well, let's look at that from a Christian perspective.
About 300 year after Christ, the issue of what defined a Christian was debated. What came of that debate was what the kids in some of my Bible study classes called the "I believes", AKA, the Nicene Creed.
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Looking through the list of the I believes, there is no mention of how God did anything, or of Paul, or of Romans. There is nothing that excludes the Therory of Evolution, nothing that supports Genesis and nothing that supports Intellegent Design.
So as a Christian, I really don't see where you are going to find much support in Christianity.
As Bishop Sims said:
Insistence upon dated and partially contradictory statements of how as conditions for true belief in the why of creation cannot qualify either as faithful religion or as intelligent science. Neither evolution over an immensity of time nor the work done in a sixday week are articles of the creeds. It is a symptom of fearful and unsound religion to contend with one another as if they were. Historic creedal Christianity joyfully insists on God as sovereign and frees the human spirit to trust and seek that sovereignty in a world full of surprises.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-22-2004 5:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 154 (126748)
07-22-2004 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Cold Foreign Object
07-22-2004 5:59 PM


quote:
Imagine a "christian" who rejects Romans ?
2,000 years ago, you could have claimed "Imagine a Christian who rejects the Gospel of Thomas".
quote:
What Arach is really saying is that the Bible MUST pass his/her politically correct litmus test OR it aint inspired.
This probably needs to be in a separate thread, but isn't that exactly what the Church did when it decided what was cannon and what wasn't? Didn't Revelations make in by the hair of it's chinny, chin, chin?
quote:
The source of ALL ID philosophy is the Bible,
So it would be fair to call ID non-scientific?
quote:
You know nerves are struck when Romans is "refuted" with non sequitors about women and gays.
Does Roman's say that God's creation did not come about through evolution? Since evolution is consistent with the evidence found in the creation, then this would mean that evolution is a theory that best sees God in his creation. If evolution is devoid of Godsense, then evolution would not be reflected in the evidence found in the creation.
quote:
That "only thing" is the alleged evolution. There are no transitionals from one species to another.
Even in observed speciations we often lack a transitional species. Take the apple maggot fly. At one time, it was only found in one type of tree. After the speciation event, it is now found in two different species of trees with different mating times. We don't have an intermediate for these two species even though it happened in the last 100 years. Also, take passenger pigeons. Billions in the air at once but yet zero fossils. Finally, we do have fine grade morphologocal changes in marine deposits showing small changes over time in shell structure. The end points of this transition could be considered to be macroevolution, but the intermediate steps are microevolutinary in scale.
quote:
The only reason these theorists believe all kinds come from same origins is because Genesis is not an option.
Nope, because ignoring the evidence is not an option. Unlike creationists, real scientists don't have the option of ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit into their theory. Unless you can point to dinosaurs in precambrian sediments it will be a hard row to hoe for most creationists.
quote:
But, of course, modern evos reject Darwin's racism, I only remind them of evolutions origin when they "refute" the Bible via Arach's subjective secular rants.
The origin of the theory was not racism, but observations of fossil and extant species. Racism has nothing to do with the theory, only with the rhetoric that panicky creationists put forth. They can't attack evolution on a scientific basis so they have to attack it's proponents. Copernicus could have been a child raping, women murdering, public urinator but his theories about the movement of the celestial bodies is still accurate. No matter what people used those theories for (refuting the Bible as translated by the Catholic Church) it doesn't make them false. If you want to blame someone for corrupting your translation of Gensis, blame God for making the evidence so convincing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-22-2004 5:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-22-2004 11:13 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 116 of 154 (126776)
07-22-2004 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Cold Foreign Object
07-22-2004 5:59 PM


It is called a brute fact - not a matter of opinion.
Evidence separates opinions from facts. As you yourself were claiming, looking at evidence brings one closer to God.
Yet on the other issue you simply ignored evidence, NOT refuting it, in order to state you hatefilled opinion.
That not only makes you a hypocrite, it takes you away from god (according to your own words, AND because it makes you a bearer of false witness).
What Arach is really saying is that the Bible MUST pass his/her politically correct litmus test OR it aint inspired.
You realize the most politically correct position on children and sex is that it is harmful, right? And YOU are saying that evidence must pass your PC test or it ain't real evidence... in fact it is manufactured.
And that's what really galls me. If you had said the scientists (or at least MOST of the scientists) had made an error in their research, that would have been something at least possible. But instead... acting in true PC thug fashion... you blasted them ALL as conspirators and intentionally creating misleading research because you didn't like the data.
The source of ALL ID philosophy is the Bible, namely Genesis and Romans...
That is not completely true. The popular ID movement (as seen in Behe, Dembski) do not ascribe to Genesis. I realize they are not the entire creationist movement and GENERAL IDC, but they are the more prominent group getting SPECIFIC IDC into education.
That "only thing" is the alleged evolution. There are no transitionals from one species to another.
Hmmmmm, let's start again and see if you get it on a second try. All racists need in order to consider one race superior to another is a tiny portion of evolution (what IDC theorists call "microevolution").
Thus there is no difference whether macro or micro (aka ModEvo or IDC) were the leading theories, the racists would still have ammo for their Holocausts.
Unless you are claiming that you do not even believe in what IDC theorists call "microevolution"? That ought to be interesting.
At least you are honest enough to place the word "theorists" following "modern evolutionary", it is called theory because of the paucity of facts.
They are theorists, but not because of a lack of facts. I am uncertain where you got that strange notion about how science works.
The only reason these theorists believe all kinds come from same origins is because Genesis is not an option. Genesis is not an option because that would admit God created, therefore philosophy is driving the science and not evidence.
Actually this is not true. Not all evos even agree that we did come from the "same origins" (depending on how you define it).
Indeed, one can easily hold that aliens planted life here, or that humans from the future started it, or minds from another dimension did. Evolution does not in and of itself require abiogenesis, or singular biogenic events.
Right now a purely material philosophy can include introduction of life from outside the earth (though it will not be from "supernatural" beings). Evolutionary theory merely explains what happens once life IS here.
Some people do believe aliens seeded the universe, and some of the life caught on and grew on earth.
I am not trying to defend any of these positions, just explaining that your statement is inaccurate on the facts. I would add that my own acceptance of evolution and abiogenesis (although I am still open to the particular environments for abiogenesis) were not due to a need to replace Genesis or God.
You know a person could just as easily say they do not believe in Xianity and that they do not know how life works or came about?
Charles Darwin and Huxley sure viewed races as superior/inferior. Need I post the quotes ?
Why would you want or need to? I said I could not speak for Darwin and that would go for Huxley as well. They may have been racists or not, what do I care? I have found nothing to support a racist position in evolutionary theory and if they expounded it to me today I would point out their error.
Newton was a total religious freak, and some chemists were as much astrologers and alchemical magicians as solid chemists. What people do (or fail to do) right on their own time (and outside of the useful theories they have laid down) is not my problem.
But, of course, modern evos reject Darwin's racism
See how wrong and bigoted you are. I am a modern evo and I haven't rejected Darwin's racism at all. The most I can say is I have no idea if he was or not, and it makes no difference to my use of evolutionary theory.
If you are trying to imply that Xianity stemmed from a bunch of nonracists (as opposed to evo theory) and so is purer, well I just have to LAUGH AND LAUGH AND LAUGH.
Do I really need to quote racist dogma from YOUR THEORY'S past?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-22-2004 5:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 117 of 154 (126781)
07-22-2004 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by NosyNed
07-22-2004 6:11 PM


Re: Transitionals
Ned:
Please summarize the argument contained in your links.
The pictoral message of Dark Star's avatar sums up my basic beliefs.
IC and complexity in general indicates ID. The brighter the intelligence equals the complexity of the complexity.
The following link equates "chance" to evidence-against ID (worldview assumption ?). Also, the evo writer (?) equates complexity to be less likely the product of chance.
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-10-t-000075.html
Few scientists question the reality of evolution. I assume, with the majority, that it has occurred. What else can be said concerning this most mysterious of all biological processes? There is little more of which one can be certain. No one knows how, or how many times, life has originated. The more we learn about the complexity of even the simplest living systems, the less likely becomes the probability that life originated by chance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by NosyNed, posted 07-22-2004 6:11 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by NosyNed, posted 07-22-2004 11:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 118 of 154 (126793)
07-22-2004 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Cold Foreign Object
07-22-2004 9:44 PM


Re: Transitionals
Please summarize the argument contained in your links.
You know WT, there isn't much use talking if you're not going to click a link now and then.
There is NO argument in the link! There is a request for some literalists who use the word "transitional" to define it. It appears from what they post that they don't have a definition so I wanted to get that cleared up.
As for your quote:
I'm not aware of that the researchers in origin of life are suggesting that it arose by pure random chance. Not any of it that I've seen anyway. What they are attempting to understand is the chemistry involved and just what the limits on it are.
To use the rather stupid math arguments used by a number of creationists only demonstrates that the user doesn't understand statistics.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-22-2004 10:02 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-22-2004 9:44 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 119 of 154 (126803)
07-22-2004 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Loudmouth
07-22-2004 6:31 PM


Hi Loudmouth:
Willowtree writes:
The source of ALL ID philosophy is the Bible
Loudmouth in response writes:
So it would be fair to call ID non-scientific?
Everyone abides by philosophy.
You are really trying to assert the Bible to not be evidence-based, unlike the claim of science. The Bible, unfortunately, does have a dogma-driven reputation, but this "bad" reputation is actually completely false.
Does Roman's say that God's creation did not come about through evolution?
Yes it does.
And I define "evolution" by its emotive and reportive definition.
Loudmouth, you are an atheist - yes or no ?
If yes, then why do you constantly seek to validate evolution with a source that was written to evidence and declare that God created Adam and animals ?
This indicates acceptance of the source to be an authority and longing for its approval.
Since evolution is consistent with the evidence found in the creation
Evolution within animal kind/species is a fact - but that is all. Quadrupeds did not evolve from bi-peds or birds or vice-versa.
Humans did not evolve. Genesis says God created. The hard evidence for claims of human evolution equates by volume to a box of bones of contention - hardly the amount of evidence needed to make such a definitive proclamation for the history of all humanity. Human evolution is asserted BECAUSE the alternative is not an option. The reason it is not an option is because Romans says God's wrath incapacitates the ability to comprehend Him. Continued defiance toward the percieved encroachments of a Creator triggers the manifestation of the penalty.
ToE has many brilliant God-senseless persons taking the truths of micro-evolution and insisting the process to be nature-wide - all because of the incapacitation.
then this would mean that evolution is a theory that best sees God in his creation.
Emotively and reportively, evolution means the God of Genesis was not involved.
This comment of yours is actually quite ridiculous.
IF evolution were true, then of course.
Random, chance, accident, fluke, mindless, and purposeless are all adjectives that have the dual silent meaning that the God of Genesis was not involved.
Then, I ask, how do these observations, if true, evidence-against God ? Only when this question is asked does the fast as light response come "we never said it does" - but the emotive and reportive meaning remains. Evos have figured out a way to have their cake and eat it too.
If evolution is devoid of Godsense, then evolution would not be reflected in the evidence found in the creation.
Already answered.
How did birds get in the air ? How did the cuckoo bird evolve ? How did migrations of thousands of miles to the exact same locations evolve ? These are gaping holes - also known as the fingerprints of God declared in Romans 1.
The evo explanations are pure comedy.
we do have fine grade morphologocal changes in marine deposits showing small changes over time in shell structure. The end points of this transition could be considered to be macroevolution
"Could be considered" !
That is a huge leap - all because you have spoken up for macro-evolution.
Like I said, micro events taken to macro assumptions, but these generous leaps are consistent with the biggest leap of dogma: The key to the past is the present !
Unlike creationists, real scientists don't have the option of ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit into their theory.
This was my exact complaint which started this particular exchange - only I leveled it at evos in the context of IC systems in defiance of foundational evo doctrine of ultra slow step by tiny step improvement.
IC systems obliterate slow evo processes, in response, evos arbitrarily assert them to be the product of randomness/ATP.
Racism has nothing to do with the theory, only with the rhetoric that panicky creationists put forth. They can't attack evolution on a scientific basis so they have to attack it's proponents. Copernicus could have been a child raping, women murdering, public urinator but his theories about the movement of the celestial bodies is still accurate.
Agreed.
I never cite the skeletons of evolution unless an evo initiates politically correct slander rants as their "refutation" to Biblical reference.
If you want to blame someone for corrupting your translation of Genesis, blame God for making the evidence so convincing.
This is as old as Genesis 3:12, Adam speaking "the woman YOU gave me" caused me to eat.
Adam blamed God - we all do the same - aint nothing new under the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Loudmouth, posted 07-22-2004 6:31 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Loudmouth, posted 07-23-2004 1:02 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 154 (126835)
07-23-2004 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Cold Foreign Object
07-22-2004 11:13 PM


quote:
Everyone abides by philosophy.
But not everyone's philosophy is consistent with reality. The only way to check a philosophy is by holding it up to the real world. A literal translation of Genesis fails this test.
quote:
You are really trying to assert the Bible to not be evidence-based, unlike the claim of science.
Yes I am. Would you show me the extra-biblical evidence that would lead to the conclusion of a world wide flood? Would you show me the evidence in the Bible that points to IC systems in biology? Creationists assume the conclusion and insert only the evidence that supports it while ignoring the evidence that falsifies it. In this way, the creationist movement is very dogmatic. The Bible MUST be true, even if the evidence says otherwise. The assertion of IC systems being the fingerprint of God is the same. It HAS to be this way, otherwise you have nothing to stand on because you have pinned your faith on this point. However, the logic of IC=God is a great leap, especially given that indirect evolutionary pathways can create IC systems.
quote:
quote:
Does Roman's say that God's creation did not come about through evolution?
Yes it does.
And I define "evolution" by its emotive and reportive definition.
Could you define the "emotiv and reportive" definitions? No where in evolutionary theories does it say that evolution proves the non-existence of God. Only you and fellow creationists are saying this. You are telling God how he MUST have created instead of listening to the creation. You have lost your God-sense in that you ignore what the creation says. When you construct theories that ignore creation, you are ignoring God.
quote:
Loudmouth, you are an atheist - yes or no ?
Agnostic. I don't deny, but I am very doubtful. I am arguing from the standpoint of the theology found in the Bible. I am arguing that even your viewpoints are not the same as what is found in the Bible, and among fellow christian philosophers. I am not looking for Biblical acceptance, only adherence to Biblical theology.
quote:
Evolution within animal kind/species is a fact - but that is all. Quadrupeds did not evolve from bi-peds or birds or vice-versa.
Tetrapods evolved from tetrapods. It just so happens that those first four feet also served as fins. Birds evolved from bi-peds, upright reptiles. It is strange that you argue against a theory that you know so little about. Also, the changes we see within your yet to be defined kinds is not different than the changes that cause macro-evolution, it is only a matter of time. It is like saying "the water in a puddle is totally different than water found in a lake." The water is the same, only the scale is different.
quote:
Humans did not evolve.
God's creation says otherwise.
quote:
Genesis says God created.
But it fails to say how.
quote:
The hard evidence for claims of human evolution equates by volume to a box of bones of contention - hardly the amount of evidence needed to make such a definitive proclamation for the history of all humanity.
If the box were a cargo container, you might be close to the truth. Well over a hundred hominid transitional fossils have been discovered, and human evolution by the fossil record alone is not in contention. It is only creationists that contend the accuracy of the hominid fossils, and only then because of religious reasons, not scientific ones. When asked what a transitional fossil SHOULD look like they are strangely silent on the matter. On top of the well understood fossil record, there are also DNA similarities that support ape/human common ancestory. Why would our DNA match up with the fossil record? Oh that's right, because evolution matches the evidence.
quote:
Human evolution is asserted BECAUSE the alternative is not an option.
Do you have evidence that would falsify the evidence already in hand? Do you have evidence that humans have been here since day one (or day six as it were). I sure haven't seen any. Even Behe admits that apes and humans share common ancestory. The evidence really is that strong.
quote:
The reason it is not an option is because Romans says God's wrath incapacitates the ability to comprehend Him.
The reason evolution is not an option to you is because you defy the evidence that God left in his creation. He has stripped you of your Godsense and you are unable to see the HOW of his creation. You are unable to comprehend evolution because of this.
quote:
Continued defiance toward the percieved encroachments of a Creator triggers the manifestation of the penalty.
Then we should not be able to accurately predict new finds in the creation, both in the dirt and in the DNA. However, evolution has made quite profound and accurate predictions, and the creation continually fills those predictions.
quote:
ToE has many brilliant God-senseless persons taking the truths of micro-evolution and insisting the process to be nature-wide - all because of the incapacitation.
No, because that is where the creation has led us. You have decided that the creation should be a certain way in defiance of God. You are telling God how it should be instead of observing how it is.
quote:
Emotively and reportively, evolution means the God of Genesis was not involved.
Quite the opposite. God's natural laws were always in effect. The fact that your Godsense has been removed does not allow you to observe it.
quote:
Random, chance, accident, fluke, mindless, and purposeless are all adjectives that have the dual silent meaning that the God of Genesis was not involved.
You forgot natural selection. Selection by the natural laws that God put into place. Selection is the opposite of random. Only you have taken God out of evolution by defining exactly how he should be involved. Why not let the creation tell you how God was involved?
quote:
Then, I ask, how do these observations, if true, evidence-against God ? Only when this question is asked does the fast as light response come "we never said it does" - but the emotive and reportive meaning remains.
The don't evidence against God, they only evidence against the way that you have described God's involvement. The way to see God's involvement is through looking at the creation, just as it is written in Romans.
quote:
Evos have figured out a way to have their cake and eat it too.
We figured out what the cake was by observation, not by telling the cake what it should look like.
quote:
How did birds get in the air ? How did the cuckoo bird evolve ?
By creating pockets of high pressure under the wings and low pressure over the wings. Simple aerodynamic principles, no magic involved.
quote:
How did migrations of thousands of miles to the exact same locations evolve ?
Through the development of specialized navigational skills that use topography, position of the sun/moon, and gauging the electromagnetic forces formed in the earth. Those that had better success in reaching safe breeding grounds had better success in reproducing and finding a mate. Those that did not were less successful.
quote:
These are gaping holes - also known as the fingerprints of God declared in Romans 1.
The gaps in our knowledge of the natural world have always been filled by using the scientific method. If looking for the involvement of supernatural influence was the norm, then not using scientific methods would be more successful. The obvious success of science, and the utter failure of creationism in discovering new things about the natural world proves that creationists have been stripped of their Godsense. Creationists are not able to discover anything about creation because they refuse to listen to it.
quote:
The evo explanations are pure comedy.
They don't beat a shrinking sun or lunar dust. You would think that if creationism was true that they wouldn't have to support their political movement with lies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-22-2004 11:13 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024