For Herepton and any others interested

Evolutionism contains the approach of using semantics to by definition reclassify the straightforward obvious logic and evidence for God and claim that a priori, this evidence cannot be considered as evidence of God. It's propaganda tactics on their part.

Even a false argument needs to be cogent to blast it. What is your argument? That no scientists can or would discuss the idea that evidence points to God due to the rules of secular science? In other words, damn the evidence, we are rejecting any notion of God whatsoever.After awhile, there is no need to refute you since your words effectively make the same argument we are making, if someone is intelligent enough to really weigh what you are saying.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : corrections

I agree and thanks for the post. Probably where we don't agree is thinking that we look at the natural world's design and infer a Designer. In other words, the design itself is an indirect observation of an invisible Designer.On a more specific note, but not to delve into here, I think there are aspects of QM that relate to immateriality and design in the formation of all physical things which show promise as far as ID theory....but we can leave that alone for this thread.

That's not true. You may have heard me throw out the word, supernatural,....I don't know, but I have consistently argued that if we are using a definition of natural as essentially "real", from a scientific perspective, God is then natural and part of the natural or real world of the universe. Now, whether all of God can be thought of as such, I agree is perhaps unknowable, but biblical concepts of God include an immanent aspect of God's being as the foundation for physical and all reality. There is an interconnectedness between God and the physical world.Paul said it this way. He was in Athens and referenced a specific Greek philosophy on this point as accurate.So there is no reason to think science cannot test for God or spiritual dimensions and things like that. Imo, we already are testing for aspects of interactions with spiritual dimensions in quantum mechanics. Spiritual is just a word referring to a dimension of reality.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Thanks.....I must be running low on ammo or something.....Edited by randman, : No reason given.

That needs to be qualified. Specific forms of ID need to be tested, but we have an abundance of evidence for Intelligent Design already in the form of the physical world. The very fact the world exists and is designed, contains order and design, is sufficient evidence to infer a designer.Now, if you want to discuss evolutionary theory versus a non-evolutionary theory of the emergence and diversity of life, then there should be testing, as you point out, but keep in mind that much of science is based on inductive reasoning, and that there are not tests to date, I am aware of, demonstrating ToE.

The designer does not have to be invisible. That is an assumption based on the concept what constitutes humanity, but there are a lot of invisible things that constitute reality, and most people probably conceive of themselves as having parts that are invisible, such as the soul or spirit.

Monotheism continues to reemerge as does belief in the Creator. Now, it would take a special intervention of God to reveal the gospel and things like that if that knowledge was lost, but most the basic spiritual principles, things like sowing and reaping would be rediscovered, and God would, as He always does, reveal Himself to His prophets and people.Plus, it is doubtful that the knowledge of Christ will ever be lost.

I think you are wrong here. If all it takes is that the subjective opinion of a bunch of scientists to reject evidence means there is somehow no objective concensus, then imo, science has no real objective evidence whatsoever, and scientists are fooling themselves to think otherwise. It's more a popularity play.The simple fact is there is no objective evidence for rejecting the physical world as evidence of a Creator. All there is are arbitrary and illogical "rules" imposed on the evidence from a materialist philosophy that is completely outdated since the material world is shown to be fundamentally at it's root immaterial.

TD, I don't believe Christ will allow that to happen.

So bias plays a critical part. It's subjective when you boil it down to the root.Imo, your comments would be more accurate if evos held themselves to the same standards they insist IDers confine themselves to. Since there are actually no repeatable experiments demonstrating the veracity of ToE, if your line on science is true, then the ToE should be rejected as a mere hypothesis at best, and acknowledged to be philosophical as a set of assumptions to interpret data rather than something formed from the data itself.

Well, I agree with that, but I also think it's a good idea to show the fallacies of evo models.Personally, I think QM demonstrates ID concepts and mechanisms, but I don't see a lot of crossover among IDers talking biology in this area.

What if I said, hey, your stance reminds me of Hitler's eugenic program? Inflammatory?When we talk about the "natural world", we also have to realize that this includes beings, such as people, with a will.Sure, I beleive that Jesus is active in participating in ruling over the earth's reality.....but he does so in a particular way, described as a small seed that grows, and so the effects of His kingdom are actually very gradual, and that means bad things continue to happen.But there are improvements. I think Jesus' message and followers are the reason things like religious liberty, an end to slavery, the elevation of women above chattel status, etc,....have occurred, and you see these things primarily if not solely in nations that once or continue to be strongly influenced by Jesus' teachings.If you don't accept the Resurrection, fine. I don't expect you to accept He has the power to preserve the earth so that the gospel is not lost. I do accept it and believe God's power will preserve the earth so that this knowledge will not be lost. Regardless, your hypothetical is just that, a hypothetical, and cannot really be the basis for rejecting belief in the gospels.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Except he didn't use the same argument. The argument for the Lordship of Christ is not the same as the argument that Christ would never allow suffering of that magnitude. That's because you are not thinking this through. Science must presume something is possible, that a concept could be right or wrong, in order to maintain some objectivity. Your stance is basically not scientific as is shown by the following: If magic is not fake, but real, it is natural in the sense of being real. The concept of real magic is by definition natural from a scientific perspective. Keep in mind I am using a definition of natural to the same as real. People and machines are thus part of the natural world, able to be studied by science, but machines are not natural in anothe sense of the word. The issue then is whether something like magic exists as a reality in the universe or not.To say you could never accept that hypothesis or fact is to deny objectivity, and assert a prejudicial view of reality.Also, keep in mind that a lot of what you think of as real, in terms of physical law, has probably been outdated. There is a lot of misunderstanding about what is and is not possible that is based on classical physics when quantum physics shows that some of these concepts of impossibility were dead wrong. Heck, what we learn from QM sounds a bit like magic in comparison to classical physics.

Which doesn't mesh with the facts. There is no way it is reasonable to infer that the Mammalian ear structure, for example, would evolve independently the same way due to natural selection.But truth be told, this is really not about natural selection, as natural selection is still confined by the means of the design of the universe.What we know about design, creating an original design, is that there is an agent, a Designer involved. That doesn't rule out the possibility of some designs emerging "on their own" so to speak after an initial design, but in one form or another, when you see design and order, there is a Designer at the root of the process.Another way to put it is that to say there is no Creator posits contradicts the principle of causality.Edited by randman, : No reason given.