Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
32 online now:
GDR, Percy (Admin), ringo, Taq (4 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,637 Year: 16,673/19,786 Month: 798/2,598 Week: 44/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 136 of 336 (637346)
10-15-2011 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Nuggin
10-15-2011 12:21 AM


ID and Creationism
Nuggin writes:

The fact that ID is VERBATIM Creationism with the word "creationist" replaced by "design proponents"

Since you seem ignorant of the definitions of each ID and Creationism i'll quote them. Then, you will be informed, then, you can stop being ignorant.

Definition of Intelligent Design
What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

And

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php

Now you know.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Nuggin, posted 10-15-2011 12:21 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Nuggin, posted 10-15-2011 2:26 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 145 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-15-2011 5:47 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 200 by DWIII, posted 10-16-2011 3:23 AM Chuck77 has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 747 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(4)
Message 137 of 336 (637350)
10-15-2011 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Chuck77
10-15-2011 2:12 AM


Re: ID and Creationism
Since you seem ignorant of the definitions of each ID and Creationism i'll quote them. Then, you will be informed, then, you can stop being ignorant.

Seems to me that you're the one taking pride in your ignorance.

The Dover transcriptions revealed exactly what we are talking about: "cDesign Proponentists".

This was a typo in the "new" version of the text book - the one that was "Intelligent Design based"
The "old" version of the text book has "creationists".

Do you know how you get from "creationists" to "cdesign proponentists"?

You have a careless worker go through your textbook file on the computer and copy and paste "design proponents" over the word "creationist".

Now, the rest of the text DIDN'T change.

So, you can keep your definitions.

You tell me, if I replace subject A with subject B through out an entire book and nothing else changes what does that say about subjects A and B?

They are the SAME.

Of course, you would know all this if you weren't so damn...

what's the word? Oh, right...

IGNORANT

ps, your picture is Jesus getting smooshed by a cross.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 2:12 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 2:41 AM Nuggin has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1923 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


(1)
Message 138 of 336 (637352)
10-15-2011 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Nuggin
10-15-2011 2:07 AM


Re: YAWN
quote:
As I pointed out before, you can't prove that the Universe is finite. That's an unsupported claim.

Its not unsupported:

1. The uni was not infinite 10 seconds ago - its expanding. Hello?!
2. Nothing in the universe is w/o subject to change: an infinite cannot change and still be infinite.
3. An infinite cannot contain finite stuff; a finite cannot contain infinite stuff.

Your resting premise is unscientific because it ignores all scientific evidence and relies only on scaling every rock and hole in the universe.

quote:

Second, MANY MANY MANY people on the thread have already pointed out a number of errors in Creationism, not the least of which is the fact that there are multiple versions of Creationism with timelines that vary so absolutely radically as to completely negate one another.


There is no multiple versions but expansions and continuity only. The first chapter describes a non-personalized vista; the second graduates to a personlized one with human names. It is the correct way to describe origins; names are limited to 6000 years only. Relying on your bogus and desperate view to claim MANY MANY MANY is hardly any at all.

quote:

And, ALL of these timelines are based on the same single source of evidence which itself has been demonstrated to contain errors.

Challenge: name a single math error, never mind MANY, MANY, MANY!?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Nuggin, posted 10-15-2011 2:07 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Nuggin, posted 10-15-2011 2:57 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 336 (637355)
10-15-2011 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Nuggin
10-15-2011 2:26 AM


Re: ID and Creationism
ps, your picture is Jesus getting smooshed by a cross.

You are not at all worth taking serious anymore one bit. You are a complete and utter joke. Your a sad individual. I really can;t believe the level of your maturity.

I hope lurkers tend to see that EvC is more than what you just wrote as far as a debating site goes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Nuggin, posted 10-15-2011 2:26 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Nuggin, posted 10-15-2011 2:59 AM Chuck77 has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 747 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(4)
Message 140 of 336 (637357)
10-15-2011 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by IamJoseph
10-15-2011 2:29 AM


Re: YAWN
Its not unsupported:

1. The uni was not infinite 10 seconds ago - its expanding. Hello?!
2. Nothing in the universe is w/o subject to change: an infinite cannot change and still be infinite.
3. An infinite cannot contain finite stuff; a finite cannot contain infinite stuff.

1) The universe can be both expanding and infinite at the same time. You are assuming that the expansion that happening around us is connected to some sort of edge getting further away. There's nor reason to assume that. You can be a part of infinite space AND have things around you getting further away from you at the same time.

2) Of course things can change within an infinite space. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise.

3) Of course an infinite space could contain finite stuff, however, there's no evidence that the Universe contains "finite stuff". We can only see a certain amount of the Universe. Beyond that point, we have no idea how much "more stuff" there is or isn't.

So, again, your claim that the universe is "finite" is NOT supported.

There is no multiple versions

One group states that the Bible CLEARLY shows that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
One group states that the Bible CLEARLY shows that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old.
One group claims that the dinosaurs drowned in the flood.
One group claims that the dinosaurs were on the Ark.
One group claims that the dinosaur fossils were hidden by the devil to trick us.

That's 5 different versions right there, all based on the EXACT same source material. All supported by the EXACT same level of belief.

They can't all be valid and if one of them is invalid, then all of them lose their evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2011 2:29 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2011 5:22 AM Nuggin has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 747 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(3)
Message 141 of 336 (637358)
10-15-2011 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Chuck77
10-15-2011 2:41 AM


Re: ID and Creationism
You are not at all worth taking serious anymore one bit. You are a complete and utter joke. Your a sad individual. I really can;t believe the level of your maturity.

Awww, did baby get sad sad and go cry cry.

Here's a little tip for you. Don't step up if you can't back it up.

You tried to play big man, you got slap down like a bitch ass punk. Now you just wanna toss insults.

Laughable.

Oh and it's YOU'RE not YOUR you jackass.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 2:41 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2011 5:30 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 144 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 5:45 AM Nuggin has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1923 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


(1)
Message 142 of 336 (637361)
10-15-2011 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Nuggin
10-15-2011 2:57 AM


Re: YAWN
quote:
1) The universe can be both expanding and infinite at the same time.

No sir.

quote:

You are assuming that the expansion that happening around us is connected to some sort of edge getting further away.


No I do not make that assumption at all - its your own. There can be no edge beyond a finite universe, nor anything else outside which is contained inside. Infinite = 'ABSOLUTE' infinite. No space, no energy, no light, no darkness, no forces, no paralel or multiverse - nothing; this contradicts the finite factor; it does not exist.

quote:

There's nor reason to assume that. You can be a part of infinite space AND have things around you getting further away from you at the same time.

Then it was not infinite 10 seconds ago before it expanded.

quote:

2) Of course things can change within an infinite space. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise.

Then you misunderstand what change actually is. Technically, when something is changed - whatever changes it transcends it; the changed entity is no longer. That is the application here. Infinity is not subject to change - that is why everything in the universe is finite - it is subject to change;that is also why there is nothing in the universe which is not subject to change. Without change there can be no death or decay.

quote:

3) Of course an infinite space could contain finite stuff, however, there's no evidence that the Universe contains "finite stuff".


Everything we see in the universe is finite.

quote:

We can only see a certain amount of the Universe. Beyond that point, we have no idea how much "more stuff" there is or isn't.

Your math is poor. The age of the uni X expansion velocity gives a reasonably good ratio of the universe's limits.

quote:

So, again, your claim that the universe is "finite" is NOT supported.

The term 'of course' is moot here. Of course a finite universe is supported by most minds; the BBT is based on it. Of course it is not appreciated for its clear negation the uni just happened: there is no science or logic of any kind whatsoever in a finite realm happening of its own. Its like finding a car on Mars and allocating it to weird weather patterns. Try explaining the issue from a finite universe position - see how everything falls in a heap. That's why!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Nuggin, posted 10-15-2011 2:57 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Nuggin, posted 10-15-2011 9:44 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1923 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


(1)
Message 143 of 336 (637362)
10-15-2011 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Nuggin
10-15-2011 2:59 AM


Re: ID and Creationism
I accept the Genesis claim as scientific and profound the universe began and continues by magestic laws and engineering, because when I look around - it is absolutely vindicated everywhere, aside from being a most scientific premise.

I also accept Genesis' claim that once there were no laws and nothing was identifiable as a seperate entity. Stars did not exist during the BB event because there was no 'star laws' yet, so to speak. Space bodies did not revolve around other space bodies because there was yet no 'LAW OF GRAVITY'.

Science is a definition of how laws operate. No laws = no science. This makes science just one of many other faculties, like math, history, geography, etc. Nothing more. It is an error to worship science as a causative mechanism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Nuggin, posted 10-15-2011 2:59 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Nuggin, posted 10-15-2011 11:46 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 336 (637363)
10-15-2011 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Nuggin
10-15-2011 2:59 AM


Re: ID and Creationism
Nuggin writes:

Awww, did baby get sad sad and go cry cry.

Here's a little tip for you. Don't step up if you can't back it up.

You tried to play big man, you got slap down like a bitch ass punk. Now you just wanna toss insults.

Laughable.

Oh and it's YOU'RE not YOUR you jackass.

LOL. Not really dude. Go get some rest. Come on back, re-read the definitions and try to respond in a way that doesn't make it look like you have no clue what you're talking about.

Remember now Nuggin, argue the postion and not the person. When you argue the person like you are, it makes it look like you are clueless to the topic and instead are resorting to a low level of debating tactics. Sad bro, sad.

Now, try again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Nuggin, posted 10-15-2011 2:59 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Nuggin, posted 10-15-2011 9:50 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 145 of 336 (637364)
10-15-2011 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Chuck77
10-15-2011 2:12 AM


Re: ID and Creationism
Since you seem ignorant of the definitions of each ID and Creationism i'll quote them.

Here, let me help.

"The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created."" --- Phillip Johnson, father of the Intelligent Design movement, foreword to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science

"Intelligent design means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology." --- Phillip Johnson again

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." --- more Philip Johnson

"Intelligent design is just the logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." --- William Dembski

"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." --- Of Pandas and People as it was originally drafted

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc." --- Of Pandas and People when it was published as a textbook of Intelligent Design

"Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism?" --- your link

Because the guy who coined the term "intelligent design", Dean Kenyon, co-author of Of Pandas and People, defined ID and creationism the same way. That's why.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 2:12 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 5:51 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 336 (637365)
10-15-2011 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Dr Adequate
10-15-2011 5:47 AM


Re: ID and Creationism
And, your point? Good for Philip Johnson that he believes that. So do I believe that God designed. It has nothing to do with the ID theory, incidently. You know?

Here's more from the link I supplied:

Is intelligent design based on the Bible?No. The idea that human beings can observe signs of intelligent design in nature reaches back to the foundations of both science and civilization. In the Greco-Roman tradition, Plato and Cicero both espoused early versions of intelligent design. In the history of science, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design, including Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, meanwhile, the idea that design can be discerned in nature can be found not only in the Bible but among Jewish philosophers such as Philo and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. In recent decades, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose intelligent design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity throughout the natural world.

Darwin said lot's of things too, about that pesky fossil record, remember?

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-15-2011 5:47 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-15-2011 6:08 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 148 by PaulK, posted 10-15-2011 6:12 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 149 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-15-2011 6:38 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 156 by Nuggin, posted 10-15-2011 9:54 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 160 by Theodoric, posted 10-15-2011 10:01 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 147 of 336 (637366)
10-15-2011 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Chuck77
10-15-2011 5:51 AM


Re: ID and Creationism
And, your point? Good for Philip Johnson that he believes that. So do I believe that God designed. It has nothing to do with the ID theory ...

This is something that you should explain to Phillip Johnson, the father of the Intelligent Design movement, who wrote: "Intelligent design means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator".

He might perhaps argue that he knows more about ID than you do.

And Dean Kenyon is if anything a bigger problem. It was he who brought the term ID into use. Disputing his definition of ID is like arguing with Tolkien about what a hobbit is. And his definition of ID is the same as his definition of creationism.

Darwin said lot's of things too, about that pesky fossil record, remember?

Yes he did, and they were absolutely true in 1859 when he wrote them. I don't know how to break this to you, but ... we have found more fossils since then.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 5:51 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 7:21 AM Dr Adequate has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15371
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 148 of 336 (637367)
10-15-2011 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Chuck77
10-15-2011 5:51 AM


Re: ID and Creationism
Chuck, you don't start a scientific investigation by targeting High School education. That should be obvious to anyone. ID is not and never has been a primarily scientific enterprise, and anyone familiar with the history of the ID movement knows it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 5:51 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 149 of 336 (637368)
10-15-2011 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Chuck77
10-15-2011 5:51 AM


The Wedge
And then there's the Wedge Document issued by the DI, of course.

Their "Governing Goals" are:

"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

And how will they do that?

Well, the first of their "Five Year Goals" is: "To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory."

And the first of their "Twenty Year Goals" is: "To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science."

But wait! Wait! They're trying to convince people that God created human beings. So how on earth is ID, which has nothing to do with creationism, going to help them to achieve that goal? It's a frickin' mystery.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 5:51 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 336 (637371)
10-15-2011 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Dr Adequate
10-15-2011 6:08 AM


Re: ID and Creationism
DrAdequate writes:

This is something that you should explain to Phillip Johnson, the father of the Intelligent Design movement, who wrote: "Intelligent design means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator".

Well, maybe that is something you can explain to Professor Sir Fred Hoyle:

Imagine a blindfolded person trying to solve the Rubik Cube. The chance against achieving perfect colour matching is about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. These odds are roughly the same as those against just one of our body's 200,000 proteins having evolved randomly, by chance.'
`There is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on Earth.'
`The picture of the origin of the Universe . . . as it has unfolded in astronomy is curiously indefinite . . . A component has evidently been missing from cosmological studies, a component involving intelligent design . . . '

-bold mine

Oh, I know you've heard that a million times. So what, it doesn't make it any less true.

No matter how you spin it, your religion is no different, sorry.

Stephen Meyer has some new research out and it's fascinating. I'll post some of it soon enough and we can discuss it. ID has come a LONG way since Dover. Michael Behe too.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-15-2011 6:08 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-15-2011 7:43 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 153 by jar, posted 10-15-2011 9:23 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 158 by Nuggin, posted 10-15-2011 9:58 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019