intelligent design vs creationism

[snr5557]

What's the difference between the two?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Intelligent design proponents postulate that there is indeed evidence of a designer with regard to living organisms. The official position is that they do not advocate on the part of any designer although it is commonly known many of them are indeed Christians.

Creationism is a fundamental and literal translation of the book of Genesis which it holds as an historical account.

 

[Suhar]

In one you are just an overgrown monkey in another you are created in the image and likeness of God Himself. First offers no proof whatsoever, second cannot be denied by logical and non bias mind. First is a religion requiring total blind faith, second points to the Creator which can be experienced in person.

 

[Purity]

I do believe in 2014 we are well beyond Creationism as a plausible teaching for the origin of life.

Anther more pressing question is there some killer argument for 'common descent' that trumps 'common design'?

You will often hear the argument, from creationists, that "design" explains everything as well as descent. Of course design is a possible explanation, but is it a good one, or a scientific one? I have never really understood what the reasoning is for thinking that "common design" is a reasonable hypothesis, given the known data.

Again I will look forward to the direction this thread takes with SNR at the helm.

Purity.

I will place up this as an intro by Karl Giberson - get the juices flowing.

Many evangelicals in America believe that young-earth creationism is the only authentically biblical position for Christians to hold on origins and that all Christians believed this until they started compromising with Darwin’s theory of evolution. This is simply not true. Young-earth creationism is relatively new and as recently as a century ago even fundamentalist Christians saw little reason to reject evolution.

The fundamentalist movement takes its name from an ambitious project called The Fundamentals published between 1910 and 1915 by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (now Biola) that defined the fundamentals of Christianity. In response to modernist preachers and theologians who rejected many traditional Christian ideas, including miracles, the resurrection and the reality of heaven, the authors of the 90 tracts that became The Fundamentals affirmed traditional biblical beliefs. The project was so successful that it produced an entire wing of Christianity, known as fundamentalism, which persists to this day.

The contributors to The Fundamentals were the leading conservative Christian leaders at the time, men like R. A. Torrey and A. C. Dixon, united in their belief in traditional doctrines like the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus, the reality of miracles and heaven, and God as the creator of everything. But they were not united in rejecting evolution as a mechanism of creation. And there was no rejection of the scientific research that indicated that the earth was far older than 10,000 years.

 

[Suhar]

I do believe in 2014 we are well beyond Creationism as a plausible teaching for the origin of life.

Actually the more we know about incredible and irreducible complexity of creation the less and less sense evolution makes.

If you believe in evolution what observable proof can you offer?

 

[Purity]

Actually the more we know about incredible and irreducible complexity of creation the less and less sense evolution makes.

If you believe in evolution what observable proof can you offer?

Likewise, what observable evidence can you provide for special creation?

 

[Suhar]

Likewise, what observable evidence can you provide for special creation?

It is not polite to answer question with a question. I thought we are all polite people on this site.

 

[Purity]

It is not polite to answer question with a question. I thought we are all polite people on this site.

Are you inferring the Master was rude? Mark 11:29

Not being rude! - if you cannot provide any proof of special creation and I cannot provide "observable" evidence of one life transforming into another, we are at a stalemate before we have started.

Now if you wanted a discussion on the fossil record or the mapping of the human genome and its findings, that might be beneficial - but to ask someone to produce observable evidence to a subject which at present has the entire Christian world in utter turmoil, is rather naive on your part, wouldn't you say?

 

[Suhar]

Are you inferring the Master was rude? Mark 11:29

He was very rude to some people that deserved it. Remember whip in the temple. What did I do to you? I merely asked for an example on which your belief is based and apparently you have none!

 

[Purity]

He was very rude to some people that deserved it. Remember whip in the temple. What did I do to you? I merely asked for an example on which your belief is based and apparently you have none!

Jesus was never rude Suhar...people may have perceived rudeness but he was righteous in all his dealings with people.

Can you provide evidence of special creation? yes or no?

 

[Suhar]

Jesus was never rude Suhar...people may have perceived rudeness but he was righteous in all his dealings with people.

Can you provide evidence of special creation? yes or no?

He was rude when needed, angry when needed. He even called people names when needed.

So, you make a statement basically ridiculing Creationism and all you have to back it up is rudeness? Not Godly rudeness either. God said that He created world and everything in it. He is The Creator and you say that He is wrong. So your rudeness cannot possibly be godly.

 

[Purity]

He was rude when needed, angry when needed. He even called people names when needed.

So, you make a statement basically ridiculing Creationism and all you have to back it up is rudeness? Not Godly rudeness either. God said that He created world and everything in it. He is The Creator and you say that He is wrong. So your rudeness cannot possibly be godly.

Here is where you stand Suhar.

You request "observable" evidence when you cannot provide such evidence for special creation is the issue at hand. If you are willing to acknowledge even at the very least an "I don't know" how God created the heavens and earth and everything therein, we may have something to work from, however while you take the stand of "I know the How" as though you stand from a position of authority...well it is pointless having this discussion as it is with all fundamentalist Christians.

You stand back and watch how this thread will eventually be overrun with this type of thinking....But if I asked you why there are cases of children being born with tails (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1779337) what would you say? How could you scientifically describe such an event? Or, what if I said they were to find complete fossil records of the common rabbit in the Cambrian period?

Would it matter either way?

You have already made up your mind.

Purity

 

[Suhar]

Here is where you stand Suhar.

You request "observable" evidence when you cannot provide such evidence for special creation is the issue at hand. If you are willing to acknowledge even at the very least an "I don't know" how God created the heavens and earth and everything therein, we may have something to work from, however while you take the stand of "I know the How" as though you stand from a position of authority...well it is pointless having this discussion as it is with all fundamentalist Christians.

You stand back and watch how this thread will eventually be overrun with this type of thinking....But if I asked you why there are cases of children being born with tails (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1779337) what would you say? How could you scientifically describe such an event? Or, what if I said they were to find complete fossil records of the common rabbit in the Cambrian period?

Would it matter either way?

You have already made up your mind.

Purity

You are trying to be a jello that cannot be pinned down to the wall but you made a concrete statement ridiculing Creationism now back it up! Back it up with some kind, any kind of real, observable evidence!

I am loving it! Every time you post you shoot yourself in the foot! Keep doing that!

 

[Purity]

God said that He created world and everything in it. He is The Creator and you say that He is wrong. So your rudeness cannot possibly be godly.

For the record Suhar

Can you provide me anywhere saying The Creator is wrong? Show us where I said God did not create all things?

Please.

You are trying to be a jello that cannot be pinned down to the wall but you made a concrete statement ridiculing Creationism now back it up! Back it up with some kind, any kind of real, observable evidence!

I am loving it! Every time you post you shoot yourself in the foot! Keep doing that!

Keep shooting

Lets assess your input shall we?

1. You asked a question which you yourself would not answer concerning your own beliefs.
2. You become overly sensitive when hard pressed choosing to critique my motives rather than being honest
3. You accuse me of questioning the Creator again calling me rude
4. I put up two examples which you clearly ignored
5. You said "keep shooting yourself in the foot" which read with malice

Now I am willing to discuss why Creationism (or a literal reading of Gen 1) is not a correct interpretation of the record once you cease with the sensitivities and false accusations.

Can you do that?

Purity

 

[Suhar]

[SIZE=large]The slight variation in specie points to one and one conclusion. You do not have a clue as to that Evolution is![/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]You do not know that Evolution is about one specie becoming another. Micro evolution within a specie have nothing to do with that![/SIZE]

 

[Purity]

The slight variation in specie points to one and one conclusion. You do not have a clue as to that Evolution is!

You do not know that Evolution is about one specie becoming another. Micro evolution within a specie have nothing to do with that!

So you believe in micro evolution? (for the record)

 

[Suhar]

Now. Provide ONE observable example of one specie becoming another.

Since you do not know what theory of evolution is I guess I will have to educate you on it.

So you believe in micro evolution? (for the record)

Micro evolution is like dogs bred into breeds. Provide ONE evidence of one specie becoming another.

 

[Purity]

Now. Provide ONE observable example of one specie becoming another.

Since you do not know what theory of evolution is I guess I will have to educate you on it.

More accusations! Points 1-5 stand against you!

Evolution can be used in many ways Suhar, but in biology, it means descent with modification!

But again, why bother discussing such matters when you lack an honest position.

1. You asked a question which you yourself would not answer concerning your own beliefs.
2. You become overly sensitive when hard pressed choosing to critique my motives rather than being honest
3. You accuse me of questioning the Creator again calling me rude
4. I put up two examples which you clearly ignored
5. You said "keep shooting yourself in the foot" which read with malice
6. Avoided the question on micro evolution

Purity

 

[Suhar]

More accusations! Points 1-5 stand against you!

You are judge now too? Self proclaimed one at that. Give me ONE evidence of specie to species "evolution"!

 

[Purity]

You are judge now too? Self proclaimed one at that. Give me ONE evidence of specie to species "evolution"!

1. You asked a question which you yourself would not answer concerning your own beliefs.
2. You become overly sensitive when hard pressed choosing to critique my motives rather than being honest
3. You accuse me of questioning the Creator again calling me rude
4. I put up two examples which you clearly ignored
5. You said "keep shooting yourself in the foot" which read with malice
6. Avoided the question on micro evolution

Provide evidence of special creation.