intelligent design vs creationism

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Arnie Manitoba

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2011
2,650
137
63
72
Manitoba Canada
aspen said:
Arnie - you are my favorite person here who I do not always agree with - like I have said in the past, I would l love to have coffee with you some time - I love how your mind works. I also believe that God created the world - I am not certain about the mechanics, but I know He did it. I also agree with you that creationism and evolution are separate subjects - creationism is too sacred for the classroom.

Blessings
Keep the coffee on .... !!!! :) .... I would love to spend a day with you as you minister to those less fortunate .... those things are an impossibility for me to do on a regular basis .... I prefer a quick and easy handout and then I run away :) Bless you.
River Jordan said:
You couldn't be more wrong on that. The theory of gravity, atomic theory of matter, germ theory of disease....all are well-tested, broad explanatory concepts that help to frame a large set of facts. The theory of evolution fits in that category.

Not only that, but evolution, like gravity, is both a theory and a fact. That evolution happens is a fact. That gravity happens is a fact. The theory of evolution seeks to explain how evolution takes place (what mechanisms and pathways). The theory of gravitation seeks to explain how gravity happens (what causes it).
We can observe gravity every day , so could Newton .... we can observe diseases every day ... but we cannot observe evolution even once , let alone every day.

Speaking of gravity .... is it a pull or a push ?? We still dont know for sure

Speaking of gravity ... did it "evolve" before our solar system ? ... Gravity is fundamental in our universe .... so the laws of gravity would have to be here first .... before our planets and solar systems .. correct ??

So why should gravity "evolve" ahead of time .... before it was even needed ??
 

Purity

New Member
May 20, 2013
1,064
15
0
Melbourne
IBeMe said:
You're way, way, way out of touch.

There is currently not one working scientific theory on the 'origin of life'.

"The scientific study of the origin of life is still early enough that there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem ..."( NASA astrobiologist Chris McKay, 06/20/12)

Not only do they not have a clue, they don't even have a clue of where to look.

Advancement in science sank all the old theories.

.
IBeMe,

I agree, however the arguments for these theories offer the enquirer an amazing perspective on what the origin of life may have been. Suhar believes it came about with a click of the fingers(special creation) however, we all know God does not operate that way. He always takes the long and slow approach to all that He does.

What did the earth look like 3-4 billion years ago?
Is this earth a continuous story gradually unfolding? 2 Peter 3:10-13

What do we know? Yes, there is complexity in everything! The building blocks of life as we know it are found in DNA, RNA, amino acids, sugars etc... ABSOLUTLY NO plausible hypothesis for the spontaneous origin of life has ever been found. And quite frankly I doubt they will ever find it! Especially when its origin is the supernatural activity of an Almighty God and His Elohim.

What I know now, that I did not previously is a literal (fundamentalist) reading of Gen 1 - 3 will never ever accommodate the abounding scientific facts which are in the earth today. Every scientific discipline is confirming "common descent" which through mapping the genome are making extraordinary discoveries, worthy of our discussion.

Christians must come to terms with two book approach, being that God's Word and God's Work are the same. They are not mutually exclusive, but harmonise beautifully with His Word and Works.

Hopefully we will get to explore how a literal reading of Gen 1-3 destroys the evidence of His divine hand in His works, and the lessens the incredible insight we gain from looking into His marvellous secrets.

It truly is the honour of kings to search out a matter.Prov 25:2–3

Hope to speak with you again.
Purity.
Harry3142 said:
The creation stories of Genesis (there are two of them) were never intended to be a scientific statement. Instead, their purpose was as a rebuttal in order to demythologize a much earler creation story the Hebrews were familiar with, namely, the egyptian creation epic:

www.theologywebsite.com/etext/egypt/creation.shtml

In this earlier creation story, which the Hebrews would have been taught as fact during their sojourn in Egypt, there were numerous gods and goddesses. The surface of the planet was a deity, the sun, moon and stars were deities, and even the atmosphere was a deity. There were well over 40 different deities in the egyptian pantheon of gods and goddesses, with every one of them having a physical form that could be painted on a tomb wall or sculpted into a statue.

Moses, whom I accept as having written Genesis, needed to 'cancel out' this teaching. So beginning with Genesis 1:1 and continuing to Genesis 2:3, he methodically 'stripped' every deity that the Hebrews knew of its divinity. The sun, moon and stars were merely objects in the sky which gave them light, and nothing more. The surface of the planet and its atmosphere were merely two parts of this planet, and nothing more. And the other species of animals that the Hebrews saw around them were merely other species of animals, and nothing more. At the end of that passage they were to see only one Being as truly divine, and he was both invisible and over-and-above all that he had created, so he could never have his image painted on a tomb wall or sculpted into a statue.

The second creation story separated man (the true translation of the Hebrew word 'adam') from the other species of animals. The egyptian creation epic had described mankind as having been created along with the other species on the last day of creation, and then 'dumped' onto this planet along with them. This was reinforced at the time of the Hebrews' sojourn in Egypt by the belief held there that only royalty could attain an afterlife, and they could only attain it due to their being direct descendants of the gods.

Moses wrote that man first came into existence as a specie set apart by God. He could converse with God. He has given the authority to name all of the other species of animals, a symbol of authority in that era. He was given a special place (The Garden of Eden) where he could live comfortably. And he was even given a helpmate (Eve) in a special manner. Rather than see himself as just another animal, man was to see himself as in a special relationship with the Creator.

But man also had another ability which no other species have yet today. He could recognize good and evil, and choose which path he would follow. Somewhere in prehistory man had evolved to the point at which this recognition was part of his psyche, and so had lost the innocence which up to that point he had shared with all of the other species.

Moses described that point in time via his using another egyptian legend, namely, the story of the battle between Ra, the sun god, and Sebau, the serpent-fiend. At the end of this battle Ra had maimed and bound Sebau so as to force him to crawl on the ground on his belly. It can be found in The Egyptian Book of the Dead, about five paragraphs from the beginning of the book, and in the first paragraph under the heading 'A Hymn to Ra:

www.africa.upenn.edu/Books/Papyrus_Ani.html

Would the people have known what Moses was doing? Yes, they would have. The egyptian creation epic was taught all over Egypt as fact. Also, Ra was one of the highest ranking of the egyptian gods, so the story of Ra versus Sebau would have been common knowledge. So the people would have been able to receive the message which Moses was sending them without their getting entangled in the arguments which we see today.
Thanks for posting this Harry...every Christian should familiarise themselves with the ancient near eastern culture. I have some ways to go ;)

The Sun and moon become a lessor and greater lights for obvious reason. Cultural context demanded they be relegated to the four day and seen as mere planets and not objects to be worshipped.

Thanks
Purity
 

IBeMe

New Member
Jun 17, 2013
282
11
0
snr5557: It was just an example, not all scientists agree on the same things.
"The scientific study of the origin of life is still early enough that there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem ..."( NASA astrobiologist Chris McKay, 06/20/12)

There aren't any workable theories on the Origin of Life. None. Zero.

When a NASA astrobiologist says there isn't, there isn't.

Harvard started the "Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative" around 2005 to address that very problem.

"We start with a mutual acknowledgment of the profound complexity of living systems," said David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard. "But my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."

So, in 2005 they started looking for events that could have taken place with no divine (God) intervention.

Still waiting to hear back from those folks...

.
 

snr5557

Member
Jan 19, 2014
307
2
18
You can't just take one scientist's views on things. Did you know that the leader of the group who wanted to get rid of small pox in the world didn't think they could do it? But they went on anyway and they did it!

Science takes time, science isn't instantaneous.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
53
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
the scientist that seqeunced human dna is a christian a wrote my faorite book about his experience and discovery called 'the language of God'. It is a remarkable and beautiful account of scientist who is faithful to God and believes He is communicating honestly with ud through His creation
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
Arnie Manitoba said:
We can observe gravity every day , so could Newton .... we can observe diseases every day ... but we cannot observe evolution even once , let alone every day.
Sure we can. In fact, we do see it every day. It's a very common lab experiment in undergraduate biology courses to take a single-clone strain of E. coli that is susceptible to an antibiotic, culture it in a medium that is half neutral and half infused with antibiotic, and eventually you get a population living on the antibiotic. In the better programs (like the one I went to) you can even run a genetic analysis and see the mutational changes that produced the new trait.

That populations evolve is something we see all the time. And actually, unless a population reproduces itself perfection all the time, it will always evolve.

Speaking of gravity .... is it a pull or a push ?? We still dont know for sure

Speaking of gravity ... did it "evolve" before our solar system ? ... Gravity is fundamental in our universe .... so the laws of gravity would have to be here first .... before our planets and solar systems .. correct ??

So why should gravity "evolve" ahead of time .... before it was even needed ??
???????? Gravity isn't a living organism, so it doesn't evolve. :blink:
 

williemac

New Member
Apr 29, 2012
1,094
65
0
Canada
River Jordan said:
Sure we can. In fact, we do see it every day. It's a very common lab experiment in undergraduate biology courses to take a single-clone strain of E. coli that is susceptible to an antibiotic, culture it in a medium that is half neutral and half infused with antibiotic, and eventually you get a population living on the antibiotic. In the better programs (like the one I went to) you can even run a genetic analysis and see the mutational changes that produced the new trait.

That populations evolve is something we see all the time. And actually, unless a population reproduces itself perfection all the time, it will always evolve.


???????? Gravity isn't a living organism, so it doesn't evolve. :blink:
The kind of evolution you are describing has nothing in common with the kind that would have happened in order for all the species on the planet to come from a single source.

I am amused at many of the t.v. programs I see that support evolution, as the narrators inevitably will show a species that apparently evolved a trait that enabled them to have an advantage of some kind in their survival as a species. This is ridiculous on a few levels.

The first one is that this kind of adaption implies purpose and intelligence. The reality is that the very first form of life would have had neither of these if life were a mere coincidence. It would have lived in so harsh an environment that it likely would have died in no time, unless it somehow was motivated to reproduce, feed itself, and protect itself. If it's existence in the first place came about in spite of overwhelming odds, then we can multiply these odds infinitely to come up with any chance of survival.

Furthermore, the ridiculous notion that a species evolves in order to survive ignores the fact that the evolution itself takes place over such a long period of time, then obviously it was not needed, as the species survived long enough to change itself. DUHH!

When we look at viruses and diseases that can adapt and evolve, this is also a ridiculous form of "proof" of evolution. Will the E coli eventually evolve into a bird or a fish, just because it has programming to defend itself against a man made anti biotic? That is a greater leap of faith than what is required to accept the gospel. If only an evolutionist could put his faith to better use.
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
williemac said:
The kind of evolution you are describing has nothing in common with the kind that would have happened in order for all the species on the planet to come from a single source.
Sure it does. We know that the evolutionary mechanisms we see today are sufficient to produce new species. And that's exactly what has to happen under universal common descent (speciation).

The first one is that this kind of adaption implies purpose and intelligence.
How? Are you saying that God deliberately gives bacteria the ability to resist our antibiotics?

The reality is that the very first form of life would have had neither of these if life were a mere coincidence. It would have lived in so harsh an environment that it likely would have died in no time, unless it somehow was motivated to reproduce, feed itself, and protect itself. If it's existence in the first place came about in spite of overwhelming odds, then we can multiply these odds infinitely to come up with any chance of survival.
The origin of the first life forms is indeed a mystery.

Furthermore, the ridiculous notion that a species evolves in order to survive ignores the fact that the evolution itself takes place over such a long period of time, then obviously it was not needed, as the species survived long enough to change itself. DUHH!
I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Evolution occurs because of imperfect replication of DNA during reproduction. Outside of perfect cloning, imperfect replication happens every single time an organism replicates/reproduces. This has been going on since the first life forms began replicating.

Do you understand the point? Populations don't evolve out of a conscious desire; they do so as a necessary result of the nature of reproduction/replication.

When we look at viruses and diseases that can adapt and evolve, this is also a ridiculous form of "proof" of evolution.
Why? It is evolution, right before our eyes. I mean, if we see populations evolving all around us all the time, why is it unreasonable to conclude that evolution happens? Would you have us deny observable reality just because you don't like it?

Will the E coli eventually evolve into a bird or a fish, just because it has programming to defend itself against a man made anti biotic? That is a greater leap of faith than what is required to accept the gospel. If only an evolutionist could put his faith to better use.
This is what makes it hard to discuss this subject with creationists. Not only are you carrying around ridiculous straw man versions of what the science actually is, you apparently have zero interest in correcting that situation. So you just keep arguing against a made-up version of evolution that exists only in your head, and then imagine yourself the victor.
 

williemac

New Member
Apr 29, 2012
1,094
65
0
Canada
River Jordan said:
Sure it does. We know that the evolutionary mechanisms we see today are sufficient to produce new species. And that's exactly what has to happen under universal common descent (speciation).


How? Are you saying that God deliberately gives bacteria the ability to resist our antibiotics?


The origin of the first life forms is indeed a mystery.


I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Evolution occurs because of imperfect replication of DNA during reproduction. Outside of perfect cloning, imperfect replication happens every single time an organism replicates/reproduces. This has been going on since the first life forms began replicating.

Do you understand the point? Populations don't evolve out of a conscious desire; they do so as a necessary result of the nature of reproduction/replication.


Why? It is evolution, right before our eyes. I mean, if we see populations evolving all around us all the time, why is it unreasonable to conclude that evolution happens? Would you have us deny observable reality just because you don't like it?


This is what makes it hard to discuss this subject with creationists. Not only are you carrying around ridiculous straw man versions of what the science actually is, you apparently have zero interest in correcting that situation. So you just keep arguing against a made-up version of evolution that exists only in your head, and then imagine yourself the victor.
My friend, you have somehow stumbled upon a website in which Christians are involved in discussions and debates with one another within the religion of Christianity. If you are trying to convert any of us into atheism, you have an uphill battle, as the very purpose of our religion is to reconcile man to God in relationship. This is my testimony as well as most of us here. I have a personal relationship with God. How are you going to convince me that He isn't real? By your intelligent answers? Ironically, you imagine yourself as a victor as much as anyone you are arguing with. As well, you are still attempting to justify evolution as having purpose. You don't see the contradiction with that? And you don't you think that you are also using made up versions of our religion from your own mind? But hey, if you are so frustrated with us, then feel free to give up anytime. But if you happen to really want to know if a Creator really exists (hence the term 'creationist'), then we are here to show you how you can find Him. It's your call.
In the meantime, good luck disproving the unprovable, or turning theory into fact.

BTW, here is a quote: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"--- Albert Einstein
 
  • Like
Reactions: KingJ

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
williemac said:
My friend, you have somehow stumbled upon a website in which Christians are involved in discussions and debates with one another within the religion of Christianity. If you are trying to convert any of us into atheism, you have an uphill battle, as the very purpose of our religion is to reconcile man to God in relationship. This is my testimony as well as most of us here. I have a personal relationship with God. How are you going to convince me that He isn't real? By your intelligent answers?
Um...I'm a Christian. Have been pretty much all my life. Why would you think I was trying to make you an atheist? :blink:

As well, you are still attempting to justify evolution as having purpose. You don't see the contradiction with that?
????? I'm not following you here. Where did I try and "justify evolution as having purpose"?

But if you happen to really want to know if a Creator really exists (hence the term 'creationist'), then we are here to show you how you can find Him. It's your call.
In the meantime, good luck disproving the unprovable, or turning theory into fact.
I use the term "creationist" to refer to those who advocate the modern-day, evolution-denying version of creationism, not everyone who believes in God. Sorry if that was confusing.

BTW, here is a quote: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"--- Albert Einstein
Yup. What do you think he meant by "religion without science is blind"?
 

IBeMe

New Member
Jun 17, 2013
282
11
0
snr5557:
You can't just take one scientist's views on things.
You need to do some research on the topic.

There's No, Nee, Jo, La, Voch’ , Deyil, Ez, Nie, Ne, Bù, Nej, Nee, Ei, Hindi, Non, Ara, Nein, Ohee, Pa, Lo, Nahi, Nem, Nei, Tidak, Ni, Nai, Aniyo, Ma, Na, Não, Nu, Niet, Naha, Hapana, Nej, Mai, Hayır, Nei, Không, Nid oes, Illa, Noon, current working theories on how life could exist without God.

In other words, there aren't any working theories on how life could exist without God.

Steven Benner; "It is quite gratifying to see Harvard is going for a solution to a problem that will be remembered 100 years from now."

Big Boy Benner says it's a BIG problem.

If you don't know who Big Boy Benner is, we're wasting our time talking.


snr5557:
Science takes time, science isn't instantaneous.
Let's look at this again...

"The scientific study of the origin of life is still early enough that there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem ..."( NASA astrobiologist Chris McKay, 06/20/12)

When you don't have a clue ... That's not called science ... that's called "I don't know".



.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UppsalaDragby

williemac

New Member
Apr 29, 2012
1,094
65
0
Canada
River Jordan said:
Um...I'm a Christian. Have been pretty much all my life. Why would you think I was trying to make you an atheist? :blink:


????? I'm not following you here. Where did I try and "justify evolution as having purpose"?


I use the term "creationist" to refer to those who advocate the modern-day, evolution-denying version of creationism, not everyone who believes in God. Sorry if that was confusing.


Yup. What do you think he meant by "religion without science is blind"?
Thanks for clarifying. Sorry I misunderstood you. But I think you ought to consider that you are confusing micro evolution for macro evolution. There may well be evidence of changes 'within' a species, but there is absolutely none that would suggest all species came from a single life source through evolution. Macro-evolutionists are simply taking the evidence for the one and applying it as proof of the other through assumption, and a stretch of the imagination. The so called 'missing link' is an understatement. With the millions of species of life on earth, you would think that links would be common place. But there are none. A change within a species is not a link. Any argument to the contrary is just an opinion, which is all that this boils down to in the end--an opinion.

You know, if you are going to debunk the bible in this case, then how can you trust it in any other case that would lead you to be a Christian in the first place?

BTW, are you asking me what Einstein meant by what he said, or what you mean by what he said?
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
Suhar said:
Provide ONE proof of that! Just ONE!
I already did. CLICK HERE.
williemac said:
But I think you ought to consider that you are confusing micro evolution for macro evolution. There may well be evidence of changes 'within' a species, but there is absolutely none that would suggest all species came from a single life source through evolution.
Actually there's quite a bit of evidence for common descent. Why do you think that's been the conclusion of the overwhelming majority of earth and life scientists for over 100 years? Do you think they're so bad at their jobs that someone like you can prove everything they've done wrong?

Macro-evolutionists are simply taking the evidence for the one and applying it as proof of the other through assumption, and a stretch of the imagination.
How do you know what the scientific basis for common descent is? Have you been keeping up with the relevant scientific journals? Attending conferences? Taking graduate level college courses? Doing research?

I mean, if you're going to authoritatively say that you know what the science is, then I'm very curious as to how you came to that level of knowledge.

The so called 'missing link' is an understatement. With the millions of species of life on earth, you would think that links would be common place. But there are none. A change within a species is not a link. Any argument to the contrary is just an opinion, which is all that this boils down to in the end--an opinion.
Ok tell you what. Pick two major taxonomic groups that, under evolutionary theory, are supposed to be fairly closely related (e.g. reptiles and mammals, birds and reptiles, humans and primates, fish and tetrapods, etc.) and we'll first agree as to what a "transitional fossil" would look like, and then we'll see if any exist.

You know, if you are going to debunk the bible in this case, then how can you trust it in any other case that would lead you to be a Christian in the first place?
No one here is debunking the Bible.

BTW, are you asking me what Einstein meant by what he said, or what you mean by what he said?
Einstein said "religion without science is blind". What do you think he meant by that?
 

williemac

New Member
Apr 29, 2012
1,094
65
0
Canada
River Jordan said:
I already did. CLICK HERE.


Actually there's quite a bit of evidence for common descent. Why do you think that's been the conclusion of the overwhelming majority of earth and life scientists for over 100 years? Do you think they're so bad at their jobs that someone like you can prove everything they've done wrong?
That one is easy. The fact is, most evolutionists are atheists. And whether they admit it or not, they most likely fall into the majority of those who are atheists as a result of an emotional decision after observing the state of things here on earth. The philosophical question that fuels the atheist is..."...If there is a God, then why (fill in the blank) ?

As it happens, if there is no God, then the only place to go is the theory of common descent and the theory of a coincidental big bang. They overwhelmingly agree to these things because for them, there is no alternative that satisfies them from a philosophical point of view. If you think that science is the main or only thing driving them to their conclusions, you are in the same denial that they are.

Fact is, I would bet that you are a rare case of someone who thinks that God created all of life through a common descent. You are in a huge minority and have not considered the motives behind the scientists who are behind the theory that they say is fact, using evidence that cannot be foolproof, and yet is ironically deemed scientific. They take minor examples and make a universal pattern from them by taking them to a supposed logical conclusion. To which I say, puulleeese! Logic has nothing to do with it. Pre disposition has everything to do with it.

River Jordan said:
No one here is debunking the Bible.
O really? Common descent makes no room for the woman being created from the rib of the man....just for starters.

River Jordan said:
Einstein said "religion without science is blind". What do you think he meant by that?
In the first place, you are asking me a question from a partial quote. The two comments were made together and are meant to be looked at together. I could do the same with this part of the quote. "Science without religion is lame" . What do you think he meant by that?

But rather than play that game, I will tell you what I think Einstein was getting at. He was merely saying that the world needs both science and religion in that they both have a valid role in society. I can assure you that Einstein was a creationist. I would think twice if you are suggesting otherwise by misquoting him.
 

snr5557

Member
Jan 19, 2014
307
2
18
williemac said:
That one is easy. The fact is, most evolutionists are atheists.

Could you please tell me where you got this statistic? From a reliable source too please. Sorry I have just never heard this statement, and I would like to know where you got it from.
 

Arnie Manitoba

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2011
2,650
137
63
72
Manitoba Canada
snr5557 said:
That doesn't change the fact tht it doesn't evolve.
So where did the laws of gravity come from ??

The laws of Gravity had to be here before the universe or any life could exist.

The evolutionist tries to set that question aside because it interferes with evolutionary theory.
 

snr5557

Member
Jan 19, 2014
307
2
18
Arnie Manitoba said:
So where did the laws of gravity come from ??

The laws of Gravity had to be here before the universe or any life could exist.

The evolutionist tries to set that question aside because it interferes with evolutionary theory.
Could you explain your theory that gravity, a non-living organism, evolves then?