intelligent design vs creationism

[Arnie Manitoba]

The scientist and evolutionist will poo-poo the theory that Noah's flood embedded dinosaur fossils in silt and mud

Yet the next day they will say dinasour fossils were trapped in ancient mud .....

The fossils look like reflective blobs, rather than preserved bones associated with famous dinosaur finds. They are easy to miss if the light is not quite right or you don’t know what you’re looking for. The ancient mud captured the squishy stuff – think guts and eyes.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/in-search-of-old-life/article13700672/

Could you explain your theory that gravity, a non-living organism, evolves then?

I have never said gravity evolved . Nice try

I asked the evolutionist how and why did the laws of gravity exist before there was anything , and before the big bang.

Without Newtonian physics and the laws of gravity being in place ahead of time the big bang theory would not work

It is the evolutionist who uses his theory of evolution to explain the origins of everything .... and if that same evolutionist tells me gravity did not evolve , he has just destroyed his argument that evolution explains everything.

The evolutionist is the one who uses contradictory science , not me,

 

[River Jordan]

That one is easy. The fact is, most evolutionists are atheists.

Please understand that I'm not going to just take your word for it. So if you have any actual data to support this, please present it.

OTOH, I know of some data that indicates your claim is wrong. If you look at THIS DATA, you see that in the developed world, evolution acceptance is a strong majority viewpoint. Couple that with data showing that atheists are around 2% of the world's population, and you end up with an obvious conclusion: the vast majority of "evolutionists" are theists.

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.

Except the data shows the exact opposite. Unless you have contrary data, then it's clear who is "in denial".

O really? Common descent makes no room for the woman being created from the rib of the man....just for starters.

If that were literally true, then Eve was a clone of Adam and would have a Y-chromosome. But I'm sure the thought of Eve being a hermaphrodite isn't where you were going with 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?

I think he meant that empiricism detached from our spiritual nature is "lame", i.e., boring and in denial of a fundamental part of who we are. Without the sense of awe that we derive from our spiritual side, the universe just becomes a set of facts and figures. That's lame.

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.

I agree with the first part. I doubt Einstein was a creationist in the sense that he was an evolution-denying, 6,000 year old universe advocate, and flood geologist.

Now, I asked you a couple of other questions....

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?

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.

The scientist and evolutionist will poo-poo the theory that Noah's flood embedded dinosaur fossils in silt and mud

Yet the next day they will say dinasour fossils were trapped in ancient mud .....

The fossils look like reflective blobs, rather than preserved bones associated with famous dinosaur finds. They are easy to miss if the light is not quite right or you don’t know what you’re looking for. The ancient mud captured the squishy stuff – think guts and eyes.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/in-search-of-old-life/article13700672/

You're confusing "no recent global flood" with "no floods ever". The two aren't the same.

I asked the evolutionist how and why did the laws of gravity exist before there was anything , and before the big bang.

Without Newtonian physics and the laws of gravity being in place ahead of time the big bang theory would not work

It is the evolutionist who uses his theory of evolution to explain the origins of everything .... and if that same evolutionist tells me gravity did not evolve , he has just destroyed his argument that evolution explains everything.

I get the impression that for you, "evolutionist" means "scientists who are not young-earth creationists". IOW, "evolutionist" = "scientist".

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

What's the difference between the two?

.

I have gone back to the opening post in this thread asking the difference between intelligent design vs creationism.

I have read all the answers here and think they are all incorrect ..... actually I think the question is incorrect.

To do it properly the question should be ....

Why did the term Intelligent design originate in the first place ??

Creationists have never required the phrase .... it is the evolutionist who required it ... thus it came into use.

Through the years scientists evolved to the point they realized living cells , DNA etc had such amazing design and harmony there was absolutely no way they could have originated by random chance .... so those secular scientists used the term "intelligent design" to describe those attributes

In fairness ... the creationist tried to use that against the scientist as evidence of a creator so the waters have become muddy on the use of the phrase "intelligent design"

But it all started when secular scientists required a phrase to describe the incredible design features he found in living organisms.

So please stop blaming the creationist for the controversies.

 

[River Jordan]

Arnie,

You need to look up the history of the term "intelligent design". You're not even close to being right.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

.

Would everybody be happier if we used the words "Intelligent Evolution"

 

[snr5557]

.

Would everybody be happier if we used the words "Intelligent Evolution"

No

 

[UppsalaDragby]

What about "stupid evolution"? ^_^

 

[snr5557]

What about "stupid evolution"? ^_^

No.

Is this necessary to the debate? Do you have nothing else to add?

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

No.

Is this necessary to the debate? Do you have nothing else to add?

We are called stupid for believing in "Intelligent design"

We are told everything evolves , it is not designed

If evolution did everything it must be highly intelligent

If you object to "Intelligent evolution" what are the options?

Un-intelligent evolution ?

 

[snr5557]

We are called stupid for believing in "Intelligent design"

We are told everything evolves , it is not designed

If evolution did everything it must be highly intelligent

If you object to "Intelligent evolution" what are the options?

Un-intelligent evolution ?

I don't remember calling you stupid.

Evolution is a process that does not perform actual thought.

That's like you are saying that the theory of gravity is intelligent. Gravity does not think.

The option is called the theory of evolution.

 

[Mr.Bride]

Ungodly scientists...Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[River Jordan]

Ungodly scientists...Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

The irony of someone using a computer and the internet to express such a view....

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

The irony of someone using a computer and the internet to express such a view....

The eye and the brain of the common honey bee has more computing power than the most powerful computer mankind has ever built.

So how did that work ??? .... did the wings spend a million years evolving .... then the eye began to form , then the brain began to form .... over millions of years ?? What about the legs ... and the antennae ??

How did the honey bee live that long without being able to fly , see, or eat ?

It is an impossibility.

Not only that ..... exactly parallel with it you would need a female version to evolve at exactly the same time.

We have just doubled the impossibility.

That goes for all evolving species .... a female version must evolve at the exact same time and place.

 

[River Jordan]

Arnie,

You've shown that you don't ask such questions in good faith, or out of genuine curiosity, so there's no reason to respond to them, is there?

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Arnie,

You've shown that you don't ask such questions in good faith, or out of genuine curiosity, so there's no reason to respond to them, is there?

Not at all River .... I ask legitimate questions .... such as ..... would you not agree that the complete honey bee must be assembled in order for it to function ? .... and all the flowers and plants and blossoms and pollens must also be in place ?

That is the most legitimate question in this whole debate ..... all of nature has to be in place at the same time or it simply will not work.

That is the dilemma faced by the evolutionist

I do not require any religion to make that observation... . If I was an atheist I would say the same thing.

The difficulty is trying to get the evolutionist to suspend the belief system long enough to contemplate all the reasons the evolution model may not be realistic.

Best wishes .... you are a worthy debater .... and I admire your intelligence ... and the fact you can stand on your own two feet .... those are rare talents .... you will go far in life with stamina like that.

Thank you...

 

[williemac]

Evolution is a process that does not perform actual thought.

That's like you are saying that the theory of gravity is intelligent. Gravity does not think.

The option is called the theory of evolution.

I just watched a program on Madagascar, where the narrator showed a dry, desert-like place, and then showed some unique trees on it, which he said had evolved the ability to retain great amounts of water. No intelligence, Eh? This is a common thread on these programs, where the narrators show a species that have adapted or evolved in order to survive in their surroundings.

I wonder if they are hearing themselves. A chameleon can blend in to its surroundings for protection. This evolved? Given the amount of time that evolution supposedly takes place, how did they manage to survive in the meantime, if this trait was so necessary for survival? Ditto for the trees, and every species that has unique advantages for survival.

The problem is obvious. These men are speaking of evolution as though it has a purpose. This is not isolated. It is expressed over and over in every program I watch on certain nature channels. But on the other hand, the theory insists that no intelligence is at hand in it. So either they should publicly speak more intelligently about their own beliefs, or maybe they should rethink their beliefs.

If there is no intelligence at hand in the process, then please give us a break!! On the other hand, if God is using evolution as His method of creation, then there is in fact intelligent design in the process.

Here is a question another asked of me....
"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?"

My reply to that question is that I have the bible and the Holy Spirit to teach and guide me. Why not research what God has said and revealed? Why should I trust biased research? The idea of common descent came about in recent history, and has most of its support from those who do not have a personal God residing within them through faith in Jesus. Can I prove this? No, at the risk of sounding too cocky, I feel the Holy Spirit has revealed it to me through a lifetime of observation. For example, no God is mentioned in the big bang theory, which is cited as the beginning of the universe and followed by evolution.

And furthermore, just because a person claims to not be an atheist is no guarantee that he is saved through the gospel of grace, and is filled with the Spirit OF TRUTH. A great deal of non atheists in the world are not Christian. The surveys can be deceptive, and any survey can be worded to favor a certain result.

God made Eve from the rib of Adam. Even if this is not exactly literal, it is meant to demonstrate that Adam came first, before Eve, and that her life comes from him, through a process by which God put Adam into a deep sleep. This was not cloning. It is simply using raw material from one source to create a compatible mate. (Everything called matter in our physical world is made from the same building blocks of atoms and molecules.) We know in scripture that the life of Jesus came from His Father, and the life of the church comes from Jesus. And the life of woman came from man. In each case, the one is the head of the other.

This theory of common descent is therefore messing with things that God has deliberately revealed about Himself, about the dynamics of relationship, and about life's purpose.

 

[River Jordan]

Arnie,

You're guilty of the fallacy of backwards engineering. By your same reasoning, I must conclude that the house I live in had to have been created all at once, since if I remove just a few pieces, it stops being fully functional. Or that at the moment of conception, I must have immediately had all my my major organs, since without them I cannot live.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Your house is not alive. I think there is a reasoning fallacy there somewhere.

 

[River Jordan]

I just watched a program on Madagascar, where the narrator showed a dry, desert-like place, and then showed some unique trees on it, which he said had evolved the ability to retain great amounts of water. No intelligence, Eh? This is a common thread on these programs, where the narrators show a species that have adapted or evolved in order to survive in their surroundings.

Since that's all we see going on around us...populations evolving to adapt to their environments...why should anyone pretend it doesn't happen?

A chameleon can blend in to its surroundings for protection. This evolved? Given the amount of time that evolution supposedly takes place, how did they manage to survive in the meantime, if this trait was so necessary for survival? Ditto for the trees, and every species that has unique advantages for survival.

Why do you think camouflage abilities are all or none propositions? Some organisms are very good at it, some kinda good at it, and others without the ability at all. So obviously it's possible for a species to thrive without camouflage. But for some reason, you seem to think that without it, survival is impossible!

The problem is obvious. These men are speaking of evolution as though it has a purpose. This is not isolated. It is expressed over and over in every program I watch on certain nature channels. But on the other hand, the theory insists that no intelligence is at hand in it. So either they should publicly speak more intelligently about their own beliefs, or maybe they should rethink their beliefs.

Given the above, I think we've identified who needs to re-think their approach to this subject.

If there is no intelligence at hand in the process, then please give us a break!! On the other hand, if God is using evolution as His method of creation, then there is in fact intelligent design in the process.

Do you believe God directed the evolution of the ebola virus? What about the smallpox pathogen? Lice that only exist on humans? Pathogens that cause immense suffering in newborn babies? All of those things require specific biochemical systems to do what they do. Did God intentionally design those things to cause immense pain, death, and suffering?

Here is a question another asked of me....
"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?"

My reply to that question is that I have the bible and the Holy Spirit to teach and guide me.

Thank you for being honest. A lot of creationists try and pretend that they actually have studied the science and come to young-earth creationism that way, rather than as an extension of their particular religious beliefs.

The history of Christianity is rife with examples of different people reading scripture in different ways, so I have absolutely no problem with what you describe.

I feel the Holy Spirit has revealed it to me through a lifetime of observation. For example, no God is mentioned in the big bang theory, which is cited as the beginning of the universe and followed by evolution.

God isn't mentioned in any scientific theory. The atomic theory of matter, upon which all of chemistry is founded, doesn't say anything about God, yet I'd bet there are a lot of plastics around you right now!

And furthermore, just because a person claims to not be an atheist is no guarantee that he is saved through the gospel of grace, and is filled with the Spirit OF TRUTH. A great deal of non atheists in the world are not Christian. The surveys can be deceptive, and any survey can be worded to favor a certain result.

I agree. But the reason I cited the surveys was to counter the incorrect claim that "most evolutionists are atheists". The data is clear that most "evolutionists" are theists. Many of them may not be Christians, but they're not atheists either.

God made Eve from the rib of Adam. Even if this is not exactly literal, it is meant to demonstrate that Adam came first, before Eve, and that her life comes from him, through a process by which God put Adam into a deep sleep. This was not cloning. It is simply using raw material from one source to create a compatible mate. (Everything called matter in our physical world is made from the same building blocks of atoms and molecules.) We know in scripture that the life of Jesus came from His Father, and the life of the church comes from Jesus. And the life of woman came from man. In each case, the one is the head of the other.

So you see it as metaphorical?

This theory of common descent is therefore messing with things that God has deliberately revealed about Himself, about the dynamics of relationship, and about life's purpose.

I understand that's what you believe. And again, I commend you for your honesty.

Your house is not alive. I think there is a reasoning fallacy there somewhere.

I am. Did I have to have all my major organs in place and fully functioning at the moment of conception?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Your house argument was made of straw, man.

Punctuation is everything.