Questions for Evolution-Deniers

  • Thread starter Thread starter NowAgnostic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was taking ID to mean “created in it’s current form/really really close to its current form” type of deals.
But that’s not what ID is. That is propaganda which attempts to equate ID with young earth creationism. They are not the same. They are not close to the same. ID is not YEC in disguise.

Here is part of a FAQ from intelligentdesign.org/faq.php
Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
Code:
                               It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.
The only disagreement ID has with “Evolution” is that some of the mutations are guided, and not random.
 
The only disagreement ID has with “Evolution” is that some of the mutations are guided, and not random.
Or even that the conditions of reproduction are set or controlled.

Animal breeding is actually a great example if ID. ID does not imply that the mutations are even directed (though it does not rule it out). A breeder does not CAUSE the mutations, but rather selects for particular traits that he\she desire to develop.

Taking that one step further, ID can certainly include genetic engineering. Monsanto “Roundup Ready” soybeans, for example, are certainly a product of ID.
 
The irony… I would not say stupid, i would say uneducated. It is clear from the above you have a very limited understanding of science, one that does not even extend so far as to understanding what the word “theory” means.
A tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
 
But it did happen. And in the same vein people are expected to believe that “God” just exists. At least there is evidence supporting a physical theory , evidence which is growing all the time with the continuous possibility of even more knowlege.

And then there’s the God theory. Believed or not, nothing can prove it and no new knowlege can every be gained that is verifiable. You can pretty much believe what you want.

So we have a number of options available to us(actually really only limited by human imagination). The most common is that a God did it, or that it just happened.

God of the gaps is so meaningless I don’t know how people stand the tension of the dishonesty that surrounds this theory. Then you must get into the definition of a God which is a quagmire that is never ending and so obviously fraught with problems due to the lack of any rigorous process that can be followed by all humans to create a common view about God. Philosophy is the best you have. Although useful, it isn’t something that can be accepted by all, because it’s a personal exploration into thinking deeply. It’s relative.

This is why science has just been so unbelievably successful. We cannot just create our own “mechanism” to prove a revelation or philosophy is right as an individual with personal motivations. Science requires evidence that can be verified. Nothing about religion can be. lol!!

We don’t know, is the only honest answer we can give at this point in our human understanding. It is a place lacking in security or comfort…in fact its a very uncomfortable place to be. It’s also the reality that we live under…and…it’s rather exciting too. 🙂

And yes…it may “just” have happened. It’s not something to believe or discard, but the only other options are highly imaginative or the option that leads us to no further knowlege at all. The God option.
The more science learns, especially in the field of Biology and particularly the cell, the more evidence of a well organized and intentional “Designer”. If you were to ever look at archeology, then you would see the more evidence uncovered, then more validity it adds to the Word of God. At one time archeologist and historians said places, cities, mentioned in the Bible never existed, but as archeology progressed the Bible proved to be true and man a failure.

I can only assume you have read and studied the Bible and evaluated the prophecy, what it says of science, archeology, and concluded that it is with error and that people just take it on blind faith.

**You have done this and have found many errors…right? Please show us the error. **
 
And yes…it may “just” have happened. It’s not something to believe or discard, but the only other options are highly imaginative or the option that leads us to no further knowlege at all. The God option.
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,” They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice; There is no one who does good. 2 God has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men To see if there is anyone who understands, Who seeks after God.

The wise of heart will receive commands, But a babbling fool will be ruined.

Wise men store up knowledge, But with the mouth of the foolish, ruin is at hand.

An arrogant man stirs up strife, But he who trusts in the LORD will prosper.
He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, But he who walks wisely will be delivered.

This is from the Book of job; written long before their was a thing called science.

"Behold, God is exalted, and we do not know Him;

The number of His years is unsearchable.

27 "For He draws up the drops of water,

They distill rain from the mist,

28 Which the clouds pour down,

They drip upon man abundantly.

29 "Can anyone understand the spreading of the clouds,

The thundering of His pavilion?

30 "Behold, He spreads His lightning F420 about Him,

And He covers the depths of the sea.

31 "For by these He judges peoples;

He gives food in abundance.

32 "He covers His hands with the lightning,

And commands it to strike the mark.

33 "Its noise declares His presence;
 
But that’s not what ID is. That is propaganda which attempts to equate ID with young earth creationism. They are not the same. They are not close to the same. ID is not YEC in disguise.

Here is part of a FAQ from intelligentdesign.org/faq.php
Creationist groups have begun calling themselves ‘ID’ without changing their tactics and becoming very self righteous when this name change is not respected.
 
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,” They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice; There is no one who does good. 2 God has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men To see if there is anyone who understands, Who seeks after God.

The wise of heart will receive commands, But a babbling fool will be ruined.

Wise men store up knowledge, But with the mouth of the foolish, ruin is at hand.

An arrogant man stirs up strife, But he who trusts in the LORD will prosper.
He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, But he who walks wisely will be delivered.

This is from the Book of job; written long before their was a thing called science.

"Behold, God is exalted, and we do not know Him;

The number of His years is unsearchable.

27 "For He draws up the drops of water,

They distill rain from the mist,

28 Which the clouds pour down,

They drip upon man abundantly.

29 "Can anyone understand the spreading of the clouds,

The thundering of His pavilion?

30 "Behold, He spreads His lightning F420 about Him,

And He covers the depths of the sea.

31 "For by these He judges peoples;

He gives food in abundance.

32 "He covers His hands with the lightning,

And commands it to strike the mark.

33 "Its noise declares His presence;
Well, I guess that proves it then. :rolleyes:
 
Creationist groups have begun calling themselves ‘ID’ without changing their tactics and becoming very self righteous when this name change is not respected.
Yes, that’s true. But there is an ID movement which is science based, and has nothing to do with YEC. In fact, it has atheists and agnostics in the movement as well.

By analogy, there is something now called “The Old Catholic Church.” It is NOT the Catholic Church, but they call themselves that anyway.

But if you want to discuss science based ID you need to talk to, and about, the science ID guys, not the creationists who hijacked the name for their own purposes.

The Discovery Institute seems to be the group which represents science ID, so perhaps we should listen to what they say about themselves, rather than what other people say about the creationist hijackers. That’s why I posted the FAQ from their website (actually it was linked to from their website).
 
I hear that the University of East Anglia has a good science department. I’ll bet that their Biology department is every bit as good as their climatology department. Plus, they have a lot of experience dealing with “deniers.”
You best watch out it seeeeeeemmmmmmms they teach…

DUN DUN DUN!!! EVOLUTON!!!
 
A tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
Dear me do you not even have the Patience to scroll down??? SAME SOURCE…

“A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.”

One HAS TO ASK if you cant even be bothered to read a few lines, can you blame me for not taking these people seriously where 10,000+ lines are involved?
 
You best watch out it seeeeeeemmmmmmms they teach…

DUN DUN DUN!!! EVOLUTON!!!
Yes, no doubt they teach evolution. Right along with methods of suppressing scientific dissent by managing the peer review process, falsification of data, creation of computer climate models specifically designed to show increasing global temperatures despite the actual data, etc.

Yes, I have no doubt that they can teach evolution with a straight face. And claim that there is no dissenting opinion, or questionable data.

BTW - perhaps you don’t know what I’m referring to. If not, read a newspaper.
 
Yes, no doubt they teach evolution. Right along with methods of suppressing scientific dissent by managing the peer review process, falsification of data, creation of computer climate models specifically designed to show increasing global temperatures despite the actual data, etc.

Yes, I have no doubt that they can teach evolution with a straight face. And claim that there is no dissenting opinion, or questionable data.

BTW - perhaps you don’t know what I’m referring to. If not, read a newspaper.
Well to be honest i though you were kidding, if not i take it your don’t actually know what the method and peer review involves?
 
Well to be honest i though you were kidding, if not i take it your don’t actually know what the method and peer review involves?
And apparently you haven’t heard of climategate. There are several threads here on CAF about that. Also, you could google it.

Or are you claiming that the actions of the CRU involving peer review, falsification of data, deleting of data which didn’t fit their motives, etc. were justified? OK, read about it first.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top