Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[Speedwell]

So the creationists guess is as good as any, then.

No, I think we have pretty conclusively determined that the word is not 6000 years old and was not entirely covered with with water ca. 2600 BC.

 

[Speedwell]

So? Why is there order instead of chaos?

Why are you still on this theism v. atheism kick? You need to move it to different forum. This one is about creationism v. evolution.

 

[renniks]

No, I think we have pretty conclusively determined that the word is not 6000 years old and was not entirely covered with with water ca. 2600 BC.

Who says 6000 years old?
And creationists have multiple theories. I've read entire books on old Earth creationism. And then there's the theory that since time is relative, it's young from one perspective and old from another.

 

[renniks]

Why are you still on this theism v. atheism kick? You need to move it to different forum. This one is about creationism v. evolution.

Oh give me a break. This is the real issue. Creationism, no matter the method is what is being opposed here.

 

[VirOptimus]

Who says 6000 years old?
And creationists have multiple theories. I've read entire books on old Earth creationism. And then there's the theory that since time is relative, it's young from one perspective and old from another.

That is not how relativity works.

 

[Larniavc]

How about you create life from nothing and then get back to me on how complicated it was.

Ok, so no units of measurement for complexity.

So no objective way to tell if something is too complicated to be not designed.

So here we can see one fundamental difference between creationists and non creationist: an inability to measure that which they assert is true.

This might just end the thread.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Oh give me a break. This is the real issue. Creationism, no matter the method is what is being opposed here.

Nope. Science in general is not opposing people who believe in a creator god who set up the dominoes 15 billion years ago to fall in such a way that would produce people via natural events, even if she has to intervene to wiggle an atom indetectibly every now and then to keep things on track.

 

[renniks]

That is not how relativity works.

Well you should like that one. It was written by a Christian scientist who had no problem with evolution.

 

[renniks]

Nope. Science in general is not opposing people who believe in a creator god who set up the dominoes 15 billion years ago to fall in such a way that would produce people via natural events, even if she has to intervene to wiggle an atom indetectibly every now and then to keep things on track.

Then why is ID opposed by so many scientists?

It just says what we all know to be true.
We go to an art gallery and we say "what an amazing artist."
If we go to the beach and watch the sunset and don't say the same thing we're being dishonest with ourselves.

 

[renniks]

Ok, so no units of measurement for complexity.

If you can get even a bicycle to make itself, that would be good enough.
No cheating and making the parts first.

 

[Frank Robert]

So the creationists guess is as good as any, then.

A scientific inquiry could begin with a guess that is turned into a hypothesis that can be tested. If the test is negative the hypothesis is falsified. If the test is positive then the hypothesis is supported by evidence. Whether the hypothesis began with a guess from a creationist or an evolution doesn't matter. The main complaint to creationists guesses is that never make it to hypothesis stage.

 

[Frank Robert]

Such processes just developed themselves, hum? Rules and laws of nature point to a law maker.

There is nothing wrong with assuming that there was a "law maker." The problem with creationism is that the law maker continues to fiddle with his laws instead of laying back and letting the laws do their job.

 

[Frank Robert]

So? Why is there order instead of chaos?

Nature runs smoothly most of the time but when natural forces buildup we get hurricanes, floods, volcanoes and many other nasty things. We also get sunny beach days and skiing days and many other nice things.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Then why is ID opposed by so many scientists?

#1 Because ID is not science.
#2 Neither is 'God wiggles atoms'.

Scientists don't care if people believe these things. However, they should not be taught in science class, since it isn't science.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is nothing wrong with assuming that there was a "law maker." The problem with creationism is that the law maker continues to fiddle with his laws instead of laying back and letting the laws do their job.

By "fiddle with his laws," do you mean performing His miracles?

Such as parting the Red Sea? protecting Daniel's friends in the fire? and walking on water?

 

[Speedwell]

Oh give me a break. This is the real issue. Creationism, no matter the method is what is being opposed here.

What? I am a Christian and a theistic evolutionist and all the regulars here know it. No one has ever said so much as Boo! to me about it--except creationists, who are uniformly hostile to non-creationist Christians

 

[Frank Robert]

By "fiddle with his laws," do you mean performing His miracles?

Such as parting the Red Sea? protecting Daniel's friends in the fire? and walking on water?

One-off miracles aren't a problem. I was thinking more about evolution processes where creationists claim constant fiddling.

 

[AV1611VET]

I was thinking more about evolution processes where creationists claim constant fiddling.

I'm sorry. I don't quite understand.

Are you talking about theistic evolutionists claiming God fiddles with evolution processes?

And would you give me an example please?

I know God "fiddles" with nature, such as my aforementioned miracles ... (and I like your term "one-off") ... but as for processes themselves, I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm sorry. I don't quite understand.

Are you talking about theistic evolutionists claiming God fiddles with evolution processes?

And would you give me an example please?

I know God "fiddles" with nature, such as my aforementioned miracles ... (and I like your term "one-off") ... but as for processes themselves, I'm not sure what you mean.

That some biological structures can and do evolve by variation and selection, just like the theory of evolution says. Others cannot, and require direct intervention at the genetic level to complete their evolution. That is ID.

 

[Frank Robert]

I'm sorry. I don't quite understand.

Are you talking about theistic evolutionists claiming God fiddles with evolution processes?

And would you give me an example please?

I know God "fiddles" with nature, such as my aforementioned miracles ... (and I like your term "one-off") ... but as for processes themselves, I'm not sure what you mean.

Take parting of the sea which does not happen every day. Firstly, an all powerful God would have no problem doing it and secondly there is no reasonable naturalistic alternative so it comes down to a matter of belief. Compare the appearance of a mutation or other evolutionary process which happen billions of times a minute. Here we have a scientifically supported theory of natural selection on how that works.