My Creationism vs Intelligent Design Challenge

[rturner76]

Would you also agree that the blueprint for water is H2O? Is the blueprint for carbon dioxide CO2? Does that mean water and carbon dioxide are just as designed as a cell?



So a cell is different from a rock in the same way that a diamond is different from a zircon? The only thing that separates them is their specific chemical makeup?

Full disclosure, I withdrew from my biology course so I guess you have me at a disadvantage when it comes to what the chemical make up of things are.

I do remember some things like everything we know of is built from atoms, protons, and electrons etc. So with that being the basic building block of what any substance is, I would say yes, water and carbon dioxide are designed just as a cell is with the caveat that a cell is a much more complex design.

To the second question, it's a bit like the first. I will say yes as far as I know, a cell is different from a rock in the same way a diamond is different than a zircon but way way different and more complex chemical structures.

I have a feeling with these answers I have somehow just set myself up to have made some big mistake in biology or chemistry. The questions seem too easy to answer with my "blueprint" analogy.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I'm an existentialist. I see it this way: I popped into existence ex nihilo, complete with brain hands and feet, without personal history, and I'm more complex that I can immediately comprehend. This is one "axis" I can see myself as created, because I am "ignorant" of evolution.

Another is science. IMO the orange dots are signs of complexity, and are either compressed into the timesheet of the present or expanded into a new dimension so as to act a sign of evolutionary history.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

More like I hold scientists up to a Standard that you cannot.

Really? I've yet to see it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Really?

Yes, really.

I've yet to see it.

I've been here 8½ times longer than you have.

Perhaps you have some catching up to do?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, really.I've been here 8½ times longer than you have.

Perhaps you have some catching up to do?

Or how about you actually show me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or how about you actually show me.

Sure.

People think I'm so dead-set against scientists here, and I'll go overboard to make a point: I'll kiss the feet of a scientist before I kiss the feet of a theologian anyday.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sure.

Yeah, I've seen you say that, but you have NEVER ONCE put those words in to action. You constantly denigrate and deride science on virtually every thread you take part in.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, I've seen you say that, but you have NEVER ONCE put those words in to action.

You mean like here?

Science says otherwise, though.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You mean like here?

And yet you say it's like because God made all of the evidence disappear. No, that's not the same thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet you say it's like because God made all of the evidence disappear. No, that's not the same thing.

-- Huh?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

-- Huh?

Don't play dumb. You understand fully well what I wrote.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't play dumb. You understand fully well what I wrote.

I have no idea what you're talking about now.

You seem to be whiplashing back to some post now about God 'making evidence disappear,' which is something I never say.

If you're talking about the Flood, I do believe God cleaned up His mess.

But that's far from saying God 'made the evidence disappear.'

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I have no idea what you're talking about now.

You seem to be whiplashing back to some post now about God 'making evidence disappear,' which is something I never say.

If you're talking about the Flood, I do believe God cleaned up His mess.

But that's far from saying God 'made the evidence disappear.'

No, it's exactly the same thing. If you clean up a mess, then you make the evidence for said mess disappear.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it's exactly the same thing. If you clean up a mess, then you make the evidence for said mess disappear.

What two major exceptions do I say He left behind on purpose?

Can you tell me that?

Here, I'll make it easy (multiple choice) for you, since you're so far behind and need to catch up:

What evidence of the Flood did God leave behind?

1. dead carcasses everywhere
2. power lines down
3. white cliffs and meandering streams

You're 0 for 3 so far.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I have no idea what you're talking about now.

You seem to be whiplashing back to some post now about God 'making evidence disappear,' which is something I never say.

If you're talking about the Flood, I do believe God cleaned up His mess.

But that's far from saying God 'made the evidence disappear.'

The problem isn't that there's no evidence, the problem is that the evidence indicates something completely different, namely an old earth and layers of rock formed over billions of years in an assortment of conditions interlaced by wet, dry, hot, cold, volcanic, erosive, etc. layers over an expansive amount of time that will never be as little as 6,000 to 10,000 years. These rocks have history, like sand ripples and dunes from the wind, bush fires, rain polka-dotted mud, footprints, bush fires, dry salt beds still containing water-soluble salts, grass and forests, and of course fossilised remains of all the life that corresponds to each of the types of layers we find, all intermingled with volcanic rock formed in a dry environment in such a way that is impossible to be laid out in one world-wide flood...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What two major exceptions do I say He left behind on purpose?

Can you tell me that?

Here, I'll make it easy (multiple choice) for you, since you're so far behind and need to catch up:

What evidence of the Flood did God leave behind?

1. dead carcasses everywhere
2. power lines down
3. white cliffs and meandering streams

You're 0 for 3 so far.

Considering that the dead carcasses (aka fossils) do not match up with a flood environment worldwide, no power lines existed during the time period suggest for the Noahic Flood and the cliffs of Dover and meandering streams cannot form in a tumultuous aquatic environment, I'd say that you're the one who's 0 for 3.

 

[AV1611VET]

Considering that the dead carcasses (aka fossils) do not match up with a flood environment worldwide, no power lines existed during the time period suggest for the Noahic Flood and the cliffs of Dover and meandering streams cannot form in a tumultuous aquatic environment, I'd say that you're the one who's 0 for 3.

Fair enough, Warden.

If you want to be ignorant of what I think and say, that's your prerogative.

It's your bane, not mine.

I can lead you to the water, but I cannot make you drink it.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem isn't that there's no evidence, the problem is that the evidence indicates something completely different,

The evidence of what? a worldwide flood?

I don't think so.

Are you telling me all that stuff you listed, you're saying it's evidence that the Flood occurred?

If not, then I agree with you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Fair enough, Warden.

If you want to be ignorant of what I think and say, that's your prerogative.

It's your bane, not mine.

I can lead you to the water, but I cannot make you drink it.

I'd call you the truly ignorant one here, but I've seen how much misguided pride you take from being called ignorant.
But still, the fact remains: your claim that you hold scientists to a higher standard than the majority of people on this forum is completely false.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

The evidence of what? a worldwide flood?

I don't think so.

Are you telling me all that stuff you listed, you're saying it's evidence that the Flood occurred?

If not, then I agree with you.

No worldwide flood, so we're Cool... Why did I think that?