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

[AV1611VET]

As a Christian myself I do find many arguments from "my side" to be very frustrating. Too many Christians see the bible as a genuine source of scientific knowledge. It's not. That is not its function. Science is about how, religion is about why.

As I'm fond of saying:

Trying to use the Bible for science is like trying to use Bill Gates' diary for a computer manual.

The information in the Bible does not belong in science class, it belongs in history class.

 

[VirOptimus]

As I'm fond of saying:

Trying to use the Bible for science is like trying to use Bill Gates' diary for a computer manual.

The information in the Bible does not belong in science class, it belongs in history class.

No, the bible has some information that is interesting for history, but most if it is just religious tales/myths ment for religious lessons.

Its not literal history (as evident by physical reality).

Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World

 

[Frank Robert]

Looks very much like you want to avoid the evidence and instead want to attack me because I answered the questions that have been posted. (note: I have no control over what questions people post) If you want to refute anything on the site I linked, please do so. The confusion over intelligent design was caused by your failure to understand that that subject includes intelligent design of the universe and is not limited to evolution as was the case with the definition that you posted that is related to a specific program in Seattle

Intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory, not even a scientific hypothesis

1. 
   THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR
   I. The Big Bang
   II.The Borde-Vilenkin Guth Proof
   III. Evidence From Entropy
   IV. Something, Nothing,and Creation
   V. Fine-Tuning
   VI. Conclusion
   Obviously reading the linked resource would have eliminated much confusion and provided more than adequate evidence. The 7 Essential Modules - Credible Catholic[/QUOTE]

None of the above is scientific evidence for design.

 

[Speedwell]

Intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory, not even a scientific hypothesis

1. 
   THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR
   I. The Big Bang
   II.The Borde-Vilenkin Guth Proof
   III. Evidence From Entropy
   IV. Something, Nothing,and Creation
   V. Fine-Tuning
   VI. Conclusion
   Obviously reading the linked resource would have eliminated much confusion and provided more than adequate evidence. The 7 Essential Modules - Credible Catholic

None of the above is scientific evidence for design.

You are correct, but I think Disciple Clint is trying to work an equivocation fallacy on us as a rhetorical strategy--and malign the Roman Catholic faith into the bargain.

 

[Astrid]

Intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory, not even a scientific hypothesis

1. 
   THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR
   I. The Big Bang
   II.The Borde-Vilenkin Guth Proof
   III. Evidence From Entropy
   IV. Something, Nothing,and Creation
   V. Fine-Tuning
   VI. Conclusion
   Obviously reading the linked resource would have eliminated much confusion and provided more than adequate evidence. The 7 Essential Modules - Credible Catholic

None of the above is scientific evidence for design.[/QUOTE]

It's terrif as a gish though.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, the bible has some information that is interesting for history, but most if it is just religious tales/myths ment for religious lessons.

You're entitled to my opinion.

 

[VirOptimus]

You're entitled to my opinion.

You keep your opinion, preferably all to yourself.

 

[AV1611VET]

You keep your opinion, preferably all to yourself.

That's nice advice, Vir, but then you get these polls put out ... like the one I took and gave honest answers, scoring a 9 ... and all it did was gall the person that posted that poll.

It widened the rift between us, and fostered anger, resentment, and ridicule.

 

[VirOptimus]

That's nice advice, Vir, but then you get these polls put out ... like the one I took and gave honest answers, scoring a 9 ... and all it did was gall the person that posted that poll.

It widened the rift between us, and fostered anger, resentment, and ridicule.

No, thats all on you .

 

[AV1611VET]

No, thats all on you .

Am I wasting my time with this?

 

[VirOptimus]

Am I wasting my time with this?

Yes.

 

[Larniavc]

Evolutionary Biologist, Dan Cardinale hosted Michael Behe (3/22/21) for a chat on irreducible complexity on youtube. Dan focuses on Behe's criteria for IC (the main component of design)during the first half.

Any chance you could point out how IC is measured?

 

[Larniavc]

fulfilling a need

How do you identify when a need is present?

 

[Astrid]

How do you identify when a need is present?

Need rock to break window. This rock was designrd.

 

[Speedwell]

Need rock to break window. Thiscrock was designrd.

It is designed. You just designed a window-breaking device. Now, throw it down amongst some other rocks and see if our ID expert can find it again.

 

[Frank Robert]

Any chance you could point out how IC is measured?

IC is not measured but rather inferred when the trait (such as the eye) is too complex to evolve by Darwinian mechanisms.

At about minute 6:15 to minute 11 Dan works with Dr. Behe to draw out an exact definition. I think that would be the closest you can get to how it is inferred.

In a reply Dan Cardinale made at Peaceful Science when asked for a summary after of the interview he said:

"Behe was very cordial, but…it’s been 25 years since Black Box, and “irreducible complexity” is, still, not a well-fleshed-out idea.

I believe I asked for a quantifiable standard for “this thing is designed” five or six times, but did not get one, and just as many times he used a phrase like “in my mind” or equivalent.

The takeaway, I think, is that this is a completely subjective, and therefore unfalsifiable idea. Not that this is revelatory. I’m just honestly surprised in spite of myself that there isn’t an answer to “but how do you quantify that distinction?”"​

 

[essentialsaltes]

IC is not measured but rather inferred when the trait (such as the eye) is too complex to evolve by Darwinian mechanisms.

How has it been determined that the eye is too complex to evolve by Darwinian mechanisms?

 

[dlamberth]

The information in the Bible does not belong in science class, it belongs in history class.

When it comes to the Earth and life on it, the Bible is the last place I'd go for any sort of history lesson. Why? Because it does not reflect what the Earth nor even what the Universe is actually showing us about itSelf.

 

[dlamberth]

You keep your opinion, preferably all to yourself.

Personally, I like AV's opinions and welcome them. They foster thought, discussion and lots and lots of wonder, and occasional humor.

 

[AV1611VET]

How has it been determined that the eye is too complex to evolve by Darwinian mechanisms?

Psalm 94:9 He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?