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

[Speedwell]

I think you got the idea. If it has multiple components that have to function together to do a task, it's complex.

It's complex, but is it designed? What about designed objects which do not have multiple components that have to function together?

 

[renniks]

It's complex, but is it designed? What about designed objects which do not have multiple components that have to function together?

Such as?

 

[Speedwell]

Such as?

A baseball bat.

 

[atpollard]

Such as?

A cinder block is a designed object without multiple components.

 

[atpollard]

No, they're just holding all the evidence and that's a pretty high card. But I think that the real gap between creationists and non-creationists is the interpretation of Genesis as accurate literal history.

Only Young Earth Creationists, so your sample is flawed by a false “either/or” choice.

 

[AV1611VET]

ID doesn't teach the Bible. It merely teaches that life as we know it appears to have a designer.

That's why I always say ID can take a hike.

It's just a ploy to try and inject science into Genesis 1, where it doesn't belong.

My term of choice is "Creationism," with its various offshoots: Creation Week, Creation Events.

 

[Speedwell]

Only Young Earth Creationists, so your sample is flawed by a false “either/or” choice.

Not necessarily. Only YECs outright deny science. Even IDists accept evolution to a degree.

 

[Speedwell]

That's why I always say ID can take a hike.

It's just a ploy to try and inject science into Genesis 1, where it doesn't belong.

My term of choice is "Creationism," with its various offshoots: Creation Week, Creation Events.

Actually, it was a ploy to insert theism into the public schools as a "wedge" (and that's how they described it--read their stuff) for Biblical creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, it was a ploy to insert theism into the public schools as a "wedge" (and that's how they described it--read their stuff) for Biblical creationism.

Well "theism" -- more appropriately Theology (or Christology) -- does belong in the public schools; but as history, not science.

HOWEVER, we believe God sets up three major institutions: the Home, the Church, and the Government; and that Biblical teaching should first begin at home.

And as far as public schools are concerned: no comment.

 

[renniks]

A baseball bat.

Ever seen a baseball bat form itself? It has to be precisely designed for it to function properly.

 

[renniks]

A cinder block is a designed object without multiple components.

Is it? Concrete has multiple components, and blocks have to be precisely manufactured.
The Difference Between Cement, Cinder, and Concrete Blocks

 

[Speedwell]

Ever seen a baseball bat form itself? It has to be precisely designed for it to function properly.

Never played stick ball? But a bat is not made up multiple components which have to function together.

 

[AV1611VET]

Never played stick ball? But a bat is not made up multiple components which have to function together.

My favorite example is: 1 + 1 = 2.

Remove one of those components and see if it makes sense.

 

[inquiring mind]

Well "theism" -- more appropriately Theology (or Christology) -- does belong in the public schools; but as history, not science.

And, there’s also the ‘History of Science’… wonder why it never gave the Bible at least partial credit for general answers to some scientific problems, and that long before scientists ever made them scientific?

 

[Bradskii]

Only that's not my position at all. And I don't think it's Behe's position either. I think that's a misunderstanding.
God doesn't suddenly realize things. He already has all knowledge. He doesn't allow things to change by themselves. As you said, there's no unguided process. So there's no fiddling. It's all a miracle, from the creation of matter onward. The fact that it's so complex only tells us it could not be a process that came about by chance, but that everything is God's design.

So what's the difference between the 'natural' process of evolution - which IDers accept, and an example of creationism? God is involved in each. But a 'creation' event is required because the 'natural' process didn't end up with what God wanted. Is that a position you want to take for an omnipotent deity?

And incidentally, the eye is a very bad example indeed to use as an event requiring creation as oposed to allowing evolution to proceed to the same result. We have numerous examples of how various stages of eyes have evolved. From light sensitive cells through to that which you are using to read this. And every conceivable stage in between.

I don't want to be rude, but all your posts strike me as being written by someone with very little knowledge of evolution. Hence quite a few of them, rather than addressing the points being made, slide into arguments about theism v atheism and abiogenesis.

Let's be clear, I will completely agree with the existence of an omnipotent deity for the sake of this discussion. And abiogenesis is not up for discussion. Whether you are an ID supporter or not, it has already been assumed to have happened.

Your problem is explaining what the difference is between 'natural' processes (which God set up) and supernatural events (where He has to step in to add something that His 'natural' events failed to produce).

I'm keen to know how you tell the difference and what that says about the concept of omnipotence.

 

[Larniavc]

I think you got the idea. If it has multiple components that have to function together to do a task, it's complex.

Is an electron designed by that definition?

 

[disciple Clint]

Of course it would.
Just as historical evidence that Jesus was a composite of many gods, heroes, and historical people, changed my view 30 years ago.


Edit: PS, below my name, 5th line down, The word "Atheist".

Here is some information that may help:

There is yet another remarkable piece of scientifically validatable evidence of Jesus’ resurrection – the image on the Shroud of Turin. Though the 1988 carbon dating suggested that the Shroud originated in the 15th century, the sample for that dating has been shown by six scientific tests to have come from fabric that was not part of the original linen cloth. Seven other dating tests indicate that the Shroud comes from the 1st century in Jerusalem. Furthermore, the image on the Shroud was very likely produced by an intense burst of light radiation (with a magnitude of 6 to 8 billion watts lasting only one-forty-billionth of a second) emanating from every 3-dimensional part inside and on the surface of a mechanically transparent (spiritual) body. This suggests strongly that the dead body inside the Shroud of Turin was transformed spiritually and luninescently through a supernatural cause – a remarkable confirmation of the gospel accounts of Jesus’ transformed appearance. This is discussed in detail in “Science and the Shroud of Turin” (see Science and the Shroud of Turin).

Flavius Josephus Flavius Josephus (a Jewish historian writing a history of the Jewish people for a Roman audience in approximately 93 AD) provides the most impressive and detailed evidence for the historical Jesus outside Christian scripture. Many historians and exegetes have written extensively on Josephus’ testimony about Jesus because there were obvious Christian edits and interpolations of this text. Luke Timothy Johnson,8Raymond Brown, and John P. Meierhave a very balanced (and somewhat minimalistic) approach to the critical passage. All three scholars believe that the beginning part of the passage from Josephus’ Antiquities has not been significantly changed or edited, though later parts clearly were. The passage (sometimes called the Testimonium Flavianum) appears directly below. The italicized portions represent those which many scholars believe are part of the original text of Josephus. The unitalicized parts are either probably or definitely Christian additions or interpolations.Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.9Johnson provides a mainstream-minimalistic view of the matter: Stripped of its obvious Christian accretions, the passage tells us a number of important things about Jesus, from the perspective of a first-century Jewish historian . . . . Jesus was both a teacher and a wonder-worker, that he got into trouble with some of the leaders of the Jews, that he was executed under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and that his followers continued to exist at the time of Josephus’ writing.10“Wonder-worker” in the above passage refers to Jesus’ miracles, and it is one of the most explicit references to miracle-working in Josephus’ works. Meier explains it as follows:7Kirby 20148See Johnson 1991, pp. 113-114. 9 See Brown 1994(a), pp.373-376. 10 See Meier 1994, pp.592-593.9Josephus 1965, 18:3.3.10Johnson 1991, pp. 113-114.CCBB - Volume 3 - Evidence for the History and Divinity of Jesus Christ13

https://www.crediblecatholic.com/pd...um":58,"gen":0},{"name":"FitR"},0,83,556,730]

 

[lesliedellow]

Of course it would.
Just as historical evidence that Jesus was a composite of many gods, heroes, and historical people, changed my view 30 years ago.

It is a out time that one was put to rest.

An Atheist Historian Examines the Evidence for Jesus (Part 1 of 2)

 

[AV1611VET]

And, there’s also the ‘History of Science’… wonder why it never gave the Bible at least partial credit for general answers to some scientific problems,

Maybe because it knew that trying to use the Bible for science is like trying to use Bill Gates' diary as a computer manual?

 

[AV1611VET]

So what's the difference between the 'natural' process of evolution - which IDers accept, and an example of creationism?

Time.