Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, manichaeism is the belief that the war is between the flesh and the spirit as well as a denial that Jesus came in the flesh. Just about every heresy depends on something true, otherwise they wouldn't go very far.
That was the outcome of Kitzmiller vs. Dover. The guys at the Discovery Institute advised Dover School Board to avoid letting the issue go to court, knowing the inevitable outcome would be the exposure that ID is a subterfuge to get creationism in public schools. As IDer Philip Johnson later admitted, that decision was a "train wreck" for intelligent design.
ID and similar do more of a disservice to faith-based belief than provide any real benefit. All they do is perpetuate an idea that somehow evolution is counter to faith, so we either shoe-horn in a rider of divine intervention to evolution or we acquiesce to atheism. It seems to me things would be far better if we simply acknowledge that science doesn't have the tools to answer questions about God, but that it does have the tools to describe observable processes and not try to shoehorn theological questions into the mix.
Wrong. Science is not the reason they go to atheism. It is the theory of evolution that is taught that they go to atheism.
I have not studied Wittgenstein.
Sadly, this is why you dismiss creation. Because your view of science cannot allow for a cause that is not from naturalism. Right away, you were close-minded to any other view that could be outside of naturalism, even if it made sense.
Colossians 2:8 is a clear warning. Not just against ‘bad philosophy,’ but against any system of thought rooted in man’s ideas rather than Christ. When Christians say it’s only about ‘bad uses’ of philosophy, they risk watering down Paul’s very point: to stay alert to teachings that sound wise but pull us away from the authority of God’s Word.
That is up to you.
If morality is just a personal compass, then no action, no matter how horrific, can be objectively wrong. If there's no higher standard beyond human opinion, then even the Nazis’ atrocities were just "different values," not truly evil. That’s the danger of moral relativism: it removes any firm foundation for condemning injustice. Evolution may try to explain how we got morals, but it can't tell us why something is right or wrong. Without God, there’s no absolute standard, just preferences. And that’s not enough when real evil exists.
This was the mid to late 1990s, Kitzmiller was in 2005. The first ID stuff was coming out, but what I was mostly seeing was "creation science" as we were a bit behind the times locally. Another popular thing was the "polonium halos". The best online resource was TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
I think this is so weird. When a baby is born, everyone is praising the Lord, amazing, beautifully made, stitched together in the womb etc. and when a scientist talks about cell division, and egg fertilization and the heart beat, it's all good. Nobody fights for microscopic miracles in the mix. The natural processes themselves are acceptable.
ID was obviously fake science, especially to a professional. At least the earlier stuff (creation science) admitted it was religion but in science garb. Now we know that ID is nothing different from "creation science".
I have no problem understanding that the intricate aspect of a leaf is the product of the creating force within life itself. For me, it's the same with the stars and everything else in the Universe. So as you can see, it's the nature of the Creative force with in the Universe where my blind faith sits as the birthing of new life forms never ever ends in its infinite possibilities. That's looking through the window that science has opened up to me.
I was not really wanting to continue debating evolution as it was going nowhere, taking too much time and people were not posting hard evidence.
Let me ask you a question, what do you think makes that kind of "large-scale" transformation different that a series of small-scale changes can't add up to such a change? What specifically do you believe makes those changes special and not just a matter of accumulating gradual changes?
You're like the guy who claims it's impossible for mountains to erode into low hills, because no one's ever seen it happen. Do you really think that's an effective argument? Seriously? How do we know this happens? We see erosion pulling down land all around us. We have many, many transitional forms between high mountains and low hills. Deposits at the foot of mountains show that they are being eroded and washed down to lower levels. Stuff like that. Evolution is like that. We see it happening. We have many, many transitional forms showing it happened. We have genetic data showing the same phylogenies as those predicted by evolutionary theory. Too much evidence for mere hand-waving.
Today's winner. Most creationists some up with some imagined wall beyond which further variation is impossible. But they can never document such a thing.
I think most creationists have learned to avoid that one; so many of them have been burned over it, that most of them leave it alone.
Some have become a bit leery of those guys, since DI fellow Michael Denton wrote a book asserting the fact of biological evolution.
Why shouldn't it?
Oh? You mean biological factories don't carry out all sorts of fascinating operations?
That's quite the claim. I am under the impression that there is a fairly decent circumstatial case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, so long as we don't dismiss resurrection as impossible due to prior presuppositions. But you go on making bold claims about no evidence as if you have some kind of definitive position on the matter.
That’s a good question, and it gets to the heart of the issue.
Erosion illustrates how existing structures break down over time, consistent with the law of entropy. But evolution isn’t about things falling apart, it’s about complex systems building up, organs, body plans, and genetic information. That’s not a good analogy; it assumes what it needs to prove, that natural processes can increase specified complexity, not just wear things down.
Darwin’s four key points (variation, inheritance, overproduction, and differential survival) aren’t controversial in and of themselves, we observe microevolution all the time. What’s debated is whether these small-scale changes can accumulate to explain large-scale innovations, like new organs, body plans, and information-rich systems. That leap is where the real contention lies and where the evidence gets thin.
Similarity doesn’t prove ancestry. It’s an interpretation based on the assumption of evolution. The same similarities can also be explained by common design. After all, an engineer will reuse successful structures in different machines. And when you dig deeper, many bird features (like feathers, flight capability, metabolic rate, bone structure) are vastly different from reptiles, not just similar. The burden of proof is on showing a plausible, step-by-step path from land-based reptiles to powered flight, not just pointing to surface-level resemblances.
While Intelligent Design pushes back against chance evolution, it still allows for millions of years of death before humans, which contradicts the Bible. Scripture teaches that death entered the world through Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12). If evolution and death happened before the Fall, then the Gospel loses its foundation. ID might argue for a designer, but it doesn’t uphold the biblical account of creation, sin, and redemption.
