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.
Sure. But He didn't use ID to do it.I wouldn't be game enough to suggest He didn't apply intelligent design and engineering into all creation, I have more self respect for my goodly welfare than that.
Have you posted these arguments before? Were they shown to be erroneous?according to evolution if we will find a self replicating robot (or a watch) that made from organic components, we need to conclude that such a robot evolved by a natural process. this is because it has a self replicating system and made from organic components, so its basically like any other walking creature. but we know that even such a robot\ watch is evidence for design. therefore nature need design too.
we also find these gears in nature, and we know that gears are the product of design:
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...the-first-time
Have you posted these arguments before? Were they shown to be erroneous?
I know. It wouldn't be so bad if he was honest about things, but his deliberate and persistent dishonesty really needs to be highlighted.
ID is an acronym for Intelligent Design (note the caps) a specific proposal of the Discovery Institute of Seattle, as I told you. It is a much more specific and detailed claim than merely saying that God used his "intelligence" to "design" the universe, which no theist would really have an argument with.Ok. Excuse my ignorance, but I thought ID was an acronym for intelligent design! Am I missing something here?
Yes. The Discovery Institute promulgates the pseudo-scientific 'Intelligent Design' as a scientific theory to rival the theory of evolution by natural selection. However, internal documents have disclosed that it is part of a fraudulent strategy (the 'Wedge Strategy') to get creationism taught as science in schools. This strategy has been tested and rejected in court, with one of the principal contributors being forced to admit it is no more scientific than astrology.Ok. Excuse my ignorance, but I thought ID was an acronym for intelligent design! Am I missing something here?
ID is an acronym for Intelligent Design (note the caps) a specific proposal of the Discovery Institute of Seattle, as I told you. It is a much more specific and detailed claim than merely saying that God used his "intelligence" to "design" the universe, which no theist would really have an argument with.
You're well out of it. Just remember, though, that when you bring up your ideas and call them "ID" you are invoking a pseudoscientific hoax concocted by a gang of radical Calvinists as a Trojan Horse to get their doctrine into the public schools.Well it had nothing to do with me, my deductions. I came to the conclusion that God used intelligent design and engineering in His creation, on my own volition, just by applying logic. Not sure what that institute is about, and am not interested. I'm careful not to let my faith get entangled in useless discussions and theories, in the same way Paul didn't.
Shalom.
You're well out of it. Just remember, though, that when you bring up your ideas and call them "ID" you are invoking a pseudoscientific hoax concocted by a gang of radical Calvinists as a Trojan Horse to get their doctrine into the public schools.
Just to be sure we understand what we're disagreeing about: There is nothing wrong with characterizing God's creative activity as "designing" or "engineering" if that's what you want to do, although it seems somewhat fanciful to me. On the other hand, when you call those ideas of yours "ID" you risk being taken for a member of a gang of radical Calvinists who want to replace the government of the US with a totalitarian theocracy. Basically, I'm just offering friendly advice, not disagreeing with you.These aren't my ideas, they are God's revelation. And if I had children, I certainly wouldn't be sending them to a public school, or any religious institution school either. I'd either be home schooling or local neighbourhood Christian group schooling.
Anyway, we all have the choice to believe what we want to, you and I will have to agree to disagree on this matter.
I'm an Anglican--what conservative Evangelicals call a "Bible-hating, Christ-denying commie," and not considered to be a real Christian by the Trump administration--which is why I changed my designation to "other religion."Out of curiosity, what is the 'other religion' you belong to?
Just to be sure we understand what we're disagreeing about: There is nothing wrong with characterizing God's creative activity as "designing" or "engineering" if that's what you want to do, although it seems somewhat fanciful to me. On the other hand, when you call those ideas of yours "ID" you risk being taken for a member of a gang of radical Calvinists who want to replace the government of the US with a totalitarian theocracy. Basically, I'm just offering friendly advice, not disagreeing with you.
I'm an Anglican--what conservative Evangelicals call a "Bible-hating, Christ-denying commie," and not considered to be a real Christian by the Trump administration--which is why I changed my designation to "other religion."
If this "design" is so good (and we know it is because it is quite common in human designs) then why isn't it found throughout the natural world? Why is it ONLY in this one insect? How incompetent must a "designer" be to come up with such a brilliant solution to an engineering problem and use it in only one life form (on a MICROSCOPIC level no less) in the entire Cosmos?according to evolution if we will find a self replicating robot (or a watch) that made from organic components, we need to conclude that such a robot evolved by a natural process. this is because it has a self replicating system and made from organic components, so its basically like any other walking creature. but we know that even such a robot\ watch is evidence for design. therefore nature need design too.
we also find these gears in nature, and we know that gears are the product of design:
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...the-first-time
It is true that we have that choice, but it is one that I think we should think long and hard before making. Many of the things I "believe" are definitely things that I would rather were not true, but when the evidence points in that direction then that is the right thing to believe. Any other approach would be, to use religious terminology, sinful - or in secular terms, downright dumb.Anyway, we all have the choice to believe what we want to, you and I will have to agree to disagree on this matter.
Yes, well put.To put it another way, I don't really believe anything, but I accept a great deal based upon evidence. Not the evidence of my eyes, for witnesses are notoriously unreliable and I see no reason to think I may be an exception, but carefully gathered and tested and substantiated evidence. I choose that approach not because I want to, but because it makes sense. And because it makes sense - then I want to.
And i can't fathom how, using loaded words like "intelligent design" and "engineering" do NOT point that the author of these words is stacking the deck.I can't fathom how anyone can believe that intelligent design and engineering can come from unintelligence, ...
Reacting to the last part:I can't fathom how anyone can believe that intelligent design and engineering can come from unintelligence, which you would have to conclude if you don't believe in a Creator God. Surely that has to be regarded as an illogical conclusion.
Adaptation, yes, as a mechanism of intelligent design, but just by evolution or chance...that's just illogical in my opinion, and beggars belief!
Reacting to the last part:
Tony B, are you the measure of all things? Everything you just happen not to understand is wrong and illogical?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?