Common designer versus design standards?

[tas8831]

The military uses spiritual math as well, especially the army. Nutritionista's don't understand how soldiers can do rigorous activity for 5 hours on two eggs and two pieces of toast. There aren't enough calories in that breakfast meal to do what they do.

Amazing, since the human body has no way at all to store energy to use when they do have food. Too bad the Creator did not provide some way to do that...

 

[tas8831]

Evolution is a theory of biology whose purpose is to explain the development and diversification of life since it began.

Sure, but that takes away one of the primary creationist anti-evolution arguments ('how did life begin naturally')!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Old earth v. young earth.

Nope.

That is a great chasm. Creationists like to point to disagreements between evolutionists regarding, say, the precise location of a genus in a phylogenetic tree as evidence that evolution is wrong/in shambles/contradictory, etc.

But the OEC/YEC split would be like evolutionists arguing over whether Darwin was right or is Justatruthseeker is right.

Actually a good point.

 

[tas8831]

Creationists try to disprove evolution in order to support creation. Neither can be proven scientifically although either can be believed. We are also trying to save evolutionists from wandering too far from Godly tenets as this isn't good for humanity.

Creationist biochemist Todd Wood:

The truth about evolution

I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)​

What is the equivalent evidence for creation, such that they are on, essentially, equal footing, as you imply?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Amazing, since the human body has no way at all to store energy to use when they do have food. Too bad the Creator did not provide some way to do that...

That was one of my hidden points. By restricting the soldier's diet, at least through basic training, overweight soldiers will use up their 'reserves', while more slender soldiers find the 'meager' fare more than adequate for a morning march.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Creationist biochemist Todd Wood:

The truth about evolution

I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)​

What is the equivalent evidence for creation, such that they are on, essentially, equal footing, as you imply?

Most who profess belief in evolution have no clue about the "inner workings" of evolutionary science, nor indeed ever will. If most accept it on faith that the science is correct doesn't that make such belief faith? And of course there are those who 'accept' evolution simply because they reject God. Many also don't want to appear to others to be among the 'superstitious ignorant' so they acquiesce to what seems to be the majority opinion. So we don't really know how widespread actual belief in evolution is, regardless of the science. It may actually be limited to a small group of scientists and others.

 

[pitabread]

Most who profess belief in evolution have no clue about the "inner workings" of evolutionary science, nor indeed ever will. If most accept it on faith that the science is correct doesn't that make such belief faith?

No more than accepting professional opinion in any other field. I mean, I have "faith" that when I hire a professional electrician that they know what they are doing. But I'd hardly equate that to the same level of "faith" as someone who subscribes to a particular theology.

And of course there are those who 'accept' evolution simply because they reject God.

I've never met anyone who ascribes to this position. The former is not at all dependent on the latter and vise-versa. They are mutually independent positions.

 

[HitchSlap]

Most who profess belief in evolution have no clue about the "inner workings" of evolutionary science, nor indeed ever will. If most accept it on faith that the science is correct doesn't that make such belief faith? And of course there are those who 'accept' evolution simply because they reject God. Many also don't want to appear to others to be among the 'superstitious ignorant' so they acquiesce to what seems to be the majority opinion. So we don't really know how widespread actual belief in evolution is, regardless of the science. It may actually be limited to a small group of scientists and others.

I understand ToE, and it’s correct.

 

[Speedwell]

Most who profess belief in evolution have no clue about the "inner workings" of evolutionary science, nor indeed ever will. If most accept it on faith that the science is correct doesn't that make such belief faith? And of course there are those who 'accept' evolution simply because they reject God. Many also don't want to appear to others to be among the 'superstitious ignorant' so they acquiesce to what seems to be the majority opinion. So we don't really know how widespread actual belief in evolution is, regardless of the science. It may actually be limited to a small group of scientists and others.

It's actually not that hard, if you avoid the misinformation cranked out by the creationist ministries. A freshman-level genetics course is enough to give you the basics.

 

[Hank77]

1. html was not created by a single person. neither was it even created as-is. it's been developed by many people of a great many of years

html was not the first computer language, how old are you?

2. DNA is a molecule, not a language.

It's a code.

3. all this is besides the point raised by the OP.

Maybe. However, if I thought so I wouldn't have posted what I did.

 

[bhsmte]

Amazing, since the human body has no way at all to store energy to use when they do have food. Too bad the Creator did not provide some way to do that...

The human body does store fuel for physical activity, in glycogen and long term energy stores of fat. If the average person could tap all their fat stores for energy, those soldiers could march for weeks on end.

The issue is, once glycogen is depleted, which is about 20-25 miles worth in a well trained and nourished person, things get a little challenging from there, if the activity is too intense.

 

[Hank77]

This thread is about how creationists conclude on a SINGLE designer versus multiple designers. More specifically, about how they come to that conclusion, based on the reason they give themselves: "common design".

Again, please stick to topic.

Ii's an interesting topic and it would be a shame to see it lost to yet another attempt of obfuscation or derailment.

If you don't have anything of worth to contribute to this topic, then maybe stop posting.


All interesting questions. But off topic in this thread.
Create your own thread if you want them answered.

I do not believe that my questions are off topic.
Seeing that I didn't ask you these questions you do not need to concern yourself with them. The poster I responded to has a choice they can respond or not.

 

[ruthiesea]

.
Of course there is only one God and Creator of the Universe, there is no other.

1) There has always been only One Code Writer.
2) God holds the Patents, and the Copyrights.
3) Point being, with only one Designer and one Code, there isn't any differentiation, by the mere fact there aren't any other Designers using any Code whatsoever.

We don't believe because of Scientific proof, we believe in Faith, Scientific proof only reinforces the existence of a God which has Created what Science says exists.

Science has nothing to do with whether or not G-d exists or if there was a creator. Science does not address the question. It only supports your belief because you interpret its findings that way. In fact, it does no such thing.

Whether or not there was a creator has no effect on the science. If you choose to believe as you do then go for it. However, don't try to change science based on you religious beliefs.

 

[HitchSlap]

It's a code.

Nope, it's a molecule.

 

[Hank77]

Science has nothing to do with whether or not G-d exists or if there was a creator.

True

Science does not address the question.

True. For that very reason SOME people need to stop using science to support their lack of belief in God as the designer/creator.
Because Science does not address that question and indeed cannot answer that question.

 

[Hank77]

Nope, it's a molecule.

I was referring to DNA.

 

[HitchSlap]

True

True. For that very reason SOME people need to stop using science to support their lack of belief in God as the designer/creator.
Because Science does not address that question and indeed cannot answer that question.

Does that also mean SOME people need to stop using God as the designer/creator when they don't understand science?

 

[Hank77]

Does that also mean SOME people need to stop using God as the designer/creator when they don't understand science?

Apparently some people think so. What's good for the goose....

 

[HitchSlap]

I was referring to DNA.

I was too.

*I also posted a pic...

 

[HitchSlap]

Apparently some people think so. What's good for the goose....

Cool. Then I won't use science as a reason for not believing in god/s.