Common designer versus design standards?

[OldWiseGuy]

Can you be specific?

Sure. Creationists know they will never know how God created stuff (in this lifetime) so they don't argue about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure. Creationist know they will never know how God created stuff,

Ya ... ex nihilo & ex materia are codewords for "we don't know," aren't they?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ya ... ex nihilo & ex materia are codewords for "we don't know," aren't they?

?

 

[Hank77]

Ya ... ex nihilo & ex materia are codewords for "we don't know," aren't they?

No.
'From what' is not the same as 'how'.

 

[AV1611VET]

No.
'From what' is not the same as 'how'.

Fair enough.

The Bible say God "spoke/spake" and it was done.

More confused now?

 

[Hank77]

Fair enough.

The Bible say God "spoke/spake" and it was done.

More confused now?

Yes He spoke. Let there be light and there was light.

I don't assume that every last word He spoke was recorded. Just as everything that Jesus said and did would have filled too many books, so could the creation event have been.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes He spoke. Let there be light and there was light.

I don't assume that every last word He spoke was recorded. Just as everything that Jesus said and did would have filled too many books, so could the creation event have been.

Um ... alrighty then.

 

[xianghua]

the most important point here is that we can prove the existence of the designer: My favorite argument for the existence of God

so all the rest is just a bonus.

 

[pitabread]

the most important point here is that we can prove the existence of the designer: My favorite argument for the existence of God

That's a terrible argument.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Creationists try to prove; Scientists, I'm not sure what 'evolutionists' are, try to disprove.
Creationists agree on what is true; Scientists, no matter how much supporting evidence there is, always have some doubt.

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.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

Thanks, but no thanks. I have faith in my salvation in Christ already. It doesn't require that evolution be disproved.

 

[bhsmte]

That's a terrible argument.

But, it is all he has.

 

[ruthiesea]

.

The reason is, we not only see the same DNA with variations, we see the same (physical design) repeated over and over again.

That indicates a common ancestry, descendant from a single living cell.

In order find indications of a designer, you first have to believe in a designer.

 

[ruthiesea]

I don't assume that every last word He spoke was recorded.

Especially as there was no one around to record His words.

 

[ruthiesea]

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.

True, neither can be proven. However, creationism is based solely on religious beliefs with no supporting evidence, while evolution is based on scientific research and has overwhelming scientific, supporting evidence support. Unlike creationists, scientists always have at least a modicum of doubt no matter how much support a theory has, because that is how science works. Creationists say G-d or some creator did it and leave no room for doubt. Scientists say that this is what the evidence shows now, but the conclusion will change if further knowledge, for which scientists are looking, shows that our conclusion is invalid.

Creationists try to prove, the basic indicator of a pseudoscience; Scientists try to invalidate by searching for new knowledge.

Science is dynamic; Creationism and ID are inert.

Your statement about "....wandering away form G-dly tenets...." only applies to your beliefs, not to mine. Read my signature and you will see that.

 

[JIMINZ]

That indicates a common ancestry, descendant from a single living cell.

In order find indications of a designer, you first have to believe in a designer.

.
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.

 

[HitchSlap]

.
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.

Religious thought in a nut shell.

 

[pitabread]

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.

If there were multiple designers using a common standard, you wouldn't be able to differentiate that though.

So it's a bit of a moot point, I suppose.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your statement about "....wandering away form G-dly tenets...." only applies to your beliefs, not to mine. Read my signature and you will see that.

I don't know what "ruthiesea" means.

 

[JIMINZ]

If there were multiple designers using a common standard, you wouldn't be able to differentiate that though.

So it's a bit of a moot point, I suppose.

.
No not really, the point is, there aren't, nor have there ever been, any other designers as you would like to call them.

1) Who was the Original Designer, which set what would be called, THE STANDARD?........GOD!

2) Who are these other designers you say are using (A Common Standard)?

3) Without the identification of these other supposed designers, which are using a Common Standard, the whole question falls apart, because we all know who it was that Designed (Created) the Original Code, but without the names of these other designers, the question becomes Assumption, Supposition, Conjecture, I'm sorry, it seems as though I am describing Evolution.

Just because someone produces an Original Code, it does not necessarily follow, that it becomes a Common Standard for all to use,.....even, if there were others to use it.

In Law someone cannot use or reproduce an Original Code as their own, that would be called Counterfeiting.

To clarify the point.

A DESIGNER
1) Is a person who devises or executes designs, especially one who CREATES forms, structures, and patterns, as for works of art or machines.

2) Designed or CREATED by or carrying a label or identification of a designer,
© 2017 Dictionary.com, LLC.

Notice I gave credit for the Definitions, otherwise that would be Plagiarism, see what I mean?