Confused on what to think

[Emmawowee]

New Christian here who’s been learning a lot! There’s many other reasons why I believe other than ID. (including the fact that materialism/physicalism is being whooped by really intelligent scientists, even a lot of atheist ones)

I definitely believe in some form microevolution, and I don’t think the Earth is 6000 years old. However I am a bit suspicious about some theories of theistic evolution. However I did see with InspiringPhilosophy (who has REALLY good content) people were saying that the theory he follows regarding theistic evolution could actually STRENGTHEN the fine tuning argument

However when I see any book, Youtube Video, or creationvsevolution thread on a forum/reddit, about intelligent design, it gets utterly FLOODED with atheists smushing Christians in debate.

So is intelligent design basically 100% disproven at this point? Especially when I see people using really compelling arguments using math/physics. Even people saying how intelligent design being debunked made them completely quit being a Christian after 20 years.

I know William Lane Craig got thrashed in a debate about it but I see Stephen Meyer making a surge recently.

 

[d taylor]

-​

Intelligent design, theistic evolution are junk, believe The Bibles account that God created creation. Believe the words of The Bible in Genesis 1 the account God is giving mankind what He wants them to know about His work in creating heaven and earth.

 

[Aaron112]

So is intelligent design basically 100% disproven at this point? Especially when I see people using really compelling arguments using math/physics.

Remember as written, everything, all things, that are born (carried, started in, continued in) of the flesh is flesh (not spirit, not spiritual, not alive spiritually)

and profits nothing. (is no help, not helpful, no good in it) ...

 

[Aaron112]

However when I see any book, Youtube Video, or creationvsevolution thread on a forum/reddit, about intelligent design, it gets utterly FLOODED with atheists smushing Christians in debate.

In sections where they are permitted to post, the same thing happens on all the internet forums and threads and sections also. The number of atheists and their ilk is enourmous and far greater than those who are borne by Yahweh.

 

[BobRyan]

New Christian here who’s been learning a lot! There’s many other reasons why I believe other than ID. (including the fact that materialism/physicalism is being whooped by really intelligent scientists, even a lot of atheist ones)

I definitely believe in some form microevolution, and I don’t think the Earth is 6000 years old. However I am a bit suspicious about some theories of theistic evolution. However I did see with InspiringPhilosophy (who has REALLY good content) people were saying that the theory he follows regarding theistic evolution could actually STRENGTHEN the fine tuning argument

However when I see any book, Youtube Video, or creationvsevolution thread on a forum/reddit, about intelligent design, it gets utterly FLOODED with atheists smushing Christians in debate.

So is intelligent design basically 100% disproven at this point? Especially when I see people using really compelling arguments using math/physics. Even people saying how intelligent design being debunked made them completely quit being a Christian after 20 years.

I know William Lane Craig got thrashed in a debate about it but I see Stephen Meyer making a surge recently.

The Bible says that not only can Christians see intelligent design - so also can pagans and atheists see it. (though they love to deny it)

Rom 1:
8 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

It takes more than "vitriol" to get the Bible believing Christian to ignore those details in Rom 1. This may not seem apparent to some - but most people can see that this goes beyond even ID in what it says that even pagans and atheists can see in "the things that are made" about the invisible God.

Of course the ID position is a bare minimum that is actually far below what Rom 1 says that all humans can see in nature such that "they are without excuse" - but still it is a step in the right direction. Rom 1 is ID+ not just ID.

I don't think atheists have a very good argument here since the atheist view of origins reduces to "dust, gas, rocks and sunlight will come up with a rabbit given enough volume, time and chance". And that is a form of belief -- it is not science.

Even their fellow atheist scientists like Collin Patterson are on record lamenting the distinctively religious faith-based underpinnings of their claims.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

New Christian here who’s been learning a lot! There’s many other reasons why I believe other than ID. (including the fact that materialism/physicalism is being whooped by really intelligent scientists, even a lot of atheist ones)

I definitely believe in some form microevolution, and I don’t think the Earth is 6000 years old. However I am a bit suspicious about some theories of theistic evolution. However I did see with InspiringPhilosophy (who has REALLY good content) people were saying that the theory he follows regarding theistic evolution could actually STRENGTHEN the fine tuning argument

However when I see any book, Youtube Video, or creationvsevolution thread on a forum/reddit, about intelligent design, it gets utterly FLOODED with atheists smushing Christians in debate.

So is intelligent design basically 100% disproven at this point? Especially when I see people using really compelling arguments using math/physics. Even people saying how intelligent design being debunked made them completely quit being a Christian after 20 years.

I know William Lane Craig got thrashed in a debate about it but I see Stephen Meyer making a surge recently.

No, Intelligent Design isn't disproven. It's just that it was never proven in the first place. However, it doesn't need to be in order for a person to be a Christian, and I think the issue of Creationism "vs" Evolution gets way, way too much focus for concern. It's not really the main problem where epistemology and/or science are involved in any one person's outlook on life or in the having of faith in Christ. Folks need to stop making Creationism "vs" Evolution the "main problem" and thereby giving it an inordinate amount of worry.

(Not that you're doing this; I'm just saying all of this in order to make a point since I, too, am familiar with the likes of InspringPhilosophy, WLC and Stephen Meyer ... )

 

[Matt5]

I wouldn't waste my time with intelligent design. So what if atheists don't believe in God. Plus, what does it even mean to believe in God? There are a lot of gods out there. They need to believe in the God of Christians and follow Christianity. Anything short of that is a big problem.

 

[Sir Joseph]

New Christian here who’s been learning a lot! There’s many other reasons why I believe other than ID. (including the fact that materialism/physicalism is being whooped by really intelligent scientists, even a lot of atheist ones)

I definitely believe in some form microevolution, and I don’t think the Earth is 6000 years old. However I am a bit suspicious about some theories of theistic evolution. However I did see with InspiringPhilosophy (who has REALLY good content) people were saying that the theory he follows regarding theistic evolution could actually STRENGTHEN the fine tuning argument

However when I see any book, Youtube Video, or creationvsevolution thread on a forum/reddit, about intelligent design, it gets utterly FLOODED with atheists smushing Christians in debate.

So is intelligent design basically 100% disproven at this point? Especially when I see people using really compelling arguments using math/physics. Even people saying how intelligent design being debunked made them completely quit being a Christian after 20 years.

I know William Lane Craig got thrashed in a debate about it but I see Stephen Meyer making a surge recently.

Intelligent design is a rational way to reject evolutionary theory without embracing Biblical creationism. But while it clearly opposes evolutionary theory, it is in fact supportive of Biblical creationism. Both hold that a supernatural being had to create the materialistic universe and life as we know it. Intelligent Designers carefully refrain from labeling that being as God, but they don't generally deny the connection or pose any other possibility. Perhaps each has his own personal reasons for taking this approach.

I suspect one reason why individuals may embrace intelligent design over Biblical creationism is the old versus new dilemma. They're astute enough to see design and creation around us, but find the Genesis 6-day time-frame incompatible with popular secular science. Thus, rather than choose a side, they try to compromise or reconcile the two views - like theistic evolutionists do.

Although I've studied the matter enough to use intelligent design as apologetic evidence for creationism, I don't think such is really necessary. The evidence for design in the cosmos, world, and biological life around us is so obvious, only a fool defending a secular world view would deny it. And so popular atheists do - giving material reason for the unbelievers to reject God and the Bible.

I understand why atheists would embrace (false) evolutionary theory and why Bible skeptics might accept (true) intelligent design. But, I'll maintain that any true Christian should respect the foundation of their faith, which is the Bible, including Genesis. If one can't believe the Genesis 6-day creation account which is consistent with the laws of science we know today, why should he believe the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus which defies all laws of science?

A Christian needn't waffle on this issue. The Bible's clear and there's abundant evidence to support it if one chooses their sources wisely. In the beginning, God...

 

[Aussie Pete]

New Christian here who’s been learning a lot! There’s many other reasons why I believe other than ID. (including the fact that materialism/physicalism is being whooped by really intelligent scientists, even a lot of atheist ones)

I definitely believe in some form microevolution, and I don’t think the Earth is 6000 years old. However I am a bit suspicious about some theories of theistic evolution. However I did see with InspiringPhilosophy (who has REALLY good content) people were saying that the theory he follows regarding theistic evolution could actually STRENGTHEN the fine tuning argument

However when I see any book, Youtube Video, or creationvsevolution thread on a forum/reddit, about intelligent design, it gets utterly FLOODED with atheists smushing Christians in debate.

So is intelligent design basically 100% disproven at this point? Especially when I see people using really compelling arguments using math/physics. Even people saying how intelligent design being debunked made them completely quit being a Christian after 20 years.

I know William Lane Craig got thrashed in a debate about it but I see Stephen Meyer making a surge recently.

Microevolution used to be called adaptation. Evolutionists know that they have no real evidence for evolution, so they pretend that adaptation is evolution and use that to "prove" macro evolution.

The fact that people get so mad when Christians reject their false narrative is evidence that they know that they are on shaky ground. I believe in old earth/recent creation. It's known as pre-Adamic creation or gap theory as well. However, it is impossible for the earth to be 4.5 billion years old as evolutionists claim. The moon is moving away from the earth. It's measurable. If the earth was as old as claimed, the moon would be no longer captive to earth's gravitational field and there would be no tides.

Why anyone would base their Christian faith on disputes about creation is beyond me. It shows me that they were "Christian" in name only. My question for evolutionist Christians is when did man become in the image of God? It's obvious that the gulf between man and beast is enormous. Man has free will while animals function by instinct. No one takes a gorilla to court if it attacks a tourist. I've listened to the Roman Catholic explanation and it is laughable. If evolution is true, there is no right, no wrong and the concept of sin is meaningless.

What bugs me most about atheists and evolutionists is that they refuse to accept the logical conclusions of their beliefs. If they are correct, then Christians simply evolved to be inclined to believe one way while atheists evolved to believe another. In which case, they should just shut up and get on with their own lives. But no, their consciences convict them and deep down they know they are wrong. They are blinded in their minds but their conscience has to be silenced. So they go on the attack, proving that they have no excuse to reject what God has shown them through Creation.

 

[BobRyan]

No, Intelligent Design isn't disproven. It's just that it was never proven in the first place.

Its like saying that looking at a Picasso there is no indication of "intelligence" in design. Only many orders of magnitude worse, when making that claim about DNA and the systems that translate it, transmit it and "follow the instructions" (including error correction).

Something Picasso never dreamed of in his paintings.

However, it doesn't need to be in order for a person to be a Christian, and I think the issue of Creationism "vs" Evolution gets way, way too much focus for concern.

Hence the loss of soooo many Christian students when they get to the University. Their home churches never took the issue seriously. As Dawkins, Provine and Meyers would testify.

 

[crixus]

-​

Intelligent design, theistic evolution are junk, believe The Bibles account that God created creation. Believe the words of The Bible in Genesis 1 the account God is giving mankind what He wants them to know about His work in creating heaven and earth.

That's perfect. I couldn't have said it any better myself. Thank you.

 

[BobRyan]

Microevolution used to be called adaptation. Evolutionists know that they have no real evidence for evolution, so they pretend that adaptation is evolution and use that to "prove" macro evolution.

How true that is.

They now have reduced themselves to little more than "change over time" and at that low bar - even the growth of a fingernail constitutes "proof of evolutionism".

The fact that people get so mad when Christians reject their false narrative is evidence that they know that they are on shaky ground.

True.

No one gets mad if someones says " think 2 + 2 is 5" - because they know that the facts will win the day.

I believe in old earth/recent creation. It's known as pre-Adamic creation or gap theory as well. However, it is impossible for the earth to be 4.5 billion years old as evolutionists claim. The moon is moving away from the earth. It's measurable. If the earth was as old as claimed, the moon would be no longer captive to earth's gravitational field and there would be no tides.

True- and a great many other geochronometers argue against it as well.

Why anyone would base their Christian faith on disputes about creation is beyond me.

Well - I find it very reasonable for a Christian to insist that the Bible is the inspired Word of God -- and that God knows a thing or two about what He claims is the correct view of origins for all life on planet Earth. The then that God's Word is right and the atheist down the street has the more accurate doctrine on origins for all life on planet Earth -- is a logical argument against the Word of God that would be impressive if it were actually true.

What bugs me most about atheists and evolutionists is that they refuse to accept the logical conclusions of their beliefs. If they are correct, then Christians simply evolved to be inclined to believe one way while atheists evolved to believe another.

yep that is true. And since the atheist POV is that they both get the same top-notch hole-in-the-ground ending - no complaints at all about anyone who claims evolution is false and God answers prayers.

But it is even more of a solid argument when it comes to disputes between Calvinists and Arminians. The Calvinists should simply conclude that God sovereignly the Arminian to believe in free will and so the Calvinist should try very hard not to oppose what God sovereignly ordained for the Arminian.

 

[BobRyan]

Intelligent design is a rational way to reject evolutionary theory without embracing Biblical creationism.

Agreed. IN fact it is a way to reject classic evolutionary theory without having to be a Christian at all.

But while it clearly opposes evolutionary theory, it is in fact supportive of Biblical creationism.

True - since an all-wise all-knowing creator would have massive intelligence and it would be "noticeable" in the works of His hands.

Opposing ID is a "distinctively atheist argument" even when made by non-atheists who have not thought it through.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Its like saying that looking at a Picasso there is no indication of "intelligence" in design. Only many order of magnitude worse when making that claim about DNA and the systems the translate it, transmit it and "follow the instructions" (including error correction).

No, it's not like saying that looking at a Picasso gives an "indication" of intelligence. That's a flagrantly false analogy, one that's grossly misapplied to what it is we think we see in the universe. It takes much more than an apparent Inflated Anthropic Principle to prove anything, and I suggest you stop making that sort of assertion.

Something Picasso never dreamed of in his paintings.

More rhetoric. It also ignores the fact that 1) I'm not an atheist, and 2) that I didn't say that there isn't anything that could be seen in a way which may suggest some kind of creationism. So, get that straight through your head before you bother to make any more criticisms about what it is you think I think.

I've about had enough of the Fundamentalist brouhaha. I'm not putting up with it anymore. ... from ANYONE.

Hence the loss of soooo many Christian students when they get to the University. Their home churches never took the issue seriously. As Dawkins, Provine and Meyers would testify.

I suggest you don't bring in a red-herring as an argument in the future, especially if you don't even know what what I'm saying.

The fact that young people are often losing their faith after attending a secular university has to do with MORE THAN merely the fact that they come to hear the Theory of Evolution taught. No, there's a whole lot more at work there..............................................................................................

And yeah, I DO know what it is.

Thank you!

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

Its like saying that looking at a Picasso there is no indication of "intelligence" in design. Only many order of magnitude worse when making that claim about DNA and the systems the translate it, transmit it and "follow the instructions" (including error correction).

No, it's not like saying that looking at a Picasso gives an "indication" of intelligence.

maybe we are agreeing. It's like saying that looking at the master's painting shows no sign at all of intelligent design employed in the painting.
You said its not like saying that looking at the painting shows intelligent design employed in the painting...
Those are opposing statements so then your "No it's not.. " statement works.

That's a flagrantly false analogy, one that's grossly misapplied

I think you are trying to differ with my statement at that point.

You need more than "accusation" to actually do it.

It takes much more than an apparent Inflated Anthropic Principle to prove anything

We see much more "intelligent design" in the DNA systems for error correction, translation, coding , encoding than we do "in a rock" or in a Picasso painting.

, and I suggest you stop making that sort of assertion.

Do you find it inconvenient??

More rhetoric. It also ignores the fact that 1) I'm not an atheist,

I already posted that the opposition to ID in light of the statement in Romans 1 - is a "disctinctively atheist argument" even when used by non-atheists who have not followed the details closely in the light of Romans 1.

I didn't say that there isn't anything that could be seen in a way which may suggest some kind of creationism.

Romans 1 goes far about that in its claims for what even the atheist and pagans can see in nature.

I suspect you would agree that the ID claim is far below the Romans 1 claim for what all humans see in the things that have been made regarding the invisible attributes of God.

I suggest you don't bring in a red-herring as an argument in the future, especially if you don't even know what what I'm saying

I suggest more attention to detail.

The fact that young people are often losing their faith after attending a secular university has to do with MORE THAN merely the fact that they come to hear the Theory of Evolution taught.

Provine, Dawkins, Meyers etc all claim that they were in that very dilemma and their own testimony is contrary to your apparent claims about them. I point out that this is a far more logical argument that they are making than you apparently perceive to be the case.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Intelligent design, theistic evolution are junk, Believe The Bibles account that God created creation. Believe the words of The Bible in Genesis 1 the account God is giving mankind what He wants them to know about His work in creating heaven and earth.​

You must not understand the reason Genesis 1 omits every story about evolution and mass extinctions. It does so because telling those stories would be counterproductive to the purpose of the entire Bible. People who read it chronologically would not think God loves all things He created in the beginning if it went beyond just the fact that He is the sole Creator of all natural things. Also, nothing about evolution and mass extinctions prior to the creation of Adam and Eve is necessary to know God loves everything He creates.

The junk is any belief that just because the Bible does not say something, it did not happen. The junk is any belief that just because all people lie except Jesus, every paleontologist is wrong about evolution and extinction. The junk is believing all paleontology is an atheist science.

 

[d taylor]

You must not understand the reason Genesis 1 omits every story about evolution and mass extinctions. It does so because telling those stories would be counterproductive to the purpose of the entire Bible. People who read it chronologically would not think God loves all things He created in the beginning if it went beyond just the fact that He is the sole Creator of all natural things. Also, nothing about evolution and mass extinctions prior to the creation of Adam and Eve is necessary to know God is love.

The junk is any belief that just because the Bible does not say something, it did not happen. The junk is any belief that just because all people lie except Jesus, every paleontologist is wrong about evolution and extinction. The junk is believing all paleontology is an atheist science.

-
​

I understand Genesis very well, and at least i can say i not only understand it, i believe it.

 

[d taylor]

You must not understand the reason Genesis 1 omits every story about evolution and mass extinctions. It does so because telling those stories would be counterproductive to the purpose of the entire Bible. People who read it chronologically would not think God loves all things He created in the beginning if it went beyond just the fact that He is the sole Creator of all natural things. Also, nothing about evolution and mass extinctions prior to the creation of Adam and Eve is necessary to know God is love.

The junk is any belief that just because the Bible does not say something, it did not happen. The junk is any belief that just because all people lie except Jesus, every paleontologist is wrong about evolution and extinction. The junk is believing all paleontology is an atheist science.

-
​

I understand Genesis very well, and at least i can say i not only understand it, i believe it.

 

[GodLovesCats]

-I understand Genesis very well, and at least i can say i not only understand it, i believe it.​

If you understand Genesis 1 very well, why do you think it is meant to be interpreted literally, despite the undeniable scientific proof worldwide that totally contradicts such a belief? It was obviously not meant to be interpreted the way you convince yourself it does.

 

[d taylor]

If you understand Genesis 1 very well, why do you think it is meant to be interpreted literally, despite the undeniable scientific proof worldwide that totally contradicts such a belief? It was obviously not meant to be interpreted the way you convince yourself it does.

-
​

Because that is just it, i do not let science cloud my Genesis understanding. The Bible interprets (or explains) The Bible, not The Bible and science.