Creationists: What Was Wrong With The Dover Trial?

[HitchSlap]

God being the auther and artifacer of the universe, life in general, and man in particular is essential Christian theism.

Not that you can demonstrate this in any meaningful way, mind you. But don't let reality get in the way of a good story.

The promise of eternal life is moot if God didnt create life in the first place. Denying that is to reject a reality you will answer to at the end of the age.

Well, that's the thing about religions, isn't it; they can't all be right, but they could all be wrong.

 

[Speedwell]

God being the auther and artifacer of the universe, life in general, and man in particular is essential Christian theism.

But believing He did it all in a week some 6000 years ago is not. No doubt some Christians believe it. There are YECs even in the Episcopal Church (which I used to belong to until it got too liberal for me) and that's fine. The problem, as I see it, is not the belief itself, but the overt hostility of the major group of believers. Other than that, none of us would care any more about your belief in creationism than we do about Seventh Day Adventists not eating meat

 

[tas8831]

so a motor doesn't need a designer and can evolve naturally? ok. i think otherwise.

An electric motor such as those designed by humans needs a human designer.

But merely making analogies with biological 'motors' and declaring that they, too, need human designers is silly.

 

[Audacious]

Creationism was not on trial, ID was on trial. This is a very small part of Creationism. Theistic Evolution is also Creationism. All of the evidence for Evolution can be used for Creationism. So there is just as much evidence and more for Creationism compared to Evolution-ism.

Theistic evolution can't be taught in classes because it's theistic. Unless you can separate it from the religious text it is at least partially based on, it can't be taught in schools.

Imagine if someone started teaching Hindu-inspired creationism in schools. You would be unhappy, right? That's why we're only allowed to teach hard facts as... well, facts.

 

[mark kennedy]

Not that you can demonstrate this in any meaningful way, mind you. But don't let reality get in the way of a good story.


Well, that's the thing about religions, isn't it; they can't all be right, but they could all be wrong.

Yea let's abandon the concept of factual evidence, legal reasoning and the topic if the thread. Instead let's get down and beg the question of reality.

What your doing is making an argument that never happened. Fallacious logic is the intellectual equivalent conceding every point.Yet every thread inevitably goes there. It too man really, there's a lot of interesting issues, most of which does interest Darwinians in the slightesr

 

[HitchSlap]

Yea let's abandon the concept of factual evidence, legal reasoning and the topic if the thread. Instead let's get down and beg the question of reality.

What your doing is making an argument that never happened. Fallacious logic is the intellectual equivalent conceding every point.Yet every thread inevitably goes there. It too man really, there's a lot of interesting issues, most of which does interest Darwinians in the slightesr

I don't even understand what you're trying to say here.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Theistic evolution can't be taught in classes because it's theistic. Unless you can separate it from the religious text it is at least partially based on, it can't be taught in schools.

You can teach it in this state, you just can not require it to be taught as they were trying to do in the Dover case.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Imagine if someone started teaching Hindu-inspired creationism in schools. You would be unhappy, right?

I would not be unhappy at all. I would be interested in what the Hindu people teach on the subject. We have some refugees here that are Hindu and I am interested in what they believe. It was the Buddhists that ethnically cleansed them that were perhaps not interested in their beliefs.

 

[mark kennedy]

You can teach it in this state, you just can not require it to be taught as they were trying to do in the Dover case.

I remember in third grade we were led in prayer, I didn't like that. In sixth grade I was told to stop saying grace in the cafeteria because I made the sign of the cross, I really didn't like that. I've never advocated any promotion of or restrictions regarding the free exercise of religion. I know I wouldn't be willing to sit down and be told the AIG version of creationism was scientific or doctrinally authoritative even when I agree with much of what they teach.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

So, wearing a shirt that is a poly-cotton blend is still an abomination to the Lord?

Indeed, it seems so!

 

[mark kennedy]

I would not be unhappy at all. I would be interested in what the Hindu people teach on the subject. We have some refugees here that are Hindu and I am interested in what they believe. It was the Buddhists that ethnically cleansed them that were perhaps not interested in their beliefs.

I recall reading where Hindus calculated the age of the earth, it was significantly older then Christian young earth. It wouldn't be a core doctrine because the universe is a dream in the mind of Brahmin anyway. In Christianity creation is important because if God is promising eternal life it become a hollow promise if he didn't create life in the first place.

 

[joshua 1 9]

In Christianity creation is important because if God is promising eternal life it become a hollow promise if he didn't create life in the first place.

I am pretty sure the world is real. As a construction worker I do believe in mind over matter.

 

[Speedwell]

In Christianity creation is important because if God is promising eternal life it become a hollow promise if he didn't create life in the first place.

But that fact in itself does not make the age of the Earth or even evolution an issue.

 

[xianghua]

An electric motor such as those designed by humans needs a human designer.

so what if this motor were made from organic components? in this c ase you will still conclude design or a natural process?

 

[tas8831]

so what if this motor were made from organic components? in this c ase you will still conclude design or a natural process?

A human designed motor will not be made from organic components (unless one considers plastics to be organic).

I will conclude that a human designed and constructed anything will be evidence of human activity, but I also know that making analogies is not evidence.

 

[Speedwell]

so what if this motor were made from organic components? in this c ase you will still conclude design or a natural process?

Once more, with feeling: It doesn't matter what the motor is made of. It doesn't matter that it functions as a motor or is complex. If you can't find evidence of human manufacture then you can't conclude design.

 

[xianghua]

A human designed motor will not be made from organic components (unless one considers plastics to be organic).

it's a theoretical question. do you agree or disagree that a motor that is made from organic components is evidence for design or not?

 

[xianghua]

Once more, with feeling: It doesn't matter what the motor is made of.

so now even a motor that is made from plastic isnt evidence for design?

 

[Speedwell]

so now even a motor that is made from plastic isnt evidence for design?

The plastic parts may be, if they are determined to be a manufactured polymer or if they show tooling marks.

 

[xianghua]

The plastic parts may be, if they are determined to be a manufactured polymer or if they show tooling marks.

how do you know if they were manufactured or not?