Criteria for determining design

[ChetSinger]

I thought they called it that because God is intelligent and He created things (designed them)? Do they deny creation?

Theism isn't a requirement of ID. The movie "Prometheus" could be considered an ID movie.

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought they called it that because God is intelligent and He created things (designed them)? Do they deny creation?

Intelligen Design was meant to keep creationism in the classroom.

But in so doing, they opened the door to anything being taught as the designer of the universe.

Thus it could have been Allah, Ra, or anyone else.

Creationism specifies Elohim as the creator.

I don't believe in Intelligent Design, but I do believe the universe was intelligently designed.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Meaningless words designed to keep yourself believing, for what?

This conclusion is based on careful study of biology, and considering the probabilities of either special creation or evolution.

 

[crjmurray]

These conclusions are based on careful study of biology.

Did you provide a criteria other than looks designed therefore is designed?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Did you provide a criteria other than looks designed therefore is designed?

My main criteria is the probabilities of either occurring. At a certain point improbable becomes impossible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Intelligen Design was meant to keep creationism in the classroom.

But in so doing, they opened the door to anything being taught as the designer of the universe.

Thus it could have been Allah, Ra, or anyone else.

Creationism specifies Elohim as the creator.

I don't believe in Intelligent Design, but I do believe the universe was intelligently designed.

Hey, for once I agree, well at least partly, with AV. ID was merely creationism in a cheap suit when it was first introduced. Of course creationism is such a crock that it was obviously religion and made illegal to teach in the classroom. The final lawsuit was started in Arkansas and ended up in the Supreme Court and that spelled the end of creationism being taught in the U.S.:

Edwards v. Aguillard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was also the time when the book that would end up being "Of Pandas and People" switched from a creationist book to being an "ID" book. That was shown in the Dover trial.

Now people are free to believe what they want to believe. Showing that their beliefs have any validity at all is something that creationists fail at to this very day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My main criteria is the probabilities of either occurring. At a certain point improbable becomes impossible.

What "probabilities"? Every probability argument that I have ever seen against evolution has been fatally flawed. The premises have always been wrong so there was no need to even use any mathematics to debunk their claims.

 

[crjmurray]

My main criteria is the probabilities of either occurring. At a certain point improbable becomes impossible.

Shuffle a deck of cards then calculate the probability of them appearing in the order they appeared in. Then try and talk about improbable equals impossible.

It doesn't matter anyway because improbability isn't a criteria for determining design by itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Shuffle a deck of cards then calculate the probability of them appearing in the order they appeared in. Then try and talk about improbable equals impossible.

It doesn't matter anyway because improbability isn't a criteria for determining design by itself.

Yes, this is one method that I have tried. Creationists often try to calculate the odds of a particular result occurring. If one is specific enough any result is "mathematically impossible". Their mistake is that they conflate a result with a goal. The evolution of people was an result of evolution. It was not a goal. If one tries to say that people were the goal evolution is "impossible".

 

[sandybay]

My main criteria is the probabilities of either occurring. At a certain point improbable becomes impossible.

It's not as if creationism is the only choice when it comes to myths to put against evolution, there are thousands,
and they all fail, that alone must tell you something, all of the creation science and institutes can not come up with a thing, if I was a creationist I would be starting to think something was wrong with our arguments.

If only creationists could channel that perseverance and dedication into something useful.

 

[AV1611VET]

Showing that their beliefs have any validity at all is something that creationists fail at to this very day.

We put feet to our beliefs at the poll booth on voters' day.

You know ... when a school levy comes up?

 

[Subduction Zone]

We put feet to our beliefs at the poll booth on voters' day.

You know ... when a school levy comes up?

And yet most school levy's pass. I don't think there are very many Christians that would punish their children because of their beliefs in a prat of the Bible that has been shown to be wrong countless times. I am sure that there are some that would vote "no" and use that for an excuse. But most of them would vote "no" regardless.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet most school levy's pass.

Not from our votes though.

I don't think there are very many Christians that would punish their children because of their beliefs in a prat of the Bible that has been shown to be wrong countless times.

Cute.

I am sure that there are some that would vote "no" and use that for an excuse.

Good for them; we vote NO and use it as a reason.

But most of them would vote "no" regardless.

If you say so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not from our votes though.

Cute.

Good for them; we vote NO and use it as a reason.

If you say so.

AV, I know your "type". The reason that you vote "No" is for a reason, but it is an extremely poor one. You know that I am right. I doubt if you are even fooling yourself this time.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

My relationship with Christ isn't based upon what happened long ago, but upon what's happening right now. So I might be convinced to become a TE. But I'm not turning aside from the Lord. Because he's not just the Lord who designed our biosphere long ago, but the Lord who's living and working right now. As Jesus once said, "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living".

That being said, that "chicken-vs-egg" issue regarding DNA repair mechanisms is multiplied by about 200 times, even for simple cells. I'm not expecting a demonstration of the naturalistic assemblage of such a thing in my lifetime.

Hundreds of millions of Christians believe in Evolution. They see no conflict.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, I know your "type".

Good.

I certainly hope so.

If it isn't clear enough, let me make it so:

If our city wants to teach evolution in school, we'll vote NO at the polls.

The reason that you vote "No" is for a reason,

That's right.

A "reason" -- not an "excuse."

... but it is an extremely poor one.

That's your opinion.

You want to call our reason "poor" -- go ahead.

We'll try and make your budget "poor" too.

You know that I am right.

About what?

I doubt if you are even fooling yourself this time.

You've lost me now, chief.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hundreds of millions of Christians believe in Evolution. They see no conflict.

We call that a "sign of the times."

Or "the tares growing with the wheat."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good.

I certainly hope so.

If it isn't clear enough, let me make it so:

If our city wants to teach evolution in school, we'll vote NO at the polls.

That's right.

A "reason" -- not an "excuse."

That's your opinion.

You want to call our reason "poor" -- go ahead.

We'll try and make your budget "poor" too.

About what?

You've lost me now, chief.

Excessively "blowing up posts" is a sign that you know that you lost the debate. You and yours are a relatively minor road bump. Your numbers will continue to dwindle as they see the errors of your beliefs. The internet may be the end of creationism. Very few creationists know how to use it for debate and the few that do always lose their debates spectacularly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We call that a "sign of the times."

Or "the tares growing with the wheat."

And the "signs of the times" have been here for almost 2,000 years. It is getting a bit old.

 

[AV1611VET]

Excessively "blowing up posts" is a sign that you know that you lost the debate. You and yours are a relatively minor road bump. Your numbers will continue to dwindle as they see the errors of your beliefs. The internet may be the end of creationism. Very few creationists know how to use it for debate and the few that do always lose their debates spectacularly.

In the meantime, we'll vote NO at the polls.