Criteria for determining design

[AV1611VET]

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

2Peter 3:3a Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers,

 

[ThinkForYourself]

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

And your public education system continues to reflect this. It's getting pretty bad. You guys are behind countries like Vietnam, Slovenia, and Estonia. I wonder how long a super power can hang on when it's citizens are amongst the dumbest in the Western world? (Sorry to be rude, but it is a fact. )
From Here: OECD

US citizens need to quit attacking science and brainwashing students in social studies. You need your best and brightest to be leading you, not left behind at the start line.

 

[AV1611VET]

And your public education system continues to reflect this.

No, it doesn't.

Our public education system isn't behind because of lack of funds; it's behind because the funds aren't being spent right.

Just my opinion.

It's getting pretty bad.

I can't help that.

You guys are behind countries like Vietnam, Slovenia, and Estonia.

Ain't that a shame?

All science is to you guys is one big game, isn't it?

You use it like it's some kind of competitive sports or something.

I wonder how long a super power can hang on when it's citizens are amongst the dumbest in the Western world?

Well, let's get s_x education in our schools, the Bible out, and evolution taught, and then maybe we'll get on top of things, eh?

US citizens need to quit attacking science and brainwashing students in social studies. You need your best and brightest to be leading you, not left behind at the start line.

Uh-huh.

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

 

[dad]

Theism isn't a requirement of ID. ...

The ID sucks.

 

[dad]

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.

Interesting. I didn't know ID was a useless con game that did not give the creation credit to the creator.

 

[AV1611VET]

Interesting. I didn't know ID was a useless con game that did not give the creation credit to the creator.

From Wikipedia:

Not all creationist organizations have embraced the intelligent design movement. According to Thomas Dixon, "Religious leaders have come out against ID too.

An open letter affirming the compatibility of Christian faith and the teaching of evolution, first produced in response to controversies in Wisconsin in 2004, has now been signed by over ten thousand clergy from different Christian denominations across America. In 2006, the director of the Vatican Observatory, the Jesuit astronomer George Coyne, condemned ID as a kind of 'crude creationism' which reduced God to a mere engineer."

Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, a proponent of Old Earth creationism, believes that the efforts of intelligent design proponents to divorce the concept from Biblical Christianity make its hypothesis too vague. In 2002, he wrote: "Winning the argument for design without identifying the designer yields, at best, a sketchy origins model. Such a model makes little if any positive impact on the community of scientists and other scholars. [...] ...the time is right for a direct approach, a single leap into the origins fray. Introducing a biblically based, scientifically verifiable creation model represents such a leap."


Likewise, two of the most prominent YEC organizations in the world have attempted to distinguish their views from those of the intelligent design movement. Henry M. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) wrote, in 1999, that ID, "even if well-meaning and effectively articulated, will not work! It has often been tried in the past and has failed, and it will fail today. The reason it won't work is because it is not the Biblical method." According to Morris: "The evidence of intelligent design… must be either followed by or accompanied by a sound presentation of true Biblical creationism if it is to be meaningful and lasting."

In 2002, Carl Wieland, then of Answers in Genesis (AiG), criticized design advocates who, though well-intentioned, "'left the Bible out of it'" and thereby unwittingly aided and abetted the modern rejection of the Bible. Wieland explained that "AiG's major 'strategy' is to boldly, but humbly, call the church back to its Biblical foundations… [so] we neither count ourselves a part of this movement nor campaign against it."

SOURCE

 

[Subduction Zone]

2Peter 3:3a Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers,

Again, people have been saying that for 2,000 years. I am not impressed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The ID sucks.

You are right, but for the wrong reason.

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, people have been saying that for 2,000 years. I am not impressed.

People have been saying JESUS SAVES for 2000 years.

I gather it you're not impressed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

People have been saying JESUS SAVES for 2000 years.

I gather it you're not impressed?

Nope, since he has not so far why would anyone think that he would in the future. Think of all of the failed prophesies in the Bible. Failed so badly that reason and logic had to be bent out of shape to make them look like they had half a chance to be fulfilled. Or are you forgetting the Tyre prophecy. A prophecy so bad that me saying "You will see a red car the next time you drive" raises me to the level of a Biblical prophet.

 

[dad]

From Wikipedia:


SOURCE

I see no point in teaching some vague creation unless the creator is taught too.

 

[dad]

Nope, since he has not so far why would anyone think that he would in the future. Think of all of the failed prophesies in the Bible. Failed so badly that reason and logic had to be bent out of shape to make them look like they had half a chance to be fulfilled. Or are you forgetting the Tyre prophecy. A prophecy so bad that me saying "You will see a red car the next time you drive" raises me to the level of a Biblical prophet.

One needs to understand when a prophesy starts to talk about the future. Coming at it wrong will lead to being muddled. You evidence this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One needs to understand when a prophesy starts to talk about the future. Coming at it wrong will lead to being muddled. You evidence this.

Sometimes it is very clear. Trying to use the false condition that if a prophesy looks failed it has not happened yet makes all prophesies worthless.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

Creationists present their arguments with no thought whatsoever that they will be considered by evolutionists. They persist because they feel they must keep a hand in the game.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

Every argument against evolution has been conveniently explained away (in language that few understand).

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nope, since he has not so far why would anyone think that he would in the future. Think of all of the failed prophesies in the Bible. Failed so badly that reason and logic had to be bent out of shape to make them look like they had half a chance to be fulfilled. Or are you forgetting the Tyre prophecy. A prophecy so bad that me saying "You will see a red car the next time you drive" raises me to the level of a Biblical prophet.

Explain why you feel the Tyre prophecy has failed. Detail what was predicted and what failed please.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Every argument against evolution has been conveniently explained away (in language that few understand).

Which shows just how fluid and unfalsifiable it has become.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Nope, since he has not so far why would anyone think that he would in the future. Think of all of the failed prophesies in the Bible. Failed so badly that reason and logic had to be bent out of shape to make them look like they had half a chance to be fulfilled. Or are you forgetting the Tyre prophecy. A prophecy so bad that me saying "You will see a red car the next time you drive" raises me to the level of a Biblical prophet.

We've been through the Tyre prophecy, and it stands. The Tyre that was destroyed was never rebuilt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Explain why you feel the Tyre prophecy has failed. Detail what was predicted and what failed please.

The city was to be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. It was never to be found again. It is easily found today. All you have to do is to type "Tyre Lebanon" into Google and the answer appears instantly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We've been through the Tyre prophecy, and it stands. The Tyre that was destroyed was never rebuilt.

Wrong, that was not Tyre. Tyre always was the island city that is now a peninsula. The prophesy clearly refers to the island as Tyre and the little towns as "daughter cities" or other such terms.

ETA: Yes, we have been through this before and the prophesy defenders lost. To defend the prophesy Bible prophesy had to become so trivial that "You will see a red car" by me would have qualified as a prophesy of biblical proportion.