Evolution

[BobRyan]

Exactly. The experiment was conducted to find out what would happen in those conditions. They found out. How is that a failure?

By that definition -- no experiment ever fails.

I think we are looking for more of the point of evolution in that experiment. .. and so where they.

 

[BobRyan]

An experiment that was to try to see if amino acids could be produced chemically and specifically was not trying to create life is a failure because amino acids were produced chemically and life wasn't created? Pretty awesome reasoning there.

Obviously the point of my post was not that they were trying to create life - rather they had hoped to create a viable starting point - one with the necessary amino acids in the right chiral orientation that would at least qualify as "a start". They failed to demonstrating the necessary starting point.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

By that definition -- no experiment ever fails.

I think we are looking for more of the point of evolution in that experiment. .. and so where they.

So cite your evidence to support what you think. What did they say they were looking for? What do all those textbooks that cite their work so glowingly say they achieved?

 

[BobRyan]

Back to the OP -- lest we get too far afield of the subject

There are those that instead of intelligent design for how we came to be believe that all living things came from chemicals that accidentally came together and formed the basic structure for life. I cannot wrap my mind around it. How could something so that is in such chaos turn into something so complex?

This is why I posted those videos.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I don't believe in Intelligent Design.

I believe in creationism.

Intelligent Design is a cheap attempt to shoehorn creationism into the science arena, where it doesn't belong.

But they are not mutually exclusive. One can admit to art work that shows intelligence in the making of it - without also stating that it was "spoken into existence".

Yet even if spoken into existence - the ark work still shows "intelligence" in the design of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

But they are not mutually exclusive. One can admit to art work that shows intelligence in the making of it - without also stating that it was "spoken into existence".

Yet even if spoken into existence - the ark work still shows "intelligence" in the design of it.

I agree.

And that's why I put it this way:

I believe the universe was designed intelligently, but I do not believe in Intelligent Design.

(Notice the caps.)

 

[dlamberth]

But they are not mutually exclusive. One can admit to art work that shows intelligence in the making of it - without also stating that it was "spoken into existence".

I don't see Intelligence Design anywhere in the Bible. And I don't believe those ancient nomadic tribes who's Creation myth story made it into the Bible thought along those lines either. All there is to those ancient people was a God Created world that took 6 days to complete. The idea of using the image of Intelligence Design came into being as a response to Evolution. It's of a more recent development. So, I don't see it (Intelligence Design) being used in a way that reflects how those ancient pre-Jewish people thought about Creation. I think using the image of Intelligent Design is in itself an evolution away from the original thoughts about the Biblical creation story that those ancients held.


.

 

[bhsmte]

They do pretty well even with the "censorship" flight-or-fright model being used by many of the evolutionist groups.

http://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/

blind faith evolutionism survives by hiding from the light of day in the form of closed circles, censorship and judicial activism.

Because it cannot survive the light of day.

Othaniel Marsh proved that -- he proved it with the horse series still at the Smithsonian.

So also Ernst Haeckle- with some wood carving "proofs"

So also Osborn in his fright-or-flight exhibit of so-called "Nebraska man".

Blind faith evolutionism has a long standing tradition of hoax and fraud used for decade upon decade as 'the best evidence' in its favor.

And even on this thread we see the abiogenesis efforts of Eurey and Miller exposed for 60 years and still we have diehard "believers" in that mythology hoping against hope that someone will step up and pull the rabbit out of that hat.

Consider for a moment the mythical "Self-replicating molecule" - water. Wouldn't that be a handy thing to have in the desert ??!

Pretty simple molecule... stable... useful... wonder if we can make it "self-replicating"??

The energy you have to expend to deny, is truly amazing. You must get worn down.

 

[smaneck]

we have fossils of men and dinosaurs together,

where?

 

[smaneck]

You seem to suppose that the majority of Christians are fine with going against the Bible in favor of belief in evolution. In that model you are right my post does not contradict your claim that for Christians to choose to side with evolution - they must go against the Bible.
in Christ,
Bob

Correction. They contradict your literalistic reading of the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

from post 146

Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================

Correction. They contradict your literalistic reading of the Bible.

As it turns out - "the details" matter - as noted in my post above.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't believe in Intelligent Design.

I believe in creationism.

Intelligent Design is a cheap attempt to shoehorn creationism into the science arena, where it doesn't belong.

But they are not mutually exclusive. One can admit to art work that shows intelligence in the making of it - without also stating that it was "spoken into existence".

Yet even if spoken into existence - the ark work still shows "intelligence" in the design of it.

I don't see Intelligence Design anywhere in the Bible.

Not even in Romans 1 - where non-Bible-aware pagans "See" in the "Things that God has made" his invisible attributes and are "without excuse" - ??

Are you entirely certain that they are looking at 'no sign of intelligence' and then "without excuse" for not admitting to what the Bible calls the "invisible attributes of God" such as justice and intelligence, domain and judgment?

To argue against design and intelligence - in the work of God is to argue against God Himself. And repeatedly in the Bible the call is made for man to look at nature and see the wisdom and power of God who made it all. This is explicit in the text.

 

[AV1611VET]

To argue against design and intelligence - in the work of God is to argue against God Himself.

Not if you're "arguing" to have the original term "creationism" reinstated.

"Intelligent Design" is nothing more than a ploy to shoehorn creationism into the science arena -- where it doesn't belong.

 

[LoAmmi]

Obviously the point of my post was not that they were trying to create life - rather they had hoped to create a viable starting point - one with the necessary amino acids in the right chiral orientation that would at least qualify as "a start". They failed to demonstrating the necessary starting point.

They did make amino acids though. So, the experiment was a success in that the amino acids were created. But, hey, if you want your house of cards understanding, that's fine. If we actually create a cell in the future, I guess your entire faith falls apart.

 

[bhsmte]

Not if you're "arguing" to have the original term "creationism" reinstated.

"Intelligent Design" is nothing more than a ploy to shoehorn creationism into the science arena -- where it doesn't belong.

Absolutely correct AV.

And this is what the Dover trial exposed quite well.

 

[AV1611VET]

Absolutely correct AV.

And this is what the Dover trial exposed quite well.

It's too bad it even had to go to trial in the first place.

If creationists would just, as they say, LET GO AND LET GOD, then our history books wouldn't have junk in them in the first place.

(Like the Wedge Strategy.)

 

[bhsmte]

It's too bad it even had to go to trial in the first place.

If creationists would just, as they say, LET GO AND LET GOD, then our history books wouldn't have junk in them in the first place.

(Like the Wedge Strategy.)

It was actually good it went to trial, because the ID folks were put in a position to state their case and it didn't go well.

 

[dlamberth]

To argue against design and intelligence - in the work of God is to argue against God Himself.

I disagree. It's an argument about a particular "belief" that a certain group of people have about God. I have to admit that I have issues when they raise their beliefs to the level of Godhood.

.

 

[AV1611VET]

I disagree. It's an argument about a particular "belief" that a certain group of people have about God. I have to admit that I have issues when they raise their beliefs to the level of Godhood.

You have a low tolerance for those who don't think like you do, do you?

 

[dlamberth]

You have a low tolerance for those who don't think like you do, do you?

Generally, I have a very high tolerance for those who think differently than I do. But not so much when they think their beliefs are at the level of Godhood.

.