ID or ToE?

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Saved, ... saved from what?

The Lords wrath!

The Christian god seems to be a fan of a stupid game me and some friends used to play when we were kids. While walking down a sidewalk you grab the person nearest the road and push them so that they are about to fall off/over, then you pull them back and shout "Saved you!".

 

[AV1611VET]

The Lords wrath!

The Christian god seems to be a fan of a stupid game me and some friends used to play when we were kids. While walking down a sidewalk you grab the person nearest the road and push them so that they are about to fall off/over, then you pull them back and shout "Saved you!".

You did that in wrath, did you?

If not, you might want to come up with a better analogy.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

You did that in wrath, did you?

If not, you might want to come up with a better analogy.

No, the analogy fits fine except according to the theology God sometimes lets people fall into traffic.

 

[Cabal]

You did that in wrath, did you?

If not, you might want to come up with a better analogy.

Right, he apparently did it because he loves us so much - which just makes such behaviour all the more unconscionable.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, the analogy fits fine except according to the theology God sometimes lets people fall into traffic.

More like they stand in the traffic and deny the existence of drivers.

But it's your analogy --

 

[Split Rock]

I see where the theory of Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.

Why do you continue to post this falsehood over and over after you have been corrected on it? One more time: Evolution is not "chance -based." Read up on Natural Selection!

Here is a pretty good definition from Biology Online:

Natural selection
Definition

noun

A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations.


Supplement

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism.

Natural selection - definition from Biology-Online.org

Here is one based on Darwin's original book, which breaks it down a bit better:

Darwin's theory of evolution is based on key facts and the inferences drawn from them, which biologist Ernst Mayr summarised as follows:[3]

Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce the population would grow (fact).
Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact).
Resources such as food are limited and are relatively stable over time (fact).
A struggle for survival ensues (inference).
Individuals in a population vary significantly from one another (fact).
Much of this variation is inheritable (fact).
Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their inheritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection (inference).
This slowly effected process results in populations changing to adapt to their environments, and ultimately, these variations accumulate over time to form new species (inference).

On the Origin of Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Split Rock]

Unfortunately, so do I -- until Jesus comes back and finally puts an end to all this hullabaloo nonsense.

I thought the Great Scientist, the Anti-Christ was going to do this?

 

[Hespera]

Why do you continue to post this falsehood over and over after you have been corrected on it? One more time: Evolution is not "chance -based." Read up on Natural Selection!
a

I think i asked him elsewhere why he does not learn from his mistakes.

It would be ever-so-refreshing to find a creationist who would do that.

id think a Christian would be very concerned about avoiding falsehoods.

 

[Belk]

I'm sure you'll jump right in here and explain it too, won't you?

Starting with your rant about Pi?

Or am I wrong?

Pretty consistently.

 

[selfinflikted]

id think a Christian would be very concerned about avoiding falsehoods.

You should know better by now. Some Christians are concerned only with promoting their religion and their god. Evidence, facts, and truth are the farthest things from their concerns, it seems.

 

[Hespera]

You should know better by now. Some Christians are concerned only with promoting their religion and their god. Evidence, facts, and truth are the farthest things from their concerns, it seems.

i am very puzzled by this behaviour and I wonder if they realize they are doing it, and if they would change it if they did.

 

[selfinflikted]

i am very puzzled by this behaviour and I wonder if they realize they are doing it, and if they would change it if they did.

Of course not.

 

[Hespera]

Of course not.

i take it you mean on both counts.

i have brought the subject up a time or two, and got no indication of awareness or intent to change, either one.

 

[Split Rock]

i am very puzzled by this behaviour and I wonder if they realize they are doing it, and if they would change it if they did.

Too often creationists here latch onto a false paradigm and then they are very reluctant to let go of it.

 

[Hespera]

Too often creationists here latch onto a false paradigm and then they are very reluctant to let go of it.

Those are tough maybe for any of us to change.

i think just plain attitude is more it than a 'paradigm" which I find to be an annoyingly hard word to define, sort of like 'funky'.

Anyhow, you know, you will get people with something like the "Paluxy man tracks' that they think are evidence of dino /people coexistence.

Now, if they were real, then that would be sensational in the extreme!

If they are fake, then, its just that one thing thats fake it in no way disproves creationism that they are fake tracks.

What i find interesting is that the "PMT" (paluxy man tracks) fan will jsut not accept it that they are, or even could be fake, and will go off talking how scientists refuse to excavate in that area for fear they will find more, etc etc.

Worse, they will have some fallacy like that ToE is about abiogenisis, or that a theory needs to be proven and wont even give those up.

i find that mentality very hard to understand.

 

[plindboe]

At the same time evolutionists always want to argue that evolution is not about the “origins” of life. I wonder what the Evolutionists starting point is.

Life. That's the starting point, i.e. after life had originated. It's the same way that the theory of gravity has the starting point of matter. It doesn't explain how matter first originated, it simply explains how matter behaves when it exists.

All scientific theories have specific limits, and it's absurd to ask them to explain phenonema outside of their scope.

That said, many evolutionists think that the separate study of abiogenesis holds some promise.

What are your thoughts on ID or ToE?

ID is like saying "God did it" and it primarily uses God-of-the-gaps reasoning to justify itself. It is itself untestable, so it can survive only as a parasite on real scientific and testable theories, primarily the ToE, using designer-of-the-gaps wherever knowledge is currently found lacking. Keep in mind that scientific theories doesn't make us omniscient, and all theories consequently have gaps.

ID is also a piece of propaganda invented to get religion into science class, applying less obviously religious terms to the same old tired creationist arguments to make them appear scientific to the layman.

Peter

 

[Non sequitur]

Life. That's the starting point, i.e. after life had originated. It's the same way that the theory of gravity has the starting point of matter. It doesn't explain how matter first originated, it simply explains how matter behaves when it exists.

All scientific theories have specific limits, and it's absurd to ask them to explain phenonema outside of their scope.

That said, many evolutionists think that the separate study of abiogenesis holds some promise.




ID is like saying "God did it" and it primarily uses God-of-the-gaps reasoning to justify itself. It is itself untestable, so it can survive only as a parasite on real scientific and testable theories, primarily the ToE, using designer-of-the-gaps wherever knowledge is currently found lacking. Keep in mind that scientific theories doesn't make us omniscient, and all theories consequently have gaps.

ID is also a piece of propaganda invented to get religion into science class, applying less obviously religious terms to the same old tired creationist arguments to make them appear scientific to the layman.

Peter

 

[Greg1234]

ID is like saying "God did it" and it primarily uses God-of-the-gaps reasoning to justify itself.

Unfortunately, molecular biology, is a "gap" in astronomy. The very core tenets of Darwinism have even refuted.

It is itself untestable,

Except when "it has been falsified."

so it can survive only as a parasite on real scientific and testable theories, primarily the ToE, using designer-of-the-gaps wherever knowledge is currently found lacking.

Keep in mind that scientific theories doesn't make us omniscient, and all theories consequently have gaps.

The very "scientific knowledge" upon which Darwinism is based has been refuted.

ID is also a piece of propaganda invented to get religion into science class,

Nope, just Science.

applying less obviously religious terms to the same old tired creationist arguments to make them appear scientific to the layman.

Peter

Actually, ID does not recognize the designer (in secret).

 

[Psudopod]

Unfortunately, molecular biology, is a "gap" in astronomy.

Whut?

The very core tenets of Darwinism have even refuted.

Go on, what are the core tenents of Darwinish and how has each one been refuted?

It is itself untestable,
​

Except when "it has been falsified."

Those aspects of creationism that can be falsified have been - young earth, global flood, irreducable complexity etc.

 

[Hespera]

Life. That's the starting point, i.e. after life had originated. It's the same way that the theory of gravity has the starting point of matter. It doesn't explain how matter first originated, it simply explains how matter behaves when it exists.

All scientific theories have specific limits, and it's absurd to ask them to explain phenonema outside of their scope.

That said, many evolutionists think that the separate study of abiogenesis holds some promise.




ID is like saying "God did it" and it primarily uses God-of-the-gaps reasoning to justify itself. It is itself untestable, so it can survive only as a parasite on real scientific and testable theories, primarily the ToE, using designer-of-the-gaps wherever knowledge is currently found lacking. Keep in mind that scientific theories doesn't make us omniscient, and all theories consequently have gaps.

ID is also a piece of propaganda invented to get religion into science class, applying less obviously religious terms to the same old tired creationist arguments to make them appear scientific to the layman.

Peter

Toss in my two cents...

Its fine by me if someone wants to say god started life, no evidence one way or the other. I dont happen to think that is true but who is to say.

That evolution happened after life started tho is true beyond any reasonable argument. leaving unreasonable ones.

as for this that i said earlier...


Worse, they will have some fallacy like that ToE is about abiogenisis, or that a theory needs to be proven and wont even give those up.

So Deaver, can we have a concession from you that abio is not in any way about or part of the ToE, and is in no way an argument against it?