Intelligent Design / Evolution

[RickG]

3.CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

Ever ask yourself why they had to create their own Journal in order to publish it? Ever ask yourself why none of that is published in any main stream science journal? Just asking.

 

[CabVet]

Ever ask yourself why they had to create their own Journal in order to publish it? Ever ask yourself why none of that is published in any main stream science journal? Just asking.

Not only that, but I went through the entire list and not a single one of the papers actually presents evidence for intelligent design. All they do is describe structures that "could not have possibly been created by evolution" and "imply the existence of a designer".

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Not only that, but I went through the entire list and not a single one of the papers actually presents evidence for intelligent design. All they do is describe structures that "could not have possibly been created by evolution" and "imply the existence of a designer".

I've noticed that too.

Talk about a false dichotomy. If the TOE were utterly disproved tomorrow somehow, that still wouldn't be evidence for ID or Biblical YEC.

 

[CabVet]

I've noticed that too.

Talk about a false dichotomy. If the TOE were utterly disproved tomorrow somehow, that still wouldn't be evidence for ID or Biblical YEC.

Exactly:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7630353/

 

[Split Rock]

Ever ask yourself why they had to create their own Journal in order to publish it? Ever ask yourself why none of that is published in any main stream science journal? Just asking.

This is because of the international conspiracy to prevent any research supporting I.D. to be published in the scientific literature. This conspiracy is carried out under the "Evolutionist Anti-Intelligent Design Cabal," as everyone knows!

 

[idscience]

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

This shows a clear pattern of shutting out dissent.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

here's your big chance then, show us some evidence for ID, no one will try to censor you.

They might point out any flaws in your material, however.

 

[CabVet]

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

This shows a clear pattern of shutting out dissent.

And again not a single shred of evidence for intelligent design, just a bunch of misinformation and hand waving.

 

[idscience]

Given that you have nothing to offer, nothing to stand on in regards to your own hypothesis, you really have no authority to judge anything.

I know the Vatican has no hypothesis on evolution, so I would be very interested in yours? Other than the stand "God did it after evolution did it". Where is your proof of theistic evolution?

I'm an extremely limited theistic evolutionist: I believe that God provided the "spark" for life to begin, and then let nature take its course to the present day..

The only thing more limited than your "belief" is any evidence of it. Please give us some scientific bases for your "belief".

When was this "spark"? Big Bang or later?
What is your evidence this occurred at all?

 

[selfinflikted]

What is your evidence this occurred at all?

There isn't any. I think the whole point of "theistic evolution" is to absolve oneself from denying the reality of evolution while still believing in god/Bible.

To me, this is a case of having your cake and eating it too.

 

[idscience]

Isn't it interesting, that the Atheists here do not question the theistic evolutionists. At least I have not read anything yet. The Anti-God and the theistic evolutionists seem to have come together with a common goal, and that is to denounce ID.

Global Atheism is a very small minority as has been pointed out in previous posts, so they are greatly helped by the theisitic evolutionist numbers. Is it a wonder that there is no arguing among them.

Interesting that the science based and fact driven ID, is attacked, mocked, and ridiculed by the Atheist and Theist alike. Almost as if they are on the same team. What seems to be missing is, the Atheistic disputes with theisitc evolutionists.

 

[idscience]

Ever ask yourself why they had to create their own Journal in order to publish it? Ever ask yourself why none of that is published in any main stream science journal? Just asking.

When you consider the backlash journals and editors get if they publish ID friendly papers it is not surprising. I believe Proceedings is a mainstream journal.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Given that you have nothing to offer, nothing to stand on in regards to your own hypothesis, you really have no authority to judge anything.

And you do?

I know the Vatican has no hypothesis on evolution, so I would be very interested in yours? Other than the stand "God did it after evolution did it". Where is your proof of theistic evolution?

The only thing more limited than your "belief" is any evidence of it. Please give us some scientific bases for your "belief".

When was this "spark"? Big Bang or later?
What is your evidence this occurred at all?

Since you apparently didn't read the thread:

No. I don't pretend to know how God kicked it all off. He could have initiated the Big Bang, or created the first amino acids, or poofed the first cell, or created everything last Tuesday with embedded age. Or maybe the simple fact of His existence was the factor that allowed life to develop.

In other words, I don't think the "how" of creation is a big deal as long as it doesn't conflict with what I observe. If science later discovers a natural cause for anything I listed above, then I'll know that that wasn't God's method. I know it's a bit "God-of-the-gaps"-y, but it's the only system that works with what I see every day.

So yes, there is no evidence, nor will there ever be, and I'm okay with that. God doesn't lie within the realm of science. My problem with ID is not that it invokes God, but that it tries to fuse religion and science - two incompatible disciplines.

There isn't any. I think the whole point of "theistic evolution" is to absolve oneself from denying the reality of evolution while still believing in god/Bible.

To me, this is a case of having your cake and eating it too.

It is, a bit. For me, it's because I have difficulty accepting the concept that God might not exist. Religion - Catholicism in particular - has been a pretty big part of my life since birth and I've found that I can't just throw it all out. I've tried - I've had some difficulties with the church and I'm definitely a "bad Catholic," but when it comes down to it, I still have to say that God exists and that He had some role in the creation of the world. It just feels right.

Isn't it interesting, that the Atheists here do not question the theistic evolutionists. At least I have not read anything yet. The Anti-God and the theistic evolutionists seem to have come together with a common goal, and that is to denounce ID.

Global Atheism is a very small minority as has been pointed out in previous posts, so they are greatly helped by the theisitic evolutionist numbers. Is it a wonder that there is no arguing among them.

The reason why is that theistic evolution places God outside the bounds of science. Atheists still disagree (obviously, since they deny the existence of God), but it's a matter of principle rather than science, and thus doesn't come up very often. When it does, it usually ends up as " I believe in God. You don't. Let's agree to disagree."

Interesting that the science based and fact driven ID, is attacked, mocked, and ridiculed by the Atheist and Theist alike. Almost as if they are on the same team. What seems to be missing is, the Atheistic disputes with theisitc evolutionists.

I've yet to see a single fact from you that supports ID.

 

[selfinflikted]

When you consider the backlash journals and editors get if they publish ID friendly papers it is not surprising. I believe Proceedings is a mainstream journal.

They get backlash because I.D.'ers are peddling snake oil. It's not science.

 

[selfinflikted]

It is, a bit. For me, it's because I have difficulty accepting the concept that God might not exist. Religion - Catholicism in particular - has been a pretty big part of my life since birth and I've found that I can't just throw it all out. I've tried - I've had some difficulties with the church and I'm definitely a "bad Catholic," but when it comes down to it, I still have to say that God exists and that He had some role in the creation of the world. It just feels right.

I understand that it feels right. I get that, I really do. But sometimes feelings and emotions make a horrible sieve to filter truth.

 

[idscience]

And you do?



Since you apparently didn't read the thread:

So yes, there is no evidence, nor will there ever be, and I'm okay with that. God doesn't lie within the realm of science. My problem with ID is not that it invokes God, but that it tries to fuse religion and science - two incompatible disciplines.


It is, a bit. For me, it's because I have difficulty accepting the concept that God might not exist. Religion - Catholicism in particular - has been a pretty big part of my life since birth and I've found that I can't just throw it all out. I've tried - I've had some difficulties with the church and I'm definitely a "bad Catholic," but when it comes down to it, I still have to say that God exists and that He had some role in the creation of the world. It just feels right.


The reason why is that theistic evolution places God outside the bounds of science. Atheists still disagree (obviously, since they deny the existence of God), but it's a matter of principle rather than science, and thus doesn't come up very often. When it does, it usually ends up as " I believe in God. You don't. Let's agree to disagree."


I've yet to see a single fact from you that supports ID.

That is a most convenient positition I must say. You don't have to prove anything or disagree with the world view. The best of both worlds I guess.

I don't know how anyone can separate the God who created all things, including the natural laws, and science. He created the laws and principles governing life, and gave us the ability to discover them. He told us in Romans 1:20

• "For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."

To say God is outside of science is absurd. Especially for someone who claims to believe God exists.

Intelligent Design is legitimate science, and the fact you cannot see it, is irrelevant. That is your choice, and your valid opinion. I disagree.

 

[CabVet]

That is a most convenient positition I must say. You don't have to prove anything or disagree with the world view. The best of both worlds I guess.

I don't know how anyone can separate the God who created all things, including the natural laws, and science. He created the laws and principles governing life, and gave us the ability to discover them. He told us in Romans 1:20

• "For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."

To say God is outside of science is absurd. Especially for someone who claims to believe God exists.

Intelligent Design is legitimate science, and the fact you cannot see it, is irrelevant. That is your choice, and your valid opinion. I disagree.

I am going to start counting how many times you will post on unrelated matter without giving any evidence for intelligent design. By my estimates the above is post #183 and evidence is still a zero.

 

[idscience]

It is, a bit. For me, it's because I have difficulty accepting the concept that God might not exist. Religion - Catholicism in particular - has been a pretty big part of my life since birth and I've found that I can't just throw it all out. I've tried - I've had some difficulties with the church and I'm definitely a "bad Catholic," but when it comes down to it, I still have to say that God exists and that He had some role in the creation of the world. It just feels right.

What is a bad Catholic? You are a child of God. With all the faults of humanity. We are all bad. Jesus came to free us from being "bad". Try to focus more on relationship with Jesus and not religion. Don't focus on the "your bad repent" and live in the freedom Christ gave us. You are free from condemnation, free from sin, free from guilt, free from punishment. Celebrate on that, not on what you were... "bad". Religion will suck the life out of you. Jesus made it all personal. Between him and us. That is why the vail split when he died. We all have access to the throne of God now. We all have a direct connection to the Father through Jesus alone.

Your double mindedness is evident in your arguments, and questioning of God's word. May I say that one is not born into relationship with Christ. God is our Father not GrandFather. As Jesus taught us, religion has nothing to do with him. The "religious" leaders of his time were not spoken of kindly by him. Christ brought freedom from religion, and relationship with him. He is the only mediator between man and God. (1 Tim 2:5)

You are arguing strenuously against ID and for evolution, yet you are conflicted about the existence of God. Don't be duped into believing minor change and similarity proves anything.

Homology/Morphology are the sciences of proving a positition. Common descent happened, so the similarities in living things must be biologically related. The more dissimilar, we will just say the further apart they are in relationship. Is that proof, science, or an inference from a previously stated position? Common descent "evidence" is not discovered, it is directed.

James tells us the double minded man is unstable in all he does. Our only source of truth is God himself. His Word who is stated to be Jesus himself. John 1:1; In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God. "the Word became flesh." Put your faith in God alone. In His Word alone. Many times is seems wrong but it is not. How many people on opposing sides are completely convinced only they are right? Can both be right? No. One or the other can be right, or both can be wrong. Only God's word through the Spirit keeps us inline. Otherwise it wouldn't be called faith.

2 Tim 3:16; "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right."

1 Cor 1:18-23;
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
and discard the intelligence of the intelligent.”
"So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense."

God doesn't seem to be too impressed with human wisdom. I am sure standing before him, arguments, and rationalizing his Word to fit us will not go very far. Clearly God's Word is offensive to the human intellect.

Science has proven nothing in regard to common descent. Many may think it has, the Atheist must depent upon it, but it is a hope of its own. Not a fact.

 

[Split Rock]

Isn't it interesting, that the Atheists here do not question the theistic evolutionists. At least I have not read anything yet. The Anti-God and the theistic evolutionists seem to have come together with a common goal, and that is to denounce ID.

This is a thread on I.D. What exactly are atheists supposed to be questioning theistic evolutionists about in this thread? If both groups are denouncing I.D., then perhaps there is a good reason to doubt its usefulness.... no?

Global Atheism is a very small minority as has been pointed out in previous posts, so they are greatly helped by the theisitic evolutionist numbers. Is it a wonder that there is no arguing among them.

Again, argue about what? It really irks you guys that atheists can get along with many Christians here and even agree with them on some topics... doesn't it?

Interesting that the science based and fact driven ID, is attacked, mocked, and ridiculed by the Atheist and Theist alike. Almost as if they are on the same team. What seems to be missing is, the Atheistic disputes with theisitc evolutionists.

Show us some "science based and fact driven" I.D. and then see how we react to it. Until now, there hasn't been any... that's why there is no Intelligent Design theory.

 

[RickG]

When you consider the backlash journals and editors get if they publish ID friendly papers it is not surprising. I believe Proceedings is a mainstream journal.

It has nothing to do with what the subject is and everything to do with supporting scientific evidence.