Intelligent Design / Evolution

[CaliforniaSun]

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

So magnanimous of her.

 

[AV1611VET]

So magnanimous of her.

That's not Mother Nature doing that.

 

[idscience]

I'm sure the helpless, blind African children are very grateful for their rather short, painful lifespan

So...you don't have an answer for me?

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

So magnanimous of her.

Can we please keep on topic. There is an evolution/bible thread.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Can we please keep on topic. There is an evolution/bible thread.

Good god man. This thread is dead. There is no topic to keep on. We've asked and are still waiting for positive evidence for ID, not your opinion of imagined flaws of ToE.

Again, for the sake of the argument, let's assume we found a bunny in the Precambrian, and ToE has been laid to rest.

What evidence do you have for ID?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

That's not Mother Nature doing that.

Was MN made in the image of your god too?

 

[AV1611VET]

Was MN made in the image of your god too?

MN is, in my right to have an opinion, the goddess of atheism.

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

MN is, in my right to have an opinion, the goddess of atheism.

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Ignorance of atheism is no excuse.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ignorance of atheism is no excuse.

LOL

Even atheists don't know what to call themselves:

1. atheist
2. weak atheist
3. strong atheist
4. agnostic atheist
5. atheist agnostic

 

[CaliforniaSun]

LOL

Even atheists don't know what to call themselves:

1. atheist
2. weak atheist
3. strong atheist
4. agnostic atheist
5. atheist agnostic

Belief is a spectrum.

 

[3rdHeaven]

Belief is a spectrum.

I thought atheism is lack of belief?

Lack of belief is a spectrum?

You know, belief is sounding more and more like faith to me

 

[idscience]

So, there are no hi-jack rules here huh? With the 5,000 threads on here you would think you could stay on topic. This thread is as messed up as evolution.

 

[idscience]

Good god man. This thread is dead. There is no topic to keep on. We've asked and are still waiting for positive evidence for ID, not your opinion of imagined flaws of ToE.

Again, for the sake of the argument, let's assume we found a bunny in the Precambrian, and ToE has been laid to rest.

What evidence do you have for ID?

YOu could always try to answer a question, or try to defend your postion with something other than opinion. There have only been one or two out of the whole lot of you who have made any attempt to support your hypothesis.

 

[3rdHeaven]

So, there are no hi-jack rules here huh? With the 5,000 threads on here you would think you could stay on topic. This thread is as messed up as evolution.

Well back on topic, I support evolution, the big bang, and much of what science has discovered. I think the universe and our planet is 4 billion years old or there about.

Where we would differ greatly is I also accept ID, believe in God and believe that Jesus Christ is our God and Savor.

You can't very well have a discussion about evolution and not bring religion in to it can you? Not every Christian is a literalist or rejects evolution. For some, science is not a contradiction at all. I have yet to meet one atheist who accepts even ID though, so I think believers are far more open minded.

 

[Greg1234]

So, yet more "evolution is wrong because..." posts. We get it.

Now, where is the evidence FOR ID, not evidence AGAINST evolution, evidence F-O-R ID, do you comprehend these are different things?

Being too complex to be created by Earth is a characteristic of design. We see that in designed objects like airplanes or the great pyramid.

The limited nature of changes produced by Earth is indicative of design. We see that in cars, boats and other designed objects.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156

Intelligent design does not identify the designer (http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#desdesnr). Right now "intelligence" is a negative. It means "not Earth and Sun." This definition is subject to modification if you want to include the ability of a bee to create a man.

"It is too complex to be created by the earth so therefore it is intelligently designed" can be reworded as- it is too complex to be created by Earth, therefore it is not produced by Earth (definition in conclusion).

"Evolution" is the creation of organisms by Earth and Sun. Evidence F-O-R the inability of Earth to create a man (see def. of ID) is the evidence against the ability of Earth to create man (evolution). And vice versa.

Hope this helps.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I thought atheism is lack of belief?

Lack of belief is a spectrum?

You know, belief is sounding more and more like faith to me

Still waiting on your reply. You give the intelligent designer credit for all the beautiful things in creation...do you also want to give the designer credit for the awful things? The horror? Which some would argue is the true nature of this world, as opposed to kitties and puppies playing in fields of flowers?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

YOu could always try to answer a question, or try to defend your postion with something other than opinion. There have only been one or two out of the whole lot of you who have made any attempt to support your hypothesis.

The occurring frequency of the Occipitalis m. in human populations justifies ToE, and defeats ID/Creo.

The Vagus n. supports ToE and blows apart ID.

AREs support ToE and blows apart ID.

And this is just barely scratching the surface.

Now, when was it you were going to proffer evidence for ID?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Before any discussion can take place, evolution has to be defined.

It does not deal with origins of life or the universe for which there are no empirical evidence on either side.
Evolution is now defined as change over time. It has become a blanket term that covers what was called micro-evolution (changes over short term with species) and macro-evolution (changes above the level of species)
There is no argument for the former, changes and variations due to mutations and natural selection do occur.

Your definition is more akin to the colloquial one than the scientific one. In evolutionary biology, 'evolution' refers to something more specific: a change in the frequency of inherited traits in a population over time. It doesn't simply refer to 'change'.

Additionally, 'evolution' refers to 'the theory of common descent', which is the theory that all life on Earth is descended from a single common ancestor, and variations among modern species is due to evolution by natural selection.

In a scientific context, 'evolution' refers to both the observed fact and the inferred theory, interchangeably.

The only place of contention is how the variety of living things arose. Evolution says by extreemly long periods of time (millions or billions) of years. The evolutionist holds that the minor changes observed to day can account for the vast body plan changes over millions of years. Evolution holds that all living things are descendant from one common anscestory.

Pretty much.

Design theory holds that some features in living things are best explained by an intelligent agent and not a blind, undirected process of random mutation acted on by natural selection. Intelligent Design is not Creationism, in that it does not use the biblical text as the bases for scietific discover. ID infers design from experimental evidence, obervation, and testing.

As does evolution.

What do you consider to be the best evidence for ID?

 

[Jazer]

Additionally, 'evolution' refers to 'the theory of common descent', which is the theory that all life on Earth is descended from a single common ancestor,

Science says Adam and Eve were a common ancestor. So what is the problem. Both the Bible and Evolution talk about common ancestors: generations and geneologys

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Science says Adam and Eve were a common ancestor. So what is the problem. Both the Bible and Evolution talk about common ancestors: generations and geneologys

The problem is that you equate Adam and Eve with matrilinear and patrilinear ancestors of the Middle East, yet provide no evidence that such any such ancestors were having children with each other.

Such ancestors undoubtedly existed, but they didn't exist at the same time and in the same place. No such ancestors meet the necessary criteria to qualify as Adam and Eve. That, Jazer, is the problem.

 

[Jazer]

no evidence that such any such ancestors were having children with each other.

I never known you to speak jibberish before. The Hebrew people today have a common ancestor just like all other people have common ancestors. You want to say that their common ancestor was NOT the Adam and Eve in the Bible, but the Bible and all the scientific evidence we have available points to the Bible being true. You respond by saying we do not have enough scientific evidence. I say we do have enough evidence you just want to ignore the evidence we have. For one thing there is no evidence saying that the Adam and Eve in the Bible were not real historical people just like Abraham, Moses and Noah were real historical people. There is NO evidence to show they are NOT real historical people. So if you put all your evidence on a scale, you have no evidence to show that the Bible is NOT true, I have LOTS of evidence to show the Bible is true. So you are the one with "no evidence" not me. I have lots of evidence. Not the least of which is the geneologys we read in the Bible. I think maybe you got me speaking jibberish now also. Do you believe that David and his son Solomon were real people? Sense we still have the foundation in Jerusalem for Solomon's temple. How about Jesus, do you think he was a real person. Was Joseph, Mary and his half brother James real people?

David,
3:32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
3:33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
3:34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
3:35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.