Intelligent Design Is Only Theorized

[AV1611VET]

I have no problem understanding, that is your problem.

* cough * So I noticed in the * cough cough * above conversation.

I literally spelled it out for you, and you still don't get it.

 

[VirOptimus]

* cough * So I noticed in the * cough cough * above conversation.

I literally spelled it out for you, and you still don't get it.

As many have pointed out already, its you who dont get it.

Creationism and ID is one and the same for all practical purposes. Just because you personaly dislike something doesnt make it something it isnt.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism and ID is one and the same for all practical purposes.

Not hardly.

If they are one and the same for all practical purposes, then why did some have to pluto the term in order to inject science into it?

I mean, they could have even called it "creationism with benefits," but they didn't.

They gave it a whole new term.

And I submit they are not one and the same.

Of course, when dealing with people who think miracles and magic are one and the same, and who think faith is something people believe in, even though they know it isn't so; then I can understand their error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

* cough * So I noticed in the * cough cough * above conversation.

I literally spelled it out for you, and you still don't get it.

I understood just fine. The explanation is that you are wrong as usual.

So what else is new.

I explained how you were wrong. What part did you not understand?

 

[VirOptimus]

Not hardly.

If they are one and the same for all practical purposes, then why did some have to pluto the term in order to inject science into it?

I mean, they could have even called it "creationism with benefits," but they didn't.

They gave it a whole new term.

And I submit they are not one and the same.

Of course, when dealing with people who think miracles and magic are one and the same, and who think faith is something people believe in, even though they know it isn't so; then I can understand their error.

What you submit is in error.

The fundamental error on your part is that you have zero understanding of science and what it entails.

Your sophistery and misuse of terms do not impress. This is a science forum, use scientific arguments if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[AV1611VET]

What you submit is in error.

Really?

The fundamental error on your part is that you have zero understanding of science and what it entails.

I don't need to know science.

Others tried to inject what I don't know into Creationism and got pwned by a judge.

I'm not going to repeat the same error.

Creationism + What I Don't Know = Intelligent Design

Your sophistery and misuse of terms do not impress.

I didn't make up the term, chief.

Someone else did, trying to give scientists a wedgie.

They called their made-up term: Intelligent Design.

And it didn't work.

This is a science forum, use scientific arguments if you want to be taken seriously.

As I said, I'm not gong to repeat the same mistake that the Discovery Institute made.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Neither could the Christian judge in the Dover trial.

BOOOOOOM! Congratulations, You won the Internet today!

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Intelligent Design, as would Creationism, lost that trial because it was ruled that Intelligent Design is not science.

....because it's simpy repackaged creationism...

 

[KWCrazy]

You shouldn't be so scathing. ID was invented specifically to "soften up" atheists for the kind of biblical creationism you put so much stock in.

Ah, so let's come up with a lie so that when we show them the truth they will accept it. Good plan.
No, not really.

 

[KWCrazy]

Creationism and ID is one and the same for all practical purposes. Just because you personaly dislike something doesnt make it something it isnt.

No, they're not.
Creationism accepts that the Lord made man in his own image; that the six day creation is a literal fact and that sickness and death came into the world though Adam's sin.

ID pretends that God had a hand in guiding the evolution of the world but that He had no direct action after the initial first cause. It attempts to compromise truth (creation) with a lie (evolution) and the result is of course a lie.

 

[rjs330]

No, they're not.
Creationism accepts that the Lord made man in his own image; that the six day creation is a literal fact and that sickness and death came into the world though Adam's sin.

ID pretends that God had a hand in guiding the evolution of the world but that He had no direct action after the initial first cause. It attempts to compromise truth (creation) with a lie (evolution) and the result is of course a lie.

That's interesting. I haven't looked deeply at ID. My very cursory understanding was that all of the natural world showed ID because of how everything works and that it couldn't have happened by accident.

I thought theistic evolution was the thought process where God created the evolutionary process and set evolution in order.

I'm not doubting you on this cause like I said I never really looked into the deep philosophy of ID.

I use I'd a lot in my arguments with evolutionists. But like I said I come at it that creation shows ID because of how everything works and it could not have happened by evolution.

 

[HitchSlap]

Wow.

You guys love to yak yourself out of understanding things, don't you?

Either that, or you yak until a mistake is made, then the whole point is made into spaghetti.

Intelligent Design is not ... that is not ... en oh tee ... Intelligent Design is not Creationism.

Intelligent Design is an attempt ... an attempt ... a tee tee e em pee tee ... an attempt to inject some kind of science into Creationism.

Some judge ruled correctly that the science that was trying to be snuck into Creationism does not belong there.

Let's simplify this for Occam razor's sake, shall we?

Here it comes ... get ready:

Intelligent Design is not Creationism.

You can argue otherwise if you want to, but it doesn't make it so.

Rearranging letters; creationism >> cdesign proponentsists >> intelligent design, doesn't make it any more scientific.

 

[HitchSlap]

That's interesting. I haven't looked deeply at ID. My very cursory understanding was that all of the natural world showed ID because of how everything works and that it couldn't have happened by accident.

I thought theistic evolution was the thought process where God created the evolutionary process and set evolution in order.

I'm not doubting you on this cause like I said I never really looked into the deep philosophy of ID.

I use I'd a lot in my arguments with evolutionists. But like I said I come at it that creation shows ID because of how everything works and it could not have happened by evolution.

Lol. Will you be publishing soon?

The arrogance of those least informed; I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

 

[HitchSlap]

Creationism runs on faith.

Is that why you're having trouble understanding?

Faith is getting in the way, isn't it?

Why shouldn't "faith" get in the way? Isn't it reasonable to have good reasons for believing or accepting something?

If anything, your "faith" prevents you from accepting reality. Remember AV, the bible is myopic, and is less than 1% based on reality.

 

[KWCrazy]

That's interesting. I haven't looked deeply at ID. My very cursory understanding was that all of the natural world showed ID because of how everything works and that it couldn't have happened by accident.

The natural world does show design in everything; from the colors of the flowers to the intricacies of a complex eye. The difference is that ID denies things that are foundational. The six day creation is restated in Exodus when Moses received the ten commandments among other laces. Adam and Even are referenced by Christ in describing marriage and divorce. Adam's sin and the fall of man show the sinful nature of man and his need for a savior. The Great Flood shows the wrath of God against sin and corruption and reiterates that the wages of sin are death. Jesus even said that if you didn't believe what Moses wrote you would not believe in what He taught.

The lost and godless proclaim that the Bible is full of myth and contradictions. They latch onto things that they don't understand to discredit it; like saying that Genesis 2 is a contradictory creation account when anyone reading it knows that it describes the formation of man which was done on day six. ID denies all of this and continues the narrative that Adam and Eve, if they existed at all, were born to the last of the non human progenitors.

The flood is critical. How are we to believe that God will destroy the world in the future if we deny that He destroyed it in the past? The flood is the only time when each kind of animal was reduced to one breeding couple (or more in some cases). All speciation emanates from them. That is the commonality. Common descent is not universal. It has its origins some 4,500 years in the past.

 

[Jimmy D]

Not hardly.

If they are one and the same for all practical purposes, then why did some have to pluto the term in order to inject science into it?

To make it sound credible and sciencey (rather than an anchronistic children's fable) for political reasons.

I mean, they could have even called it "creationism with benefits," but they didn't.

Probably because that would sound stupid, the opposite effect of what they wanted.

And I submit they are not one and the same.

Good for you!

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's interesting. I haven't looked deeply at ID. My very cursory understanding was that all of the natural world showed ID because of how everything works and that it couldn't have happened by accident.

And right away you demonstrate that you have no idea what you are arguing against. The only ones that describe evolution as "by accident" are those that have no understanding at all of how evolution occurred. And there is no evidence at all that anyone has presented yet for ID.

I thought theistic evolution was the thought process where God created the evolutionary process and set evolution in order.

There are variations on the theme.

I'm not doubting you on this cause like I said I never really looked into the deep philosophy of ID.

Since it never supported its claims in the first place there is not much point in doing so.

I use I'd a lot in my arguments with evolutionists. But like I said I come at it that creation shows ID because of how everything works and it could not have happened by evolution.

Sorry but you are simply mistaken. Your inability to understand evolution does not mean that it could not have happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The natural world does show design in everything; from the colors of the flowers to the intricacies of a complex eye. The difference is that ID denies things that are foundational. The six day creation is restated in Exodus when Moses received the ten commandments among other laces. Adam and Even are referenced by Christ in describing marriage and divorce. Adam's sin and the fall of man show the sinful nature of man and his need for a savior. The Great Flood shows the wrath of God against sin and corruption and reiterates that the wages of sin are death. Jesus even said that if you didn't believe what Moses wrote you would not believe in what He taught.

The lost and godless proclaim that the Bible is full of myth and contradictions. They latch onto things that they don't understand to discredit it; like saying that Genesis 2 is a contradictory creation account when anyone reading it knows that it describes the formation of man which was done on day six. ID denies all of this and continues the narrative that Adam and Eve, if they existed at all, were born to the last of the non human progenitors.

The flood is critical. How are we to believe that God will destroy the world in the future if we deny that He destroyed it in the past? The flood is the only time when each kind of animal was reduced to one breeding couple (or more in some cases). All speciation emanates from them. That is the commonality. Common descent is not universal. It has its origins some 4,500 years in the past.

Even people with just a high school level of education can see that there never was a great flood, if they can be honest with themselves. The question is can you be honest with yourself?

 

[KWCrazy]

The arrogance of those least informed; I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

My sentiments exactly.
It's sad to think that there are still people in this world so deluded as to believe that we live in a strictly physical existence; that there is neither consequence of evil nor reward for altruism. They cannot see the true wonder of the world around them. They don't know peace because they deny the Prince of Peace. They find their escape through alcohol and drugs rather than in communion with the Creator. The deny the history of man with his creator and scoff at those who came before who now are merely worm food.

They who call themselves the best informed are the least informed. They who brag at their knowledge of physical things know nothing else. The testimony of those who have encountered entities great and malevolent they discard as prattle. The changing grace of Christ their eyes cannot behold. The world they think they live in does not exist. Our existence in this world is temporary at best; a brief transience to determine our worth in eternity. Humble themselves before God? Not hardly.

 

[HitchSlap]

My sentiments exactly.
It's sad to think that there are still people in this world so deluded as to believe that we live in a strictly physical existence; that there is neither consequence of evil nor reward for altruism. They cannot see the true wonder of the world around them. They don't know peace because they deny the Prince of Peace. They find their escape through alcohol and drugs rather than in communion with the Creator. The deny the history of man with his creator and scoff at those who came before who now are merely worm food.

They who call themselves the best informed are the least informed. They who brag at their knowledge of physical things know nothing else. The testimony of those who have encountered entities great and malevolent they discard as prattle. The changing grace of Christ their eyes cannot behold. The world they think they live in does not exist. Our existence in this world is temporary at best; a brief transience to determine our worth in eternity. Humble themselves before God? Not hardly.

Tl;dr