Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[disciple Clint]

Yes, that is all very well, and is only a very slight misrepresentation of Penrose (who is an atheist) but it has nothing whatever to do with Intelligent Design.

Maybe we do not agree on what intelligent design is. I believe that God specifically designed the universe and the earth to make it fit man's needs. what is your concept?

 

[disciple Clint]

What a fib. You have provided NO evidence of ID. You haven't even discussed it except to claim that you have evidence of it, and then you go back to quoting Father Spitzer who doesn't even believe in ID much less provide any evidence of it.

What are you up to here? You claim to have evidence of ID, you provide evidence which has nothing to do with ID and want us to refute it? Why? So you can go off boasting you presented evidence of ID which we couldn't refute?

see post 241

 

[Astrid]

I see anyone who does not agree with you is uneducated. Has absolutely noting to do with incomplete sentences that have no context.

It's true what I said about uneducated people.
Trying turn that back on me by bearing false vwitness
is shoddy, and perhaps unchristian. What do you
think of making up falsehoods to try to discredit
someone? Should you double down or take it back ?
Much is revealed in the choice.

The problem for people pretending there is science to
disprove evolution is that there is no disproof.
Uneducated people are easy to dupe with fast talk.
I'd never trust myself to buy a used car, but clueless
creationists happily fall for anything. "Paluxy man tracks "

 

[Speedwell]

Maybe we do not agree on what intelligent design is. I believe that God specifically designed the universe and the earth to make it fit man's needs. what is your concept?

Intelligent Design is a conjecture about biological life which rests on the assumption that the evolutionary process of variation and natural selection is not sufficient in all cases to produce the functional complexity which we observe in nature, that some biological structures would have required the intervention of an intelligent designer. ID does not treat of cosmology and just saying "God designed the universe" is not ID. ID is a specific proposal of the Discovery Institute of Seattle intended as a "wedge" (their language, not mine) to eventually force biblical creationism into public school science instruction alongside or even instead of biological evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd never trust myself to buy a used car, but clueless creationists happily fall for anything. "Paluxy man tracks "

Did they happily fall for Nebraska Man?

 

[Astrid]

Ask God! Hebrews 11:1 (NET 2.1), "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see."

Believe me, if it's the Holy Spirit "telling" you the truth you will know it.

A Mormon doing missionary work in China told
me he knew the whole Joseph Smith / gold book
story was true because God unmistakably told him
it is all true.

 

[renniks]

Do you have the right person here in your reply?
I've not ever communicated with you as far as I can remember, though there is the possibility somewhere maybe.

What caused me to respond to renniks post is the idea of imperfection and brokenness associated with sadness as it pertains to the death of someone. I have the hardest time understanding that kind of thought think. So I added my own thoughts.

Death itself is due to the brokeness of a cursed world. If the person who " dies" is saved, there's really no need to be sad. The sadness is for us, not them.
Solomon says the day of mourning is better. What does he mean?

 

[Astrid]

Death itself is due to the brokeness of a cursed world. If the person who " dies" is saved, there's really no need to be sad. The sadness is for us, not them.
Solomon says the day of mourning is better. What does he mean?

So weird. God is perfect goodness but everything he made is bad?

 

[disciple Clint]

Intelligent Design is a conjecture about biological life which rests on the assumption that the evolutionary process of variation and natural selection is not sufficient in all cases to produce the functional complexity which we observe in nature, that some biological structures would have required the intervention of an intelligent designer. ID does not treat of cosmology and just saying "God designed the universe" is not ID. ID is a specific proposal of the Discovery Institute of Seattle intended as a "wedge" (their language, not mine) to eventually force biblical creationism into public school science instruction alongside or even instead of biological evolution.

Seems we are both right so my evidence is relevant to our discussion and provides evidence of intelligent design.
" Intelligent Design has been defined by its proponents as the idea that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause." This "intelligent cause" is often assumed to be God. Despite this, some have tried to portray Intelligent Design as a fledgling scientific theory, almost ready to be embraced by mainstream science. Detractors have argued that Intelligent Design is nothing more than creationism in disguise." https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/id_checklist

 

[AV1611VET]

A Mormon doing missionary work in China told
me he knew the whole Joseph Smith / gold book story was true because God unmistakably told him
it is all true.

Did you believe him?

If not, okay with you if I don't believe him either?

 

[Speedwell]

Seems we are both right so my evidence is relevant to our discussion and provides evidence of intelligent design.

Sort of, although "fine tuning" arguments of the Kind Fr. Spitzer makes are not unique or specific to ID, which in any case the Roman Catholic church has rejected. If you really want to argue against ID you will have to start talking about such things as "specified information" and "irreducible complexity." ID is really about evolution.

But I wonder why you are here at all. You seem to be arguing for God and Christianity, not creationism specifically. Such a discussion is not appropriate in this forum, where there are Christians on both sides of the issue.

 

[Frank Robert]

Seems we are both right so my evidence is relevant to our discussion and provides evidence of intelligent design.
" Intelligent Design has been defined by its proponents as the idea that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause." This "intelligent cause" is often assumed to be God. Despite this, some have tried to portray Intelligent Design as a fledgling scientific theory, almost ready to be embraced by mainstream science. Detractors have argued that Intelligent Design is nothing more than creationism in disguise." https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/id_checklist

Do creationists live in a bubble? ID is not science.

See: The Wedge Document

(Note - This is the text of the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document," prepared in 1998. It lays out "the Wedge strategy" by which the newly-formed Center for Renewal of Science and Culture would promote "intelligent design" creationism.)​

See: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Decision

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. ... It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.​

 

[renniks]

So weird. God is perfect goodness but everything he made is bad?

You do understand that according to Christian theology the world has been under a curse since the end of Eden? These are just the basics of our faith, that everyone should know if they are going to argue against it.

 

[Frank Robert]

You do understand that according to Christian theology the world has been under a curse since the end of Eden? These are just the basics of our faith, that everyone should know if they are going to argue against it.

That is a problem. An all knowing God is punishing the world for the sins of A & E that he knew before creating that they would fail his testing through the serpent.

 

[Astrid]

You do understand that according to Christian theology the world has been under a curse since the end of Eden? These are just the basics of our faith, that everyone should know if they are going to argue against it.

Actually I am aware of that strange idea. I was not asking
a question, I was stating the idea in simple terms.
And I was not arguing against it, so wrong on that too.

 

[dlamberth]

So weird. God is perfect goodness but everything he made is bad?

The Bible says that God said what He created is very good.
It's just so weird to me that the Christian mind set is to go to the bad, the evil, the broken. When I look around, nature is wonderful, vibrant and alive with creativity and life.

 

[Astrid]

The Bible says that God said what He created is very good.
It's just so weird to me that the Christian mind set is to go to the bad, the evil, the broken. When I look around, nature is wonderful, vibrant and alive with creativity and life.

It has a lot of sad consequences including no need to
care for this bad place that is fixing to get scrapped for
a better one

 

[dlamberth]

You do understand that according to Christian theology the world has been under a curse since the end of Eden? These are just the basics of our faith, that everyone should know if they are going to argue against it.

This is my own reflection, mind you. But I truly do believe that if the basics of the Christian faith was "Love", that there would be absolutely nothing to argue against. But that's pretty hard to do when it's evil, the broken, the supposed curse and Satan that's being preached. That's just my take is all.

 

[renniks]

That is a problem. An all knowing God is punishing the world for the sins of A & E that he knew before creating that they would fail his testing through the serpent.

Why is it a problem? Do you think you understand the mind of God?

 

[renniks]

The Bible says that God said what He created is very good.
It's just so weird to me that the Christian mind set is to go to the bad, the evil, the broken. When I look around, nature is wonderful, vibrant and alive with creativity and life.

It is, but but nature is also bloody and violent and cruel by humans standards. Nature has no standard of good or evil. And many people are also evil and hateful and cruel. That's just reality. If one doesn't see sin in this world, either he's deliberately ignoring it or he's given into it completely.