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

[Larniavc]

All the parts of the eye must be there or it can not serve its function. the odds are so great against evolution building the eye over time by modifying or cobbling together per-existing parts are so great that that the eye must designed.

He’s wrong about that. Eyes with fewer functional features exist.

 

[Larniavc]

Well if I see anything built by man that is beautiful and functional, I certainly would never assume it just came to be all by itself.

What criteria would you use to identify something as built by a person?

 

[Larniavc]

if anyone ever detected ic they might be able
to define this dubious distinction.

Hiya, love your stuff. Can you please stop pressing ‘enter’ partway through your sentences? It’s killing me.

 

[Larniavc]

Welcome back @lesliedellow .. Its nice to have your contributions again!
Nice post ..
(That's the first time I've seen that the purpose of posting here, is to 'win' arguments though .. I must have joined for a 'wrong' reason? .. ) Has anyone ever 'won an argument' here, I wonder? Cheers

I have.

 

[Larniavc]

Here you go.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Can be used as a paperweight with bits missing.

 

[Speedwell]

it is

And you know this how? Can you cite some individuals who attempt to detect human design in artifacts, paleontologists, perhaps?

 

[disciple Clint]

You have arrived at a logical contradication then ..
Ie: there must be no purpose evident in God's supposed creations, of both humans and the universe, because he has is no needs. There is thus also, no design evident ..
?

God designed the universe to be an ideal place for man to live, that is a purpose. God made man to rule the universe, that is a purpose. God made man in His own image, that is a design.

 

[Speedwell]

how do you qualify to say how things on this forum are defined?

I am qualified by long participation to observe how discussions in this forum are usually conducted and to pass that observation on to you. You can make of it what you will.

Did you miss the statement of dogma, I doubt that the Pope disregards it, it clearly addresses creation of everything by God. He is simply saying that creationism can coexist with evolutionism.
Any Catholic theory must adhere to the following Dogmas:

1. God created everything out of nothing ("ex nihlo" in Latin)
2. God created an orderly universe (the universe is not a product of chance)
3. God sustained everything in being (everything depends on God for existence) Creation

And I believe and support every word of that. It's what my own church teaches and what the Catholics taught me all through school. That doesn't make me a creationist; those beliefs are largely common to both creationist and non-creationist Christians. My question is, why do you bring those doctrines up in a thread devoted to the gap between creationists and non-creationists?

 

[Speedwell]

God designed the universe to be an ideal place for man to live, that is a purpose. God made man to rule the universe, that is a purpose. God made man in His own image, that is a design.

And God must tinker periodically with the molecular genetics of his creatures so they will turn out the way He wants; that's ID.

 

[disciple Clint]

And you know this how? Can you cite some individuals who attempt to detect human design in artifacts, paleontologists, perhaps?

why not just look at the history of human tools?

 

[Speedwell]

why not just look at the history of human tools?

Like the example of the rock being discussed earlier?

 

[Astrid]

Hiya, love your stuff. Can you please stop pressing ‘enter’ partway through your sentences? It’s killing me.

Sorryah, it's a thing with posting with a phone. I will try to remedy it.

 

[Frank Robert]

If it is not measured how can one reliably infer ‘too much complexity’? The very concept implies a quantitive measurement.

It appears creationist think that probability is a measurement as they focus their argument on the minuscule probability of evolutionary. It's the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

 

[Frank Robert]

God made man in His own image, that is a design.

See: Quirks and Glitches of the Human Body | Nathan Lents

 

[Astrid]

Jesus said he is the bread of life and he is living water.
Also, we are told that he holds all matter together.
I love the natural world, but it points me to the Creator, not to itself.

Such points not to a creator, but to thee.

 

[Astrid]

See: Quirks and Glitches of the Human Body | Nathan Lents

A person who has actually studied anatomy is simultaneously impressed
by the marvellous intricasy and complexity, and by how clunky and
makeshift so much of it is.

Those who have not will no doubt scoff and deny, but it's because they don't have a clue, and feel obligated by religion to say it ain't so.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can be used as a paperweight with bits missing.

When I see you catch mice with a paperweight with bits missing, I'll take your point a little more seriously.

Until then, I submit that that mousetrap cannot do its job as designed, if you remove one component of it.

Thus it is irreducibly complex.

Here's another good example of irreducible complexity:

Remove one component of the following, and see if you get the same result:

Spoiler: the following

1 + 1 = 2

 

[AV1611VET]

God designed the universe to be an ideal place for man to live, that is a purpose. God made man to rule the universe, that is a purpose. God made man in His own image, that is a design.

I'm thankful we serve a God who can defy all logic and is so far above our best minds.

When I see educated people who can't figure out what life is, design is, or whatever is, I get goosebumps.

I can't figure those out either, but I'm not too proud that I can't admit that I'm an idjit.

I wear my ignorance like a badge.

 

[AV1611VET]

That doesn't make me a creationist;

Just in case you don't know, Wikipedia says the following about theistic evolutionists:

Theistic evolution, theistic evolutionism, evolutionary creationism, or God-guided evolution are views that regard religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution.

SOURCE

 

[Speedwell]

Just in case you don't know, Wikipedia says the following about theistic evolutionists:

SOURCE

Right. That makes me a theistic evolutionist, not a creationist.