Is there a creation theory?

[MoonLancer]

Again, ID may be used as a vehicle for creationism by creationists, but it is not creationism. ID does not cut out evolution, or any scientific theory, since Intelligent Design only implies design.

Id was proposed by creationists for creationists. tell me, have you ever read the wedge document?

 

[MaxP]

Id was proposed by creationists for creationists. tell me, have you ever read the wedge document?

ID proposes one thing. Design. I have no idea why we are even discussing this, it's incredibly stupid that you insist on equating the two. As I said earlier, Im not arguing it should be taught in schools, simply wishing for their to be a distinction. ID simply is the theory that there there is an intelligent design to the universe, which, yes, of course, implies and intelligent designer. That's it. It's simply the definition. Refute its uses if you like, I honestly don't care.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Again, ID may be used as a vehicle for creationism by creationists, but it is not creationism. ID does not cut out evolution, or any scientific theory, since Intelligent Design only implies design.

ID basically was a restructuring of the terms that Creationists used because they were losing completely by using obvious language. ID is simply a backdoor attempt at sneaking in creationism under the cover of psuedo scientific jargon.

Creationists are just such honest forthright people...

 

[Nathan45]

ID proposes one thing. Design. I have no idea why we are even discussing this, it's incredibly stupid that you insist on equating the two.

Max, if you used the words "Teleological Argument" and not "intelligent design" i'd agree with you, but are you aware at all of the history of the "intelligent design" movement?

"Intelligent Design" was coined by an organization called the discovery institute. They're basically creationist hacks and like all creationists they have an extremely bad reputation. The movement behind "Intelligent Design" was a failed attempt at using a backdoor to teach creationism in schools. Some of their arguments they use for "intelligent design" are related to the Teleological argument, which is i think what you're getting at, but other arguments that they use as part of "ID" to set out to disprove evolution are pure nonsense--such as "Irreducible complexity" and "Specified complexity".

If you want to defend the designed aspect of "ID", you should just refer to it as the "Teleological argument" because ID has crankish connotations due to the shenanigans of the discovery institute and it's association with nonsense attempted refutations of evolutionary theory.

 

[dewaddict84]

Evolution can not predict anything.

It can predict that species will change. With time and separation they'll change into different species. With that prediction, it tells us that we need to be concerned if we ever send out colonists to far away planets. Because they won't be human after a while.

Although you may just be nitpicking: while gravity can't predict much, the theory of gravity can lead to scientific breakthroughs. Likewise, the theory of evolution can help predict how fast bacteria will adapt to new drugs. Cause the theory describes how it happens.

... and I surely don't debate it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA, oh WOW!!!


And finally, intelligent design did not occur in a vacuum. While many may read about it, prop it up, and believe in it purely as a theory, they have to admit that the origins of the theory are purely political maneuvering. If you don't admit that, you don't know enough about ID. It doesn't mean it's wrong, but it IS a stain on it's reputation. Furthermore, if you think that evolution and ID are mutually exclusive (if one is right, then the other is wrong), then you don't know enough about about ID.

 

[Washington]

I don't agree with creationism as it opposes evolution and the like, I personally believe evolution is the accurate theory, but ID does not equal creationism. ID and evolution are not at all incompatible. Creationism and evolution are. If you don't want to teach it in schools, I couldn't care less, but it's an important distinction to make.

Let me enlighten you as to the joined-at-the-hip relationship between creationism and ID.

The most decisive--and humorous--evidence is the copyeditor slip-up in the 1987 revised edition of the ID text book, Of Pandas and People (formerly, Creation Biology, Biology and Creation, and Biology and Origins). Going from touting creationism, which had become a no-no in public education, the publisher made a conscious effort to eliminate all references to creationism by substituting the term "intelligent design," or its contextual equivalent. The goof-up occurs on page 3-41, and is illuminated on the Panda's Thumb website as follows:

Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: “Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”

Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”
​

source

In case you missed it:

 

[shernren]

Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”
​

That's not a transitional form, that's two new gaps!

 

[MoonLancer]

ID proposes one thing. Design. I have no idea why we are even discussing this, it's incredibly stupid that you insist on equating the two. As I said earlier, Im not arguing it should be taught in schools, simply wishing for their to be a distinction. ID simply is the theory that there there is an intelligent design to the universe, which, yes, of course, implies and intelligent designer. That's it. It's simply the definition. Refute its uses if you like, I honestly don't care.

Id is not a theory because its not testable in its current form, it has no evidence, and had not started with a hypothesis first. all threads where i have asked for a id hypothesis have continued to go un answered.

I take it then you have not read the wedge document. Please read it first, otherwise your just the mouth peace for someone else.

 

[sbvera13]

ID simply is the theory that there there is an intelligent design to the universe, which, yes, of course, implies and intelligent designer. That's it. It's simply the definition. Refute its uses if you like, I honestly don't care.

If you want to place ID into the same category as Reincarnation, Karma, or Salvation, then by all means do so. That is where it belongs. Don't call it a theory when debating evolution, or in front of scientifically minded people, because our definition of theory is rather strict. Call it philosophy, a postulate, theology, mythology, an argument, whatever. But science it is not, and it has no business being compared to science.

ID proposes one thing. Design. I have no idea why we are even discussing this, it's incredibly stupid that you insist on equating the two.

We equate the two because it's inventors do. That you even use the name ID implies you share their religious opinions, because noone else uses it. Paley's Watchmaker, the Teleological Argument, the Antrhopic Principle, etc, have existed for 1000's of years. That you use ID as your term of choice shows clearly where your source of information comes from. If you picked it up by accident, consider using one of the older, more precise terms to avoid being misunderstood in the future.

 

[BananaSlug]

I must admit, that's pretty brilliant.

Why thank you! I would like to see AV respond but I don't think he will.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Why thank you! I would like to see AV respond but I don't think he will.

The ability of creationists to handwave almost anything away is unfortunately pervasive.

 

[BananaSlug]

Yeah but it gets annoying when they want you to answer all of their questions yet they don't want to/can't answer yours. Maybe now he'll at least drop the "zero energy before creation" routine (especially since the Bible proved him wrong).

 

[AV1611VET]

Why thank you! I would like to see AV respond but I don't think he will.

I'll respond by saying that I think you're confusing the Electromagnetic Spectrum with Shekinah Light.

 

[AV1611VET]

The ability of creationists to handwave almost anything away is unfortunately pervasive.

Like you guys do to anything spiritual, miraculous, or divine?

1. Was there a global flood?
2. Did Jesus walk on water?
3. Did Jesus resurrect from the dead?
4. Was Elijah taken to Heaven in a whirlwind?
5. Did Matthew write the book of Matthew?
6. Wanna take my Apple Challenge?
7. Did the Red Sea part for the Israelites?

"No evidence", you say?

Handwave it bye-bye then.

 

[LightSeaker]

Like you guys do to anything spiritual, miraculous, or divine?

1. Was there a global flood?
2. Did Jesus walk on water?
3. Did Jesus resurrect from the dead?
4. Was Elijah taken to Heaven in a whirlwind?
5. Did Matthew write the book of Matthew?
6. Wanna take my Apple Challenge?
7. Did the Red Sea part for the Israelites?

"No evidence", you say?

Handwave it bye-bye then.

And how are these about creation?
.

 

[BananaSlug]

I'll respond by saying that I think you're confusing the Electromagnetic Spectrum with Shekinah Light.

First of all, if it emits visible light it is in the electromagnetic spectrum. Secondly, the Shekhinah refers to a dwelling or settling in a special sense, a dwelling or settling of divine presence, to the effect that, while in proximity to the Shekhinah, the connection to God is more readily perceivable. It means "the presence of God practically the same as the Greek word "Parousia" also a feminine word (literally: "presence") which is used in a similar way for "Divine Presence".


The original Greek of 1 John 1:5 is "phos foce" meaning actually luminousness -- fire, light.

The word for "light" in Psalms 36:9 is "rwa" and "Krwab" both meaning
1) light 1a) light of day 1b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars) 1c) day-break, dawn, morning light 1d) daylight 1e) lightning 1f) light of lamp 1g) light of life 1h) light of prosperity 1i) light of instruction 1j) light of face (fig.) 1k) Jehovah as Israel's light

And of course the meaning is quite literal in Revelations 22:5. Physical light is emanating from God.

 

[AV1611VET]

And how are these about creation?

They aren't --- let me remind you what I was responding to:

The ability of creationists to handwave almost anything away is unfortunately pervasive.

So I responded with a list of "anything" they too handwave away.

Quid pro quo.

 

[AV1611VET]

First of all, if it emits visible light it is in the electromagnetic spectrum.

You mean, if it emits light in the 430 trillion - 750 trillion Hz range?

Was that the range these guys were transmitting in all along?

And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

---

Secondly, the Shekhinah refers to...

You conveniently dropped a word here --- I said Shekinah Light.

I'm not gonna play games with you guys --- I hope you know that.

 

[MoonLancer]

You mean, if it emits light in the 430 trillion - 750 trillion Hz range?

Was that the range these guys were transmitting in all along?---You conveniently dropped a word here --- I said Shekinah Light.

I'm not gonna play games with you guys --- I hope you know that.

so dwelling light, inhabiting light, settling light somehow invalidates the point that the bible clearly shows energy and matter existing before god created

 

[dewaddict84]

Like you guys do to anything spiritual, miraculous, or divine?

1. Was there a global flood?
2. Did Jesus walk on water?
3. Did Jesus resurrect from the dead?
4. Was Elijah taken to Heaven in a whirlwind?
5. Did Matthew write the book of Matthew?
6. Wanna take my Apple Challenge?
7. Did the Red Sea part for the Israelites?

"No evidence", you say?

None of these are examples of evidence. They're questions about spiritual, miraculous, and divine.Except the apple challenge. If you could try to put forth some examples of evidence, we could refute them. Or provide a more likely and better fitting alternative explanation that doesn't need to break fundamental laws of the physics.

Like seashells on mountaintops. I've heard that one before. And indeed, seashells can be found as fossils in very high locations. That was evidence, an example of something occurring in the real world that lends itself to an theory. They said it means there was a massive flood. I said that the tectonic plates of the earth have shifted over time and that many mountains were once underwater. So the seashells were not washed up there in a 40 day flood, but rather the seabed was eventually raised to a mountain top.

The problem I run into every time I ask this is that people use the bible and references to the bible as evidence. It's a collection of books, and stories, many of them metaphors. Take it as a moral guide, mythical, political, as a source of insight into historical times. But don't take all of it as fact.

Lemme put it this way; it'd be nice and easy if the bible was perfectly clear and perfectly true. That's really not god's way, so you'll have to exercise that head of yours.