My Creationism vs Intelligent Design Challenge

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Did it occur to you that by making the options the way I did, it gives those who would not vote NO extra weight by including those who would vote YES?

So if the YESSES outnumber the OTHERS after seven days, that's a big plus for my side.

So if I was you, I would definitely vote NO, just to drown out the YES.

Of course, you can always romp & stomp until the last minute.

It's your choice.

What you just wrote made no sense.

 

[AV1611VET]

My vote would be misinterpreted if I bothered to do so.

Only by those who wouldn't bother to read the comments.

Don't be afraid being misunderstood by those who won't read the documentation.

 

[juvenissun]

Is Creationism the same thing as Intelligent Design?

Please note, I am asking if Creationism is the same thing as Intelligent Design.

I am not asking if Intelligent Design is the same thing as Creationism.

Some people think Creationism gave rise to Intelligent Design.

I don't, and I'm asking if Creationism is the same thing as Intelligent Design.

As far as the definitions of the two terms are concerned, use your own understanding.

Creationism includes ID.

 

[Loudmouth]

Though Theistic Evolution does explain a natural phenomenon, it is based on the facts contained within the theory of evolution thus making it a theory. The theistic portion is simply an addition to the theory

If people want to believe that processes already explained by natural mechanisms also include the undetectable actions of a deity, then all the more power to them. However, they really aren't explaining anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is Creationism the same thing as Intelligent Design?

If creationism were a species called Creatura, then intelligent design would be its subspecies Creatura Absconditus (hidden creationism)

Please note, I am asking if Creationism is the same thing as Intelligent Design.
I am not asking if Intelligent Design is the same thing as Creationism.
Some people think Creationism gave rise to Intelligent Design.

It did. More specifically, ID rised out of the failure of creationism.
Same stuff at bottom, in a new coat. A coat that intentionally looks like a lab coat, at first sight.

I don't, and I'm asking if Creationism is the same thing as Intelligent Design.

At bottom, yes.

 

[rturner76]

If people want to believe that processes already explained by natural mechanisms also include the undetectable actions of a deity, then all the more power to them. However, they really aren't explaining anything.

Not even necessarily a "deity"as it were but a "creative force" that took the water from having no life in it to having a functional reproducing cell in it. Wouldn't it seem logical to hypothesize that "something" made that happen?

 

[Loudmouth]

Not even necessarily a "deity"as it were but a "creative force" that took the water from having no life in it to having a functional reproducing cell in it. Wouldn't it seem logical to hypothesize that "something" made that happen?

If you are talking about the origin of life, then that would be separate from theistic evolution. As to the origin of life, "God did it" really doesn't explain much, either.

As to theistic evolution, the idea is that God acts through nature in a way that is indistinguishable from nature acting on its own. That really doesn't add anything to our explanation of how life changed over time once it was here, but there is no law forcing people to believe in things that help explain nature. Good explanations tend to be those that are most parsimonious (i.e. having the fewest unevidenced assumptions).

 

[Subduction Zone]

The beginning of the Universe is the beginning of life. It's the beginning of everything known. Even still, something caused the beginning of life on Earth. There wasn't an amoeba there before, now there is, it was put there no?

The beginning of the universe predated the beginning of life on Earth by roughly ten billion years. Please do not conflate the two.

Theory:
The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another (Merriam-Webster)

Thank you for not admitting that you know what a theory is. Why did you go to a bad source? One never uses a common dictionary for a technological term. You should have looked up the definition of a scientific theory at the very least.

Myth:
a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon

Or in better words a tale that never happened. Since we know that there never were only two people we know that the Adam and Eve myth never happened. And let's not even bring up the Noah's Ark tale.

Though Theistic Evolution does explain a natural phenomenon, it is based on the facts contained within the theory of evolution thus making it a theory. The theistic portion is simply an addition to the theory

No, you still have no clue as to what a theory is. Why don't you ask properly. Using a dictionary for a technical term is a rather trollish act. It is best not to post in such a manner.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not even necessarily a "deity"as it were but a "creative force" that took the water from having no life in it to having a functional reproducing cell in it. Wouldn't it seem logical to hypothesize that "something" made that happen?

If you could think of someway to test that. Tell me, what reasonable test would show that idea to be wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only by those who wouldn't bother to read the comments.

Don't be afraid being misunderstood by those who won't read the documentation.

Not every one will read the comments and for those that do your "poll" is superfluous.

 

[AirPo]

After thinking about it, I voted no. I don't think any of the big name ID proponents actually believe any of it. I think they all knew it was an elaborate scam attempting to con getting creationism as science.

 

[rturner76]

The beginning of the universe predated the beginning of life on Earth by roughly ten billion years. Please do not conflate the two.

Actually, in both situations, there was some kind of void, then something happens and as a result there is a change. The Big Bang, the universe was the result of something happening. On Earth, the amoeba was the result of something happening.

No, you still have no clue as to what a theory is. Why don't you ask properly. Using a dictionary for a technical term is a rather trollish act. It is best not to post in such a manner.

You are correct in that the theistic portion of whay would be the hypothesis remains "untested" thus it technically cannot be theory. I have a crude experiment to test it.......Take a few small stones and place them in a bowl of distilled water and salt. Put the saline mixture in a vacuum container and wait for an amoeba to form.

On another note I must say, though it is each of our right and pleasure to put forth whatever effort we see fit in this forum. I believe the experience is much more enjoyable for everyone if instead of belittling our fellow posters with arrogance if we feel intellectually superior, we use our gifts to teach one another thereby advancing the conversation in a positive constructive way instead of taking snide jabs at one another possibly degrading the discourse to petty bickering

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually, in both situations, there was some kind of void, then something happens and as a result there is a change. The Big Bang, the universe was the result of something happening. On Earth, the amoeba was the result of something happening.

I'ld say that the scales of these events are slightly different.

Having said that, I actually expect the difference between non-life and life, at its most basic primitive levels, to not be that big of a difference.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually, in both situations, there was some kind of void, then something happens and as a result there is a change.

That could describe cloud formation. Do you think cloud formation requires a deity acting through supernatural means?

You are correct in that the theistic portion of whay would be the hypothesis remains "untested" thus it technically cannot be theory. I have a crude experiment to test it.......Take a few small stones and place them in a bowl of distilled water and salt. Put the saline mixture in a vacuum container and wait for an amoeba to form.

If an amoeba does not form, does that prove God doesn't exist since we didn't see God creating an amoeba?

On another note I must say, though it is each of our right and pleasure to put forth whatever effort we see fit in this forum. I believe the experience is much more enjoyable for everyone if instead of belittling our fellow posters with arrogance if we feel intellectually superior, we use our gifts to teach one another thereby advancing the conversation in a positive constructive way instead of taking snide jabs at one another possibly degrading the discourse to petty bickering

The problem that some of us run into is that "God did it" marks the end of knowledge, the end of anyone seeking an explanation. "God did it" is just a dead end. It is equivalent to saying, "I don't know, and I don't feel like figuring it out".

Not once has "God did it" turned out to be the verified correct answer to anything. Each time we try to find and explanation and actually find one, it turns out to be a natural process that has no observable deity involved. When we see yet another "God did it" explanation for yet another thing we are currently ignorant about, why would we think that this time "God did it" will be the right answer when it was the wrong answer the previous 10 million times?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are correct in that the theistic portion of whay would be the hypothesis remains "untested" thus it technically cannot be theory. I have a crude experiment to test it.......Take a few small stones and place them in a bowl of distilled water and salt. Put the saline mixture in a vacuum container and wait for an amoeba to form.

So you have no clue. Your strawman test is a fail. Please note the use of the term "reasonable". Your test is not reasonable. Perhaps you should study up on abiogenesis first.

On another note I must say, though it is each of our right and pleasure to put forth whatever effort we see fit in this forum. I believe the experience is much more enjoyable for everyone if instead of belittling our fellow posters with arrogance if we feel intellectually superior, we use our gifts to teach one another thereby advancing the conversation in a positive constructive way instead of taking snide jabs at one another possibly degrading the discourse to petty bickering

Please, don't post such obviously false attacks. If you make an error and someone points it out to you the proper way to react is to learn from the experience. Don't make the false assumption that the other person is belittling you. When you go on at length showing a lack of understanding a bit of a reprimand is very often in order.

Try to be honest. Try to learn when your errors are pointed out to you. If you do so the number of "attacks" that you receive will go down over time as you learn.

 

[rturner76]

That could describe cloud formation. Do you think cloud formation requires a deity acting through supernatural means?

A cloud formation, something is there.....moisture

If an amoeba does not form, does that prove God doesn't exist since we didn't see God creating an amoeba?

It probably will.....just wait 4.4 billion years

The problem that some of us run into is that "God did it" marks the end of knowledge, the end of anyone seeking an explanation. "God did it" is just a dead end. It is equivalent to saying, "I don't know, and I don't feel like figuring it out".

Not once has "God did it" turned out to be the verified correct answer to anything. Each time we try to find and explanation and actually find one, it turns out to be a natural process that has no observable deity involved. When we see yet another "God did it" explanation for yet another thing we are currently ignorant about, why would we think that this time "God did it" will be the right answer when it was the wrong answer the previous 10 million times?

God did it every time we just didn't know how ha ha. I'm not saying God did there is no other answer. That would be closed minded. I feel like to say God never did anything is also closed minded Of you can't say how it was done, you can't rule it out. I think people get hung upon the deity of God. I see it as "Good Orderly Direction" a creative force with no body.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A cloud formation, something is there.....moisture

You dodged the question.

It probably will.....just wait 4.4 billion years

I can see that you do not realize how debating is done. Part of a debate is honestly answering the questions of others. If you can't do that then you have as much as admitted that you are wrong. You and I both know that you have no test. That means by definition you don't have scientific evidence for your beliefs. Now a creationist may be able to develop a reasonable test, but since the tend to know that their beliefs are wrong they shy away from doing that.

God did it every time we just didn't know how ha ha. I'm not saying God did there is no other answer. That would be closed minded. I feel like to say God never did anything is also closed minded Of you can't say how it was done, you can't rule it out. I think people get hung upon the deity of God. I see it as "Good Orderly Direction" a creative force with no body.

Yet there is nothing that creationists can point to that could not have happened without a god.

 

[rturner76]

I can see that you do not realize how debating is done. Part of a debate is honestly answering the questions of others. If you can't do that then you have as much as admitted that you are wrong. You and I both know that you have no test. That means by definition you don't have scientific evidence for your beliefs. Now a creationist may be able to develop a reasonable test, but since the tend to know that their beliefs are wrong they shy away from doing that.

I have the test,it just takes a long time to complete

Yet there is nothing that creationists can point to that could not have happened without a god.

Not positive but that could be why they are called creationists?
I'm a Theistic Evolutionist, isn't that a little different?

 

[Belk]

Is Creationism the same thing as Intelligent Design?

Please note, I am asking if Creationism is the same thing as Intelligent Design.

I am not asking if Intelligent Design is the same thing as Creationism.

Some people think Creationism gave rise to Intelligent Design.

I don't, and I'm asking if Creationism is the same thing as Intelligent Design.

As far as the definitions of the two terms are concerned, use your own understanding.

Not in the way that you define creationism, no.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not in the way that you define creationism, no.

From the OP:

As far as the definitions of the two terms are concerned, use your own understanding.