My Creationism vs Intelligent Design Challenge

[AV1611VET]

I'd call you the truly ignorant one here, but I've seen how much misguided pride you take from being called ignorant.

If you want to play the Ignorant Card, I already pointed out that you're 8½ times more ignorant as to what I believe and say than the old timers here are.

And you've been here 15 months and still don't know what I believe or say.

But still, the fact remains: your claim that you hold scientists to a higher standard than the majority of people on this forum is completely false.

Wow.

I say scientists are gifted to us from God, and you say that's not holding scientists up to a higher standard?

Even people who don't believe in God would realize I'm holding scientists up to a higher standard.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you want to play the Ignorant Card, I already pointed out that you're 8½ times more ignorant as to what I believe and say than the old timers here are.

And you've been here 15 months and still don't know what I believe or say.

I've been a lurker of this site since 2010. Although since you basically repeat the same shtick ad nauseam anyway, length of time doesn't mean squat.

Wow.

I say scientists are gifted to us from God, and you say that's not holding scientists up to a higher standard?

Even people who don't believe in God would realize I'm holding scientists up to a higher standard.

But you constantly denigrate and deride science. You never bring up any of the good things from science, and when someone else does, you counter it by bringing up your pet love-hate relationships with Thalidomide, LSD, the Challenger Disaster, Deepwater Horizon et al.
That's not you holding up science, that's you being a hypocrite of the highest order.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you constantly denigrate and deride science.

And why did I say I do that?

Can you tell me, lurker since 2010, why I say it looks like I'm more against science than I am for it?

And while we're on the subject, here's another multiple choice for you:

How much of science do I claim I agree with?

1. 1%
2. 2%
3. 95%

0 for 4 now.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And why did I say I do that?

Can you tell me, lurker since 2010, why I say it looks like I'm more against science than I am for it?

And while we're on the subject, here's another multiple choice for you:

How much of science do I claim I agree with?

1. 1%
2. 2%
3. 95%

Nope. I'm not playing any of your games. I know what you've written, plain as day. You say that you hold science and scientists to a higher degree than most people, but you never show it. End of.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. I'm not playing any of your games. I know what you've written, plain as day. You say that you hold science and scientists to a higher degree than most people, but you never show it. End of.

Suit yourself.

 

[Loudmouth]

Full disclosure, I withdrew from my biology course so I guess you have me at a disadvantage when it comes to what the chemical make up of things are.

I do remember some things like everything we know of is built from atoms, protons, and electrons etc. So with that being the basic building block of what any substance is, I would say yes, water and carbon dioxide are designed just as a cell is with the caveat that a cell is a much more complex design.

To the second question, it's a bit like the first. I will say yes as far as I know, a cell is different from a rock in the same way a diamond is different than a zircon but way way different and more complex chemical structures.

I have a feeling with these answers I have somehow just set myself up to have made some big mistake in biology or chemistry. The questions seem too easy to answer with my "blueprint" analogy.

When everything is said to be designed, then design is pretty meaningless.

For the most part, ID supporters state that something is not designed if it is a product of natural processes. The type of ID they put forward requires supernatural intervention that produces outcomes that natural mechanisms could not produce. This would mean that rocks are not designed. They think that God had to intervene in the case of life and produce outcomes that would not occur naturally. This is why you see many ID supporters arguing against evolution and abiogenesis.

 

[rturner76]

When everything is said to be designed, then design is pretty meaningless.

For the most part, ID supporters state that something is not designed if it is a product of natural processes. The type of ID they put forward requires supernatural intervention that produces outcomes that natural mechanisms could not produce. This would mean that rocks are not designed. They think that God had to intervene in the case of life and produce outcomes that would not occur naturally. This is why you see many ID supporters arguing against evolution and abiogenesis.

I see I have misunderstood the meaning of Intelligent Design and therefore misrepresented it. I was under the impression that ID believed in evolution but thought it was created or "designed" by some form of higher "intelligence" and that this "higher intelligence" designed "everything." Plus I would have taken it a step further to say this higher power also sustains all things by designing nature to sustain itself

 

[Loudmouth]

I see I have misunderstood the meaning of Intelligent Design and therefore misrepresented it. I was under the impression that ID believed in evolution but thought it was created or "designed" by some form of higher "intelligence" and that this "higher intelligence" designed "everything." Plus I would have taken it a step further to say this higher power also sustains all things by designing nature to sustain itself

Historically, the idea that God set up nature and then let nature run its course is described as Deism and Pantheism. Theists accept the idea of Deism but also believe in a more personal and spiritual involvement with God than that described in Deism and Pantheism.

ID is just creationism by another name. ID is primarily a theistic reaction against the idea of evolution and abiogenesis. It's primary goal is to give the appearance of being scientific so that it can get past the ban on creationism in public school classrooms. It's secondary goal is to give some Christians a false sense of justification for believing in creationism. Of course, Christianity doesn't require the rejection of evolution or abiogenesis. I have always tried to describe Christians separately from Creationists.

 

[Speedwell]

I see I have misunderstood the meaning of Intelligent Design and therefore misrepresented it. I was under the impression that ID believed in evolution but thought it was created or "designed" by some form of higher "intelligence" and that this "higher intelligence" designed "everything." Plus I would have taken it a step further to say this higher power also sustains all things by designing nature to sustain itself

That is a form of what is known as Theistic Evolution--which is pretty much what I believe.
ID boosters are looking for something different; they want to show God's greasy fingerprints on the machinery as "scientific proof" for atheists. That is why they propose a designer who has to intervene periodically on the production line to do things that natural forces can't accomplish. First, they have to show that there are things that natural forces can't accomplish, critical biological structures which cannot be built entirely by variation and selection. So far, no luck.

 

[rturner76]

That is a form of what is known as Theistic Evolution--which is pretty much what I believe.
ID boosters are looking for something different; they want to show God's greasy fingerprints on the machinery as "scientific proof" for atheists. That is why they propose a designer who has to intervene periodically on the production line to do things that natural forces can't accomplish. First, they have to show that there are things that natural forces can't accomplish, critical biological structures which cannot be built entirely by variation and selection. So far, no luck.

Right, I basically just believe in evolution but I believe God created the natural process. I have a hard time believing it all just happened from nothing.

 

[rturner76]

Historically, the idea that God set up nature and then let nature run its course is described as Deism and Pantheism. Theists accept the idea of Deism but also believe in a more personal and spiritual involvement with God than that described in Deism and Pantheism.

ID is just creationism by another name. ID is primarily a theistic reaction against the idea of evolution and abiogenesis. It's primary goal is to give the appearance of being scientific so that it can get past the ban on creationism in public school classrooms. It's secondary goal is to give some Christians a false sense of justification for believing in creationism. Of course, Christianity doesn't require the rejection of evolution or abiogenesis. I have always tried to describe Christians separately from Creationists.

So I guess when it comes to creation I am a Deist, a Pantheist, or more appropriately, a theistic evolutionist. I do choose to attempt to contact/communicate with the higher universal power whom I choose to call God in the language or custom of a Roman Catholic. I have yet to receive a conscious audible or visual response to my communication attempts which I call prayer. However I do still enjoy the communion (common-union) with my fellow Catholics and Christians and actually any mono theist. I find comfort in the customs and rituals I participate in and the rules and precepts I follow make it easy for me to live with others in society, easy to live with my own short comings and be of assistance to those in need. I don't know why I felt I had to explain that but there it is.

 

[AV1611VET]

So I guess when it comes to creation I am a Deist, a Pantheist, or more appropriately, a theistic evolutionist.

Please keep this in mind:

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

 

[rturner76]

Please keep this in mind:

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Is the implication here that God sends Christians to hell if they believe in theistic evolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is the implication here that God sends Christians to hell if they believe in theistic evolution?

No.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No.

Then who cares?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then who cares?

You?

 

[TLK Valentine]

You?

Wrong. I don't care if belief in theistic evolution will or won't damn people to Hell. Did you think I did?

 

[AV1611VET]

Wrong. I don't care if belief in theistic evolution will or won't damn people to Hell. Did you think I did?

I thought you did at one time.

Or do I have you mixed up with someone else?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I thought you did at one time.

Or do I have you mixed up with someone else?

You most likely do.

I might have cared about people going to hell or not, but I never once believed (or cared) that something as theologically trivial as theistic evolution could mean the difference between salvation and damnation.

Did you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you?

Not at first.

Right now, I'm up in the air about it.

If I had to guess, I would say they are saved.