Nothing changes in this forum.

[Phred]

Of course, the topics will hardly change. But that is not the point.
People change. That is the main function of this forum.
I was a creationist. I am still a creationist. Did I change?
Of course. now, I am a better creationist, a more faithful creationist.

To me that's like being a better flat earther. Yeah you're better at something but so?

 

[Phred]

Well, everyone has their own paradigm, or way of thinking at least. I don’t think many people significantly change their ideas based on short online discussions.

Makes one wonder why they continue to exist.

 

[Phred]

Well look if you asking me to write a scientific paper on common design your in for a disappointing time. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. I'm not a scientist who has gone to school as a career, but I am a thinker. I am an observer. I have common sense and I do read.

How long did it take Darwin to come up with the theory and write it down?

I've got a sneaking suspicion that if I wrote the theory down on this board you wouldn't accept it as scientific enough and start asking me to have it peer reviewed and stuff. So no thanks.

Now if you would be willing to accept my wording and my explanation then I might take a crack at it. But I highly doubt you would be satisfied as it wouldn't be "scientific" enough for you.

Intelligent Design wasn't originally a religious pile of crap. It was originally a theory that was used to determine whether or not code was written by humans or machines. How can you tell? Then the theory branched out. If mankind died off and aliens landed here on earth, how could they tell what was man made and what was natural? What are the defining characteristics? Then GMOs came about. How do we tell what organisms are man made vs. what are natural? So the entire intelligent design movement had a basis in reality. Then came the question. If God made the universe how can we tell? What are the identifying marks on a human being that show we're made and not evolved?

So here you are telling us you're not scientific enough? You're also not original enough. It's all been done before. So don't worry. Just tell us. What proves that a deity created us? Or, if you can't do that tell us, what tells us that Mt. Rushmore is not a naturally occurring phenomenon?

 

[juvenissun]

To me that's like being a better flat earther. Yeah you're better at something but so?

What else do you want?

 

[Shemjaza]

What else do you want?

Truth. Consistency. Intellectual honesty. And some humility.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't believe that to be true at all. As I've found very, very few of the people who don't accept evolution who actually understand evolution. Most of the lack of acceptance comes from refusing to believe that we aren't special creations of a special creator in a special way as described in a special book. Anyone who actually understands what evolution states and how it works isn't the least bit freaked out by it. It's a long, slow, tedious process.

And then yes, there's the turf aspect. I'll give you that.

People accept evolution based on faith in science.

Christians (who) believe in creation do so based on faith that God's word is true.

 

[juvenissun]

Truth. Consistency. Intellectual honesty. And some humility.

You can improve those anywhere anytime on yourself, even in this forum.

 

[Aman777]

There's no evidence for creation. No evidence a god even exists. But the odds of creation are 100%. Evolution on the other hand has been observed and experimented with in all sorts of species all over the world but the odds of it happening are too small to calculate.

False, since there is NO mechanism for showing HOW God's Supreme Intelligence Gen 3:22 got inside Apes. It's a fairy tale and NO God denying evolutionist can explain. Can you or will you just run away again?

BTW, What you claim is "evolution" is nothing more than changes within His and Their kinds. It's too bad you cannot read and comprehend Genesis.

 

[pitabread]

BTW, What you claim is "evolution" is nothing more than changes within His and Their kinds. It's too bad you cannot read and comprehend Genesis.

It's too bad creationists have never provided a biologically valid definition of "kind".

 

[Aman777]

Yes.

Sounds like Trump to me. I don't believe you can. Tell us How and When prehistoric people changed into Humans (descendants of Adam). I predict you will run away long before you can supply a single piece of evidence. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

It's too bad creationists have never provided a biologically valid definition of "kind".

I have. There are only two kinds in Scripture. There is His kinds and Their kinds. His refers to Jesus Who made Adam of the dust of the ground. Humans are His kinds. God (Elohim-The Trinity) are referred to as Their kind or the kind the Trinity creates.

Now, see IF you can understand this verse:

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after His kind, and cattle after Their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after His kind: and God saw that it was good.

The two kinds are very different. Can you tell us how?

 

[Aman777]

To me that's like being a better flat earther.

Adam's small Earth was flat. When the flood reached a depth of 22.5 feet, the mountains were covered.

Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward (22.5 ft) did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Amen?

 

[pitabread]

I have.

I said biologically valid (IOW, something that can be demonstrated with respect to biology).

Or to put it another way, you'd need to be able to demonstrate the existence of "kinds" as a biological reality strictly with respect to biology itself. Merely quoting the Bible doesn't count.

 

[Aman777]

I said biologically valid (IOW, something that can be demonstrated with respect to biology).

Or to put it another way, you'd need to be able to demonstrate the existence of "kinds" as a biological reality strictly with respect to biology itself. Merely quoting the Bible doesn't count.

Who left you in charge of what counts or not? Biology is a Godless man-made scientific consensus of people who think they know more than God. They don't but in their arrogance they are easily led astray. In the end ALL of the knowledge of Biology will be corrected and then you will just have to learn it all over again.

 

[pitabread]

Who left you in charge of what counts or not? Biology is a Godless man-made scientific consensus of people who think they know more than God. They don't but in their arrogance they are easily led astray. In the end ALL of the knowledge of Biology will be corrected and then you will just have to learn it all over again.

Like I said, it's too bad creationists don't have a biologically valid definition of "kind".

 

[Tom 1]

This thread seems to be proving itself!

 

[Speedwell]

In the end ALL of the knowledge of Biology will be corrected and then you will just have to learn it all over again.

We'll just have to wait, then. In the meantime, biology is good enough to be going on with.

 

[bhsmte]

People accept evolution based on faith in science.

Christians (who) believe in creation do so based on faith that God's word is true.

Using the normal definition of faith, there is no faith required to accept science. Trust based on a proven track record, is more like it.

 

[rjs330]

Right. I believe there are truths which science will never be able to demonstrate. But you have "struck a nerve." The only people who are trying to use science to prove the presence of intelligent design in natural objects are doing so for base political purposes; treasonous purposes, as I believe.

I don't think so. People using science to show the presence of design are doing that to try and show the presence of design. The idea is to show truth. Or at the least to give people the alternative to evolution and use science and common sense, observation to show there is an alternative. It's a very hard uphill climb, but as Pita put it it's very difficult to break through the status quo. It can become a political battle because of the forces arrayed against it. Abortion, an evil act, is a political battle too. That's okay. It's what America is built on.

It's not treasonous to offer people alternatives.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't think so. People using science to show the presence of design are doing that to try and show the presence of design. The idea is to show truth. Or at the least to give people the alternative to evolution and use science and common sense, observation to show there is an alternative. It's a very hard uphill climb, but as Pita put it it's very difficult to break through the status quo. It can become a political battle because of the forces arrayed against it. Abortion, an evil act, is a political battle too. That's okay. It's what America is built on.

Design (as purpose or intention) is not an "alternative" to evolution. It is as consistent with evolution as with any other process by which the design (as functional arrangement of components) of living creatures might have been produced.

It's not treasonous to offer people alternatives.

It is if the alternative is to replace constitutional government with a totalitarian theocracy, which is what the Discovery Institute is all about. But that is a topic for another forum; I just mentioned it to tell you why I despise them--and their propaganda, based as it is on the fallacious equivocation of two different meanings of "design."..