- Aug 12, 2003
- 5,373
- 998
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
To me that's like being a better flat earther. Yeah you're better at something but so?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
To me that's like being a better flat earther. Yeah you're better at something but so?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.
Makes one wonder why they continue to exist.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.
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?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.
To me that's like being a better flat earther. Yeah you're better at something but so?
Truth. Consistency. Intellectual honesty. And some humility.What else do you want?
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.
Truth. Consistency. Intellectual honesty. And some humility.
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.
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.
Yes.
It's too bad creationists have never provided a biologically valid definition of "kind".
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.
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.
We'll just have to wait, then. In the meantime, biology is good enough to be going on with.In the end ALL of the knowledge of Biology will be corrected and then you will just have to learn it all over again.
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.
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.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 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."..It's not treasonous to offer people alternatives.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?