Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Last night when I got home I turned on the science network,it seems there Is a group of evolutionist from Europe calling for a new theory concerning evolution because they are admitting the problems with the Neo darwinism theory.

I have said this several times that Neo Darwinism would eventually be discarded for a new theory because it is not a viable theory.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Last night when I got home I turned on the science network,it seems there Is a group of evolutionist from Europe calling for a new theory concerning evolution because they are admitting the problems with the Neo darwinism theory.

I have said this several times that Neo Darwinism would eventually be discarded for a new theory because it is not a viable theory.

Well the debate on this stuff is like any debate. Whatever is the subject is at a disadvantage. People talk about creationism more than evolution with a critical eye, so they are going to pick it apart, but when you look at evolution, it's just as easy to pick it apart. Same with the Big Bang theory.

 

[UltimateReality]

Four laughing smiley faces. Now those are the types of intelligent responses we have come to know and love from Darwinists. Insert face palm here.

I watched the whole thing. His entire premise is based on an argument from ignorance fallacy, that because we can't prove that abiogenesis happened (yet), god did it. This is not proof of god in any way. You can't look at a lack of evidence for any current theories in science and say god did it. That is not evidence. There is no direct evidence for an intelligent designer. Only a lack of evidence for abiogenesis. This is a god of gaps philosophy.

Funny, I don't remember him mentioning God. He said that everywhere we find instructional information in the present world, it has an intelligent source. His argument is that the best explanation for the information we find in DNA is an intelligent agent. No mention of God. Guess that went right over your brainwashed head.

 

[UltimateReality]

So you are now calling me a liar.
Some Christian you are Moe.
LOSER.

I will call you a liar. Remember, we "Creationist" nutbags are all crazy with our religion. You are obviously possessed by Satan, the father of lies, liar. So there you go. There, so now you can put me in my little box. Make you feel better??

No, but if it makes you feel better have at it.
I have been shot at, beat up and left for dead.
I BELIEVE IN CREATION.
But creation is not science.
My religous faith, unlike yours which is so weak you have to argue iT as something it isn't, is so strong I do not need science to validate it.
Beliefs are never science.
YOU can NEVER disprove my religous beliefs. Why? Because they ARE BELIEFS.
You can never PROVE my religous beliefs. Why? Because they are BELIEFS.

Your are committing logical fallacies. Study up and get back to us. Having faith doesn't mean you have BLIND faith. Blind watchmakers maybe, but not blind faith.

 

[daws101]

You think you have proof?? You are more delusional than I thought. The theory Stephen Meyer lays out is the best explanation for the complex code we find. But that would take an hour of your life to actually listen to the TOTALLY SCIENTIFIC argument he lays out. You won't listen to it and comment, because you just rather argue and name call. So in your total ignorance of the VERY SOLID theory that is presented, it is you that apears as an ignorant, illiterate, sphincter:

http://youtu.be/NbluTDb1Nfs

Four laughing smiley faces. Now those are the types of intelligent responses we have come to know and love from Darwinists. Insert face palm here.

the reply fits the presentation....it has no vaildity.. as it is based on a bias an unprovable premise.

 

[daws101]

You think you have proof?? You are more delusional than I thought. The theory Stephen Meyer lays out is the best explanation for the complex code we find. But that would take an hour of your life to actually listen to the TOTALLY SCIENTIFIC argument he lays out. You won't listen to it and comment, because you just rather argue and name call. So in your total ignorance of the VERY SOLID theory that is presented, it is you that apears as an ignorant, illiterate, sphincter:

http://youtu.be/NbluTDb1Nfs

Only laughing no rebuttal ?

laughter is the rebuttal..the ignorance gene is strong with this one.

 

[daws101]

why is it so important for creationists to prove a god exists?
since you folks claim to have the answer that everything is god's work.
if your faith is so strong no other proof should be necessary?
why the urgency ? are you under a time constraint ?
the the evil evolutionists are in no hurry...
your belief system says the end is coming...some day...
why not wait? if you are right, then everyone will know it and you can be as arrogant about it as you want.
(you might piss off Jesus though)
or could it be that the EVIL evolutionists might be on to something and it's eats at a place in the back of your mind like an Itch you can't scratch.
or is it the terror of the idea that there is no god that makes you grasp at anything that promotes your pov,no matter how misguided or silly ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Only laughing no rebuttal ?

laughter is the rebuttal..the ignorance gene is strong with this one.

Yes you are very ignorant. Do you have an answer for my question yet I have given you plenty of time to answer it ?

 

[KevinWestern]

Four laughing smiley faces. Now those are the types of intelligent responses we have come to know and love from Darwinists. Insert face palm here.

I watched the whole thing. His entire premise is based on an argument from ignorance fallacy, that because we can't prove that abiogenesis happened (yet), god did it. This is not proof of god in any way. You can't look at a lack of evidence for any current theories in science and say god did it. That is not evidence. There is no direct evidence for an intelligent designer. Only a lack of evidence for abiogenesis. This is a god of gaps philosophy.

How is it a fallacy if your side has not proven life can spontaneously come into existence through a natural process ?

Listen carefully life can not come into existence on it's own with no direction if you believe such nonsense you require more faith to believe in that then i need to believe in the designer.

As I mentioned before, I don’t think evolution can explain where exactly life came from, how it started (from “nothingness&#8221, and why everything exists in the first place. But I still think evolution can explain a lot of the variations of life within our planet (in my opinion). That said…

Just to clarify: (1) do “creationists” believe that a god created everything in one swoop, many ages ago, and everything kind of remained the same throughout time (ie humans were present at the creation of the universe)? Or can a creationist believe that god created a universe, and then various forms of life evolved from one another over time?

Also, (2) do “creationists” (in the context of this specific discussion here) believe that it was the Judeo/Christian God – specifically – who created everything (as described by the Old Testament/New Testament), or simply “a god” or some all powerful (yet undefined) figure/being?


I've always been confused on what a "creationist" specifically believes, and hopefully one of you could shed some light...

 

[daws101]

Only laughing no rebuttal ?

laughter is the rebuttal..the ignorance gene is strong with this one.

Yes you are very ignorant. Do you have an answer for my question yet I have given you plenty of time to answer it ?

you have my answer.

 

[UltimateReality]

why is it so important for creationists to prove a god exists?
since you folks claim to have the answer that everything is god's work.
if your faith is so strong no other proof should be necessary?
why the urgency ? are you under a time constraint ?
the the evil evolutionists are in no hurry...
your belief system says the end is coming...some day...
why not wait? if you are right, then everyone will know it and you can be as arrogant about it as you want.
(you might piss off Jesus though)
or could it be that the EVIL evolutionists might be on to something and it's eats at a place in the back of your mind like an Itch you can't scratch.
or is it the terror of the idea that there is no god that makes you grasp at anything that promotes your pov,no matter how misguided or silly ?

There is no arrogance here... only compassion for those who have been so gravely misled.

 

[UltimateReality]

I watched the whole thing. His entire premise is based on an argument from ignorance fallacy, that because we can't prove that abiogenesis happened (yet), god did it. This is not proof of god in any way. You can't look at a lack of evidence for any current theories in science and say god did it. That is not evidence. There is no direct evidence for an intelligent designer. Only a lack of evidence for abiogenesis. This is a god of gaps philosophy.

How is it a fallacy if your side has not proven life can spontaneously come into existence through a natural process ?

Listen carefully life can not come into existence on it's own with no direction if you believe such nonsense you require more faith to believe in that then i need to believe in the designer.

As I mentioned before, I don’t think evolution can explain where exactly life came from, how it started (from “nothingness&#8221, and why everything exists in the first place. But I still think evolution can explain a lot of the variations of life within our planet (in my opinion). That said…

Just to clarify: (1) do “creationists” believe that a god created everything in one swoop, many ages ago, and everything kind of remained the same throughout time (ie humans were present at the creation of the universe)? Or can a creationist believe that god created a universe, and then various forms of life evolved from one another over time?

Also, (2) do “creationists” (in the context of this specific discussion here) believe that it was the Judeo/Christian God – specifically – who created everything (as described by the Old Testament/New Testament), or simply “a god” or some all powerful (yet undefined) figure/being?


I've always been confused on what a "creationist" specifically believes, and hopefully one of you could shed some light...

I am not a Creationist, so I cannot comment on what tennants are assumed to fall under that label. I assume they are referring to someone who believes in a literal seven 24-hour creation as outlined in the book of Genesis. As an ID proponent, I believe the scientific discussions of origins can not include religious thought. For me personally, I believe the Designer is the Judeo Christian God, but that is my religious opinion, not a scientific one. The problem with many on this forum is they like to play the came of mixing science with religion. ID theory is purely from a scientific standpoint. The attackers love to mix ID and Creationism as they whine ID is not science. If we do not involve God in the conversation, keeping it purely to observable phenomena, Darwinists accuse us of having a hidden agenda and trying to inject religion covertly. If we acknowledge God, then the scream we are not scientific. The preverbial damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. ID Theorists believe that a Being who exists outside of space, time, matter and energy is reponsible for the big bang and the "creation" of the something we know as the cosmos out of nothing. They also believe that throughout history, i.e. from the beginning of the bang 13.7 Billion years ago, that Intelligent Agent has acted to engineer new life forms on our planet. This theory does lend itself to Theism, in which God acts within the cosmos, as opposed to Deism, which claims God set everything in motion and walked away. New discoveries daily in the Genetic realm continue to rock the foundations of Neo Darwinists thought and are more likely explainable by an Intelligent agent acting at specific times in history, ie, the Cambrian explosion for example. Take Homo Sapien for instance. He/she appears very suddenly on the planet, with most fossil evidence at best dating back 15,000 to 20,000 years (I'm talking about SOLID evidence, not tiny skull pieces extrapolated with clay into an homo sapien cranium). So I do believe in the Creation story, I just don't believe in a literal seven 24-hour period creation. Moses is generally credited with being the author of Genesis. Prior to that time, the Creation story was handed down by an oral tradition. I think the Israelites at the time knew it was not a literal story, although a small faction of modern Christians cling to the 7day CReation in light of a mountain of scientific evidence against it. Even though I am not a literal Creationists, I think it is funny they are accused of the "God of the gaps" thinking when the theory of evolution continues to make up a mountain of BS to fill in the gaps, when daily discoveries poke holes in the theory!! The TOE has become a breeding ground, as an angry DAWS101 proves above, for materialist hell bent on irradicating God from our current thought, and they do so to their own detriment. They are really very angry and arrogant, a really bad combo. They deny God in arrogance, and pretend that the TOE has an answer for everything. Real Scientists know it doesn't!! But to accept God, would force a change in their behaviour. If we accept that a Designer designed us, and we see evidence for the intent of the design like reproduction, then interfering with gestation (abortion) or inserting a reproductive organ into an excrement orifice, become acts that go against the intent of the Design. You wouldn't use a blow dryer as a toothbrush would you?

In my many discussions with Materialists, I have come to the conclusion there are no true atheists, only folks that are incredibly angry with God. If they really weren't so mad at God, they would feel no need to go on their zealous rants trying to destroy others belief systems, crossing lines that have absolutely nothing to do with science and everything to do with HATE. They are like the cornered victim, who doesn't look at the direction of an approaching animal ready to attack, thinking "If I don't look at him maybe he will go away". Your DNA is programmed to seek the Designer. Every culture, even the most remote, have the concept of the Creator. To become a materialists requires some serious denial.

 

[Montrovant]

How is it a fallacy if your side has not proven life can spontaneously come into existence through a natural process ?

Listen carefully life can not come into existence on it's own with no direction if you believe such nonsense you require more faith to believe in that then i need to believe in the designer.

As I mentioned before, I don’t think evolution can explain where exactly life came from, how it started (from “nothingness”), and why everything exists in the first place. But I still think evolution can explain a lot of the variations of life within our planet (in my opinion). That said…

Just to clarify: (1) do “creationists” believe that a god created everything in one swoop, many ages ago, and everything kind of remained the same throughout time (ie humans were present at the creation of the universe)? Or can a creationist believe that god created a universe, and then various forms of life evolved from one another over time?

Also, (2) do “creationists” (in the context of this specific discussion here) believe that it was the Judeo/Christian God – specifically – who created everything (as described by the Old Testament/New Testament), or simply “a god” or some all powerful (yet undefined) figure/being?


I've always been confused on what a "creationist" specifically believes, and hopefully one of you could shed some light...

I am not a Creationist, so I cannot comment on what tennants are assumed to fall under that label. I assume they are referring to someone who believes in a literal seven 24-hour creation as outlined in the book of Genesis. As an ID proponent, I believe the scientific discussions of origins can not include religious thought. For me personally, I believe the Designer is the Judeo Christian God, but that is my religious opinion, not a scientific one. The problem with many on this forum is they like to play the came of mixing science with religion. ID theory is purely from a scientific standpoint. The attackers love to mix ID and Creationism as they whine ID is not science. If we do not involve God in the conversation, keeping it purely to observable phenomena, Darwinists accuse us of having a hidden agenda and trying to inject religion covertly. If we acknowledge God, then the scream we are not scientific. The preverbial damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. ID Theorists believe that a Being who exists outside of space, time, matter and energy is reponsible for the big bang and the "creation" of the something we know as the cosmos out of nothing. They also believe that throughout history, i.e. from the beginning of the bang 13.7 Billion years ago, that Intelligent Agent has acted to engineer new life forms on our planet. This theory does lend itself to Theism, in which God acts within the cosmos, as opposed to Deism, which claims God set everything in motion and walked away. New discoveries daily in the Genetic realm continue to rock the foundations of Neo Darwinists thought and are more likely explainable by an Intelligent agent acting at specific times in history, ie, the Cambrian explosion for example. Take Homo Sapien for instance. He/she appears very suddenly on the planet, with most fossil evidence at best dating back 15,000 to 20,000 years (I'm talking about SOLID evidence, not tiny skull pieces extrapolated with clay into an homo sapien cranium). So I do believe in the Creation story, I just don't believe in a literal seven 24-hour period creation. Moses is generally credited with being the author of Genesis. Prior to that time, the Creation story was handed down by an oral tradition. I think the Israelites at the time knew it was not a literal story, although a small faction of modern Christians cling to the 7day CReation in light of a mountain of scientific evidence against it. Even though I am not a literal Creationists, I think it is funny they are accused of the "God of the gaps" thinking when the theory of evolution continues to make up a mountain of BS to fill in the gaps, when daily discoveries poke holes in the theory!! The TOE has become a breeding ground, as an angry DAWS101 proves above, for materialist hell bent on irradicating God from our current thought, and they do so to their own detriment. They are really very angry and arrogant, a really bad combo. They deny God in arrogance, and pretend that the TOE has an answer for everything. Real Scientists know it doesn't!! But to accept God, would force a change in their behaviour. If we accept that a Designer designed us, and we see evidence for the intent of the design like reproduction, then interfering with gestation (abortion) or inserting a reproductive organ into an excrement orifice, become acts that go against the intent of the Design. You wouldn't use a blow dryer as a toothbrush would you?

In my many discussions with Materialists, I have come to the conclusion there are no true atheists, only folks that are incredibly angry with God. If they really weren't so mad at God, they would feel no need to go on their zealous rants trying to destroy others belief systems, crossing lines that have absolutely nothing to do with science and everything to do with HATE. They are like the cornered victim, who doesn't look at the direction of an approaching animal ready to attack, thinking "If I don't look at him maybe he will go away". Your DNA is programmed to seek the Designer. Every culture, even the most remote, have the concept of the Creator. To become a materialists requires some serious denial.

I think many of us have yet to see evidence that ID really is science. Too often it seems that ID boils down to, "Well, when WE create something this is how it acts. Since these things in nature act in the same or similar ways, and since our intelligence is behind our creations, there must be an intelligence which created the things in nature.". That isn't compelling to me.

I also think it is telling that you've come to the conclusion EVERYONE believes in god. That is absolutely ridiculous on multiple levels. It assumes a monotheistic belief, after assuming there must be some belief to begin with. Just because you believe in god, just because someone dislikes your or all religion, in no way means they, too, believe in god.

You can feel free to provide evidence of how DNA is programmed to 'seek the creator'.

 

[UltimateReality]

As I mentioned before, I don’t think evolution can explain where exactly life came from, how it started (from “nothingness&#8221, and why everything exists in the first place. But I still think evolution can explain a lot of the variations of life within our planet (in my opinion). That said…

Just to clarify: (1) do “creationists” believe that a god created everything in one swoop, many ages ago, and everything kind of remained the same throughout time (ie humans were present at the creation of the universe)? Or can a creationist believe that god created a universe, and then various forms of life evolved from one another over time?

Also, (2) do “creationists” (in the context of this specific discussion here) believe that it was the Judeo/Christian God – specifically – who created everything (as described by the Old Testament/New Testament), or simply “a god” or some all powerful (yet undefined) figure/being?


I've always been confused on what a "creationist" specifically believes, and hopefully one of you could shed some light...

I am not a Creationist, so I cannot comment on what tennants are assumed to fall under that label. I assume they are referring to someone who believes in a literal seven 24-hour creation as outlined in the book of Genesis. As an ID proponent, I believe the scientific discussions of origins can not include religious thought. For me personally, I believe the Designer is the Judeo Christian God, but that is my religious opinion, not a scientific one. The problem with many on this forum is they like to play the came of mixing science with religion. ID theory is purely from a scientific standpoint. The attackers love to mix ID and Creationism as they whine ID is not science. If we do not involve God in the conversation, keeping it purely to observable phenomena, Darwinists accuse us of having a hidden agenda and trying to inject religion covertly. If we acknowledge God, then the scream we are not scientific. The preverbial damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. ID Theorists believe that a Being who exists outside of space, time, matter and energy is reponsible for the big bang and the "creation" of the something we know as the cosmos out of nothing. They also believe that throughout history, i.e. from the beginning of the bang 13.7 Billion years ago, that Intelligent Agent has acted to engineer new life forms on our planet. This theory does lend itself to Theism, in which God acts within the cosmos, as opposed to Deism, which claims God set everything in motion and walked away. New discoveries daily in the Genetic realm continue to rock the foundations of Neo Darwinists thought and are more likely explainable by an Intelligent agent acting at specific times in history, ie, the Cambrian explosion for example. Take Homo Sapien for instance. He/she appears very suddenly on the planet, with most fossil evidence at best dating back 15,000 to 20,000 years (I'm talking about SOLID evidence, not tiny skull pieces extrapolated with clay into an homo sapien cranium). So I do believe in the Creation story, I just don't believe in a literal seven 24-hour period creation. Moses is generally credited with being the author of Genesis. Prior to that time, the Creation story was handed down by an oral tradition. I think the Israelites at the time knew it was not a literal story, although a small faction of modern Christians cling to the 7day CReation in light of a mountain of scientific evidence against it. Even though I am not a literal Creationists, I think it is funny they are accused of the "God of the gaps" thinking when the theory of evolution continues to make up a mountain of BS to fill in the gaps, when daily discoveries poke holes in the theory!! The TOE has become a breeding ground, as an angry DAWS101 proves above, for materialist hell bent on irradicating God from our current thought, and they do so to their own detriment. They are really very angry and arrogant, a really bad combo. They deny God in arrogance, and pretend that the TOE has an answer for everything. Real Scientists know it doesn't!! But to accept God, would force a change in their behaviour. If we accept that a Designer designed us, and we see evidence for the intent of the design like reproduction, then interfering with gestation (abortion) or inserting a reproductive organ into an excrement orifice, become acts that go against the intent of the Design. You wouldn't use a blow dryer as a toothbrush would you?

In my many discussions with Materialists, I have come to the conclusion there are no true atheists, only folks that are incredibly angry with God. If they really weren't so mad at God, they would feel no need to go on their zealous rants trying to destroy others belief systems, crossing lines that have absolutely nothing to do with science and everything to do with HATE. They are like the cornered victim, who doesn't look at the direction of an approaching animal ready to attack, thinking "If I don't look at him maybe he will go away". Your DNA is programmed to seek the Designer. Every culture, even the most remote, have the concept of the Creator. To become a materialists requires some serious denial.

I think many of us have yet to see evidence that ID really is science. Too often it seems that ID boils down to, "Well, when WE create something this is how it acts. Since these things in nature act in the same or similar ways, and since our intelligence is behind our creations, there must be an intelligence which created the things in nature.". That isn't compelling to me.

I also think it is telling that you've come to the conclusion EVERYONE believes in god. That is absolutely ridiculous on multiple levels. It assumes a monotheistic belief, after assuming there must be some belief to begin with. Just because you believe in god, just because someone dislikes your or all religion, in no way means they, too, believe in god.

You can feel free to provide evidence of how DNA is programmed to 'seek the creator'.

It really goes something like "Using Darwin's scientific method, which is studying the present to learn about the distance past, everywhere we find functional, ie, digital code in the present, it ALWAYS comes from an intelligent source, not from random generation. Therefore, the best explanation for digital code in DNA is not a random process, which we have ZERO evidence for, but the best explanation for the digital code in DNA is an intelligent agent."

Isolated cultures is the only evidence I have for humans always believing in a higher power. But now that you brought it up, how about some modern day evidence of natural selection in action IN NATURE producing VERTICAL change. Please don't cite examples of adaptation but actual evolution. Please don't supply examples that have resulted from influence by intelligent agents.

Even Darwin himself, when presented with this evidence below, would not have been ignorant enough to accept that his was the result of natural selection acting on random mutations...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqESR7E4b_8&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqESR7E4b_8&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[UltimateReality]

"Let’s consider a few examples. To begin with, virtually all of the vast quantities of genetic material within our cells contains information that is highly specific and meaningful. Tanyan Barak and Murat Gunel (Yale University) studied a Turkish mental patient whose brain lacked some of the normal convolutions in his cerebral cortex. Genetic analysis of the part of his genome that determines brain structure revealed that out of 3 billion (total) “base-pair letters”, only two of the “letters” had been omitted. This mistake was the cause of his malformed brain and mental illness. One could then wonder whether consciousness is the result of unguided neo-Darwinistic evolutionary processes or whether the brain and the information coding for its formation exhibits intelligent design."

" Finally, consider Trilobites. These organisms have been extinct for 250 million years, but studies of their fossilized eyes reveal a lens made of two transparent materials: calcite and chitin, each having a different index of refraction. After passing through the calcite portion, the image must be corrected by the chitin portion in order to be sharply focused on the eye’s photoreceptor cells. To design such a lens today, an optical engineer would have to apply Fermat’s principle, Abbe’s sine law, Snell’s laws of refraction and the optics of birefringent crystals. Is this an example of an unguided evolutionary process or an example of engineering design? Think about it and decide for yourself."

AITSE

 

[Youwerecreated]

Four laughing smiley faces. Now those are the types of intelligent responses we have come to know and love from Darwinists. Insert face palm here.

the reply fits the presentation....it has no vaildity.. as it is based on a bias an unprovable premise.

Are you sure you don't mean Neo Darwinism ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I watched the whole thing. His entire premise is based on an argument from ignorance fallacy, that because we can't prove that abiogenesis happened (yet), god did it. This is not proof of god in any way. You can't look at a lack of evidence for any current theories in science and say god did it. That is not evidence. There is no direct evidence for an intelligent designer. Only a lack of evidence for abiogenesis. This is a god of gaps philosophy.

How is it a fallacy if your side has not proven life can spontaneously come into existence through a natural process ?

Listen carefully life can not come into existence on it's own with no direction if you believe such nonsense you require more faith to believe in that then i need to believe in the designer.

As I mentioned before, I don’t think evolution can explain where exactly life came from, how it started (from “nothingness”), and why everything exists in the first place. But I still think evolution can explain a lot of the variations of life within our planet (in my opinion). That said…

Just to clarify: (1) do “creationists” believe that a god created everything in one swoop, many ages ago, and everything kind of remained the same throughout time (ie humans were present at the creation of the universe)? Or can a creationist believe that god created a universe, and then various forms of life evolved from one another over time?

Also, (2) do “creationists” (in the context of this specific discussion here) believe that it was the Judeo/Christian God – specifically – who created everything (as described by the Old Testament/New Testament), or simply “a god” or some all powerful (yet undefined) figure/being?


I've always been confused on what a "creationist" specifically believes, and hopefully one of you could shed some light...

Evolution theory is contrary to the scriptures.

God created each family of organisms with the ability to adapt if we try to go beyond those limits that breed or family can go extinct.

I believe many breeds within a family simply can happen over time because of the vast genepool. But i don't believe one family can evolve into a destinct new family.

I believe all offspring are the product of several generations of parents and grand parents genes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

laughter is the rebuttal..the ignorance gene is strong with this one.

Yes you are very ignorant. Do you have an answer for my question yet I have given you plenty of time to answer it ?

you have my answer.

I never saw your answer.

 

[KevinWestern]

I am not a Creationist, so I cannot comment on what tennants are assumed to fall under that label. I assume they are referring to someone who believes in a literal seven 24-hour creation as outlined in the book of Genesis. As an ID proponent, I believe the scientific discussions of origins can not include religious thought. For me personally, I believe the Designer is the Judeo Christian God, but that is my religious opinion, not a scientific one. The problem with many on this forum is they like to play the came of mixing science with religion. ID theory is purely from a scientific standpoint. The attackers love to mix ID and Creationism as they whine ID is not science. If we do not involve God in the conversation, keeping it purely to observable phenomena, Darwinists accuse us of having a hidden agenda and trying to inject religion covertly. If we acknowledge God, then the scream we are not scientific. The preverbial damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. ID Theorists believe that a Being who exists outside of space, time, matter and energy is reponsible for the big bang and the "creation" of the something we know as the cosmos out of nothing. They also believe that throughout history, i.e. from the beginning of the bang 13.7 Billion years ago, that Intelligent Agent has acted to engineer new life forms on our planet. This theory does lend itself to Theism, in which God acts within the cosmos, as opposed to Deism, which claims God set everything in motion and walked away. New discoveries daily in the Genetic realm continue to rock the foundations of Neo Darwinists thought and are more likely explainable by an Intelligent agent acting at specific times in history, ie, the Cambrian explosion for example. Take Homo Sapien for instance. He/she appears very suddenly on the planet, with most fossil evidence at best dating back 15,000 to 20,000 years (I'm talking about SOLID evidence, not tiny skull pieces extrapolated with clay into an homo sapien cranium). So I do believe in the Creation story, I just don't believe in a literal seven 24-hour period creation. Moses is generally credited with being the author of Genesis. Prior to that time, the Creation story was handed down by an oral tradition. I think the Israelites at the time knew it was not a literal story, although a small faction of modern Christians cling to the 7day CReation in light of a mountain of scientific evidence against it. Even though I am not a literal Creationists, I think it is funny they are accused of the "God of the gaps" thinking when the theory of evolution continues to make up a mountain of BS to fill in the gaps, when daily discoveries poke holes in the theory!! The TOE has become a breeding ground, as an angry DAWS101 proves above, for materialist hell bent on irradicating God from our current thought, and they do so to their own detriment. They are really very angry and arrogant, a really bad combo. They deny God in arrogance, and pretend that the TOE has an answer for everything. Real Scientists know it doesn't!! But to accept God, would force a change in their behaviour. If we accept that a Designer designed us, and we see evidence for the intent of the design like reproduction, then interfering with gestation (abortion) or inserting a reproductive organ into an excrement orifice, become acts that go against the intent of the Design. You wouldn't use a blow dryer as a toothbrush would you?

In my many discussions with Materialists, I have come to the conclusion there are no true atheists, only folks that are incredibly angry with God. If they really weren't so mad at God, they would feel no need to go on their zealous rants trying to destroy others belief systems, crossing lines that have absolutely nothing to do with science and everything to do with HATE. They are like the cornered victim, who doesn't look at the direction of an approaching animal ready to attack, thinking "If I don't look at him maybe he will go away". Your DNA is programmed to seek the Designer. Every culture, even the most remote, have the concept of the Creator. To become a materialists requires some serious denial.

Thanks for the long and detailed response, and for elaborating on the difference between ‘Creationism’ and ‘Intelligent Design’. Though I may not agree with all of it, it's a good and thoughtful response.

Regarding your Atheist comment, I disagree. Just as there are people who are absolutely certain that there exists a god, and are absolutely sure they know very specific things about that god (Christians, Muslims, Mormons), there exists people on the flipside who are absolutely certain that there doesn’t exist a god. And given the extraordinarily limited scope of our collective knowledge as human beings, I consider this absolutism on both sides foolish and border-lining on arrogance.

As for me, I totally think it’s possible that a ‘designer’ exists in some way. Personally, I tend to hold more of a “deist” view of things, where (if there exists a god), everything was set in motion by that being and then just “let loose” to a large degree, but I acknowledge that a “theist” approach is just as plausible. These types of things can’t be proven or dis-proven, so we all kind of just have to keep an open mind about it. I don't believe in a specific god, however I am open to the possibility of a god existing.

Again, what I have a problem with is the absolutism. God created this or that in exactly seven days, then turned on the lights, then set a bush on fire, and there exists a heaven and a hell, and this is what you need to do to get to heaven, ect. How can one claim to know all of these types of things with such certainty, even in the face of real life evidence that points to the contrary? Just doesn't make sense to me...

I think our best approach to explaining the Universe should at least start with scientific roots, such as how you point out that humans seemed to have appeared very suddenly on the planet based on X evidence. From there, you can kind of build out your additional theories. But I say people should at least use reality (or what we can observe as reality) as the basis for the discussion, otherwise there's no purpose in discussing the first place because you're not going to get anywhere!
.
.
.
.

 

[KevinWestern]

How is it a fallacy if your side has not proven life can spontaneously come into existence through a natural process ?

Listen carefully life can not come into existence on it's own with no direction if you believe such nonsense you require more faith to believe in that then i need to believe in the designer.

As I mentioned before, I don’t think evolution can explain where exactly life came from, how it started (from “nothingness&#8221, and why everything exists in the first place. But I still think evolution can explain a lot of the variations of life within our planet (in my opinion). That said…

Just to clarify: (1) do “creationists” believe that a god created everything in one swoop, many ages ago, and everything kind of remained the same throughout time (ie humans were present at the creation of the universe)? Or can a creationist believe that god created a universe, and then various forms of life evolved from one another over time?

Also, (2) do “creationists” (in the context of this specific discussion here) believe that it was the Judeo/Christian God – specifically – who created everything (as described by the Old Testament/New Testament), or simply “a god” or some all powerful (yet undefined) figure/being?


I've always been confused on what a "creationist" specifically believes, and hopefully one of you could shed some light...

Evolution theory is contrary to the scriptures.

God created each family of organisms with the ability to adapt if we try to go beyond those limits that breed or family can go extinct.

I believe many breeds within a family simply can happen over time because of the vast genepool. But i don't believe one family can evolve into a destinct new family.

I believe all offspring are the product of several generations of parents and grand parents genes.

Thanks for the response.

So is it fair to say that a “creationist” holds a much more specific view of how the universe was created (as you reference scripture) than say an “intelligent design” person?