Do You Believe in Creationism?

George VI · Feb 20, 2009

No.

I believe in science.
I can understand why people believe in creationism, but I simply cannot.

There's more proven facts backing evolution, than the "the bible said so" for creationism.

Cilogy · Feb 20, 2009

SouthernDemocrat said:
Also, this poll is flawed. The first two options are questions of belief, in that one has to choose to believe them or not.

The third option is a question of acceptance, in that one either accepts the enormous body of empirical evidence in support of it, or they don't.

Which is why there is the option "none of the above."

Otherwise, the only reason why someone would not accept Evolution, is that:

1. They are largely ignorant of almost everything we know about life sciences.

or

2. They are literalistic in their religious beliefs and thus will not accept mainstream science if it seems to contradict their personal religious beliefs.

or

3. They have some personal / psychological issue with the thought of having evolved.

I agree, those who deny evolution are those who refuse to face reality.

Goobieman · Feb 20, 2009

SouthernDemocrat said:
The Bible does not state that the earth is 9000 years old. If one goes by Biblical Timelines / Genealogies, then the Bible states that the world, and entire Universe for that matter, is around 6500 to 7000 years old.

The bible does not state this.
People state that the bible states this.

ALiberalModerate · Feb 20, 2009

Goobieman said:
The bible does not state this.
People state that the bible states this.

It doesn't implicitly state it. Otherwise, there is not a verse anywhere in scripture that states that the earth is 6500 years old. However, the Biblical Time line for the age of the earth is very clear:

Beginning with the archeological landmark event of the fall of Jerusalem (which has now been corrected to 588 B.C., instead of 586-587 B.C.) and counting backwards the prophesied number of years between this event and the division of Solomon's kingdom (390 yrs. + 40 yrs., according to Ezekiel 4:4-7), brings us to 1018 B.C.

From the end of Solomon's 40-year reign to the start of the Temple in the 4th year of his reign takes us back another 37 years to 1055 B.C.

From the start of Solomon's Temple "in the 480th year" (1 Kings 6:1) back to the Exodus from Egypt (hence 479 years previous) brings us to near 1534 B.C.

From the Exodus out of Egypt to Abraham's entering Canaan from Haran was exactly 430 years to the day (Gen 12:10/ Exodus 12:40/ Gal 3:17), thus around 1964 B.C.

Since Abraham entered Canaan at age 75 (Gen 12:4), he was born approximately 2039 B.C.

From Abraham's birth to Noah's grandson (Shem's son), Arpachshad's birth, 2 years after the Flood started, was 290 years (Gen 11:11-26), this places the onset of the Flood at around 2331 B.C. [definitely 4,300-4,400 years ago].

The genealogy of Genesis 5:3-32 precludes any gaps due to its tight chronological structure and gives us 1,656 years between Creation and the Flood, thus bringing Creation Week back to near 3987 B.C. or approximately 4000 B.C.

Tucker Case · Feb 20, 2009

"Creation Week"?

Is that like "Shark Week" on the Discover channel?

Black Dog · Feb 20, 2009

George VI said:
No.

I believe in science.
I can understand why people believe in creationism, but I simply cannot.

There's more proven facts backing evolution, than the "the bible said so" for creationism.

I am going to be perfectly honest here.

I believe in creationism or ID because I believe in the Christian concept of God. The only reason I do not except evolution is because of a lack of evidence above the level of "class" according to the most recent taxonomy classifications. And yet I have no scientific proof of God at all.

So it is reasonable to ask: Why would I reject scientific theory supported by very good evidence in the case of evolution? Simply put; because of anecdotal evidence and life experience.

Goobieman · Feb 20, 2009

SouthernDemocrat said:
It doesn't implicitly state it. Otherwise, there is not a verse anywhere in scripture that states that the earth is 6500 years old. However, the Biblical Time line for the age of the earth is very clear:

If you take the bible literally, yes.

ALiberalModerate · Feb 20, 2009

Goobieman said:
If you take the bible literally, yes.

Exactly, thats what I stated earlier. For those that take the Bible literally, then earth is just 6500 years old or so.

First Thought · Feb 20, 2009

Goobieman said:
If you take the bible literally, yes.

I think that his post was referring to those who take the Bible literally, though one could make the argument that Bible never indicates how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden.

Radical Ron · Feb 20, 2009

What is the definition of inteligent design? Because I can't seem to get a clear answer.

Black Dog · Feb 20, 2009

Radical Ron said:
What is the definition of inteligent design? Because I can't seem to get a clear answer.

To put it simply:

It is the belief life on this planet did not start with a random cosmic event. That there is or was an intelligent force behind it.

obvious Child · Feb 20, 2009

Blackdog said:
To put it simply:

It is the belief life on this planet did not start with a random cosmic event. That there is or was an intelligent force behind it.

That's a rather broad definition. What most discussions about ID revolve around is often the definition and idea that Behe himself has pushed, which amusingly he himself has admitted has in theory no problem with evolution. Too bad too many IDers don't realize it.

Still, Intelligent Design in the Behe style is little more then God of the Gaps. Simply put, ID can be defined as "too complex to explain now/don't know = Goddidit."

Black Dog · Feb 20, 2009

obvious Child said:
That's a rather broad definition.

ID is rather broad.

obvious Child said:
What most discussions about ID revolve around is often the definition and idea that Behe himself has pushed, which amusingly he himself has admitted has in theory no problem with evolution.

"Behe says he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but that after reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution. Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures." - Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obviously the theory does have problems with evolution.

obvious Child said:
Too bad too many IDers don't realize it.

Just had to throw an insult in didn't you. :roll:

obvious Child said:
Still, Intelligent Design in the Behe style is little more then God of the Gaps. Simply put, ID can be defined as "too complex to explain now/don't know = Goddidit."

Not according to the dictionary:

The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes. - Intelligent design definition | Dictionary.com

Well it looks like I hit the nail firmly on the head.

obvious Child · Feb 20, 2009

Blackdog said:
Obviously the theory does have problems with evolution.

Parts yes, but not like YECs.

"Unlike William A. Dembski [21] and others in the intelligent design movement, Behe accepts the common descent of species,[22] including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe."

Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"If one accepts Behe’s idea that both evolution and creation can operate together, and that the Designer’s goals are unfathomable, then one confronts an airtight theory that can’t be proved wrong. I can imagine evidence that would falsify evolution (a hominid fossil in the Precambrian would do nicely), but none that could falsify Behe’s composite theory. Even if, after immense effort, we are able to understand the evolution of a complex biochemical pathway, Behe could simply claim that evidence for design resides in the other unexplained pathways. Because we will never explain everything, there will always be evidence for design. This regressive ad hoc creationism may seem clever, but it is certainly not science. (Coyne 1996)"

"http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_philosophicalobjectionsresponse.htm"

Behe replies with a response dealing with falsifying information, not that Coyne is wrong in his assumption on Behe's fusion of both Evolution and Creation.

Behe has never come out and said that TOE is entirely false. And Behe's model does allow for Darwinian natural selection and random genetic drift, two important aspects of TOE.

Just had to throw an insult in didn't you. :roll:

IDers often like to say that ID is correct and TOE is wrong without realizing that ID doesn't reject all of evolution and allows for key aspects of it to occur.

Not according to the dictionary:

The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes. - Intelligent design definition | Dictionary.com

Well it looks like I hit the nail firmly on the head.

From a purely superficial view yes. Fundamentally, ID is no more then Animism. What we cannot explain now, such as the commonly used eye example is proof of a designer.

What is interesting is that the vast majority of people backing ID are fundamental Christians and Muslims.

Black Dog · Feb 21, 2009

obvious Child said:
Parts yes, but not like YECs.

"Unlike William A. Dembski [21] and others in the intelligent design movement, Behe accepts the common descent of species,[22] including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe."

Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This has nothing to do with my reply to the poster who asked for a simple explanation.

So because one person excepts some of it, this says what? He is entitled to his opinion? :lol:

obvious Child said:
"If one accepts Behe’s idea that both evolution and creation can operate together, and that the Designer’s goals are unfathomable, then one confronts an airtight theory that can’t be proved wrong. I can imagine evidence that would falsify evolution (a hominid fossil in the Precambrian would do nicely), but none that could falsify Behe’s composite theory. Even if, after immense effort, we are able to understand the evolution of a complex biochemical pathway, Behe could simply claim that evidence for design resides in the other unexplained pathways. Because we will never explain everything, there will always be evidence for design. This regressive ad hoc creationism may seem clever, but it is certainly not science. (Coyne 1996)"

"http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_philosophicalobjectionsresponse.htm"

Behe replies with a response dealing with falsifying information, not that Coyne is wrong in his assumption on Behe's fusion of both Evolution and Creation.

Again this has nothing to do with my initial reply.

So what? Behe is not the representative for ID to the world.

obvious Child said:
Behe has never come out and said that TOE is entirely false. And Behe's model does allow for Darwinian natural selection and random genetic drift, two important aspects of TOE.

So what?

obvious Child said:
IDers often like to say that ID is correct and TOE is wrong without realizing that ID doesn't reject all of evolution and allows for key aspects of it to occur.

Well that would depend on what the person who accepts ID believes now wouldn't it?

This is nothing but speculation from you based on one persons opinion.

So please explain what this has to do with my definition of ID?

obvious Child said:
From a purely superficial view yes. Fundamentally, ID is no more then Animism. What we cannot explain now, such as the commonly used eye example is proof of a designer.

Not according to the dictionary:

1.the belief that natural objects, natural phenomena, and the universe itself possess souls.
2. the belief that natural objects have souls that may exist apart from their material bodies.
3. the doctrine that the soul is the principle of life and health.
4. belief in spiritual beings or agencies. - Animism definition | Dictionary.com

Not even close.

Again this has little to do with my initial explanation.

obvious Child said:
quote]What is interesting is that the vast majority of people backing ID are fundamental Christians and Muslims.

You know what is even more interesting? More than 50% of the worlds population is Christian or Muslim. If you include other religions it is almost two thirds of the worlds population.

So the vast majority of the worlds population back ID. So what?

Your argument for whatever you are arguing is pretty irrelevant to my reply or anything else here in this thread.

obvious Child · Feb 21, 2009

Blackdog said:
This has nothing to do with my reply to the poster who asked for a simple explanation.

Indeed, but the "simple explanation" is extremely broad and generally not the subject of ID discussions in the context of evolution.

So because one person excepts some of it, this says what? He is entitled to his opinion? :lol:

Behe is the founding father of modern intelligent design.

Again this has nothing to do with my initial reply.

So what? Behe is not the representative for ID to the world.

So what?

I argued that Behe and ID never rejected all of evolution. You cited otherwise. Therefore it is relevant to your replies as it shows that Behe and his model of ID do not reject entirely TOE unlike YEC.

Well that would depend on what the person who accepts ID believes now wouldn't it?

This is nothing but speculation from you based on one persons opinion.

So please explain what this has to do with my definition of ID?

Perhaps, but unless we clearly define the term in a way that actually has meaning, we're just spinning our wheels.

Not even close.

Main Entry:
su·per·fi·cial Listen to the pronunciation of superficial
Pronunciation:
\ˌsü-pər-ˈfi-shəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Late Latin superficialis, from Latin superficies
Date:
15th century

1 a (1): of, relating to, or located near a surface (2): lying on, not penetrating below, or affecting only the surface <superficial wounds> bBritish of a unit of measure : square <superficial foot>2 a: concerned only with the obvious or apparent : shallow b: seen on the surface : external c: presenting only an appearance without substance or significance

You know what is even more interesting? More than 50% of the worlds population is Christian or Muslim. If you include other religions it is almost two thirds of the worlds population.

So the vast majority of the worlds population back ID. So what?

Incorrect. Notice I said fundamental not all. Please try to read more carefully in the future.

Your argument for whatever you are arguing is pretty irrelevant to my reply or anything else here in this thread.

Perhaps your post but not necessarily the thread.

Intelligent Design of the mainstream notion is little more then "Don't know = Goddidit"

Black Dog · Feb 21, 2009

obvious Child said:
Indeed, but the "simple explanation" is extremely broad and generally not the subject of ID discussions in the context of evolution.

I nor the poster I responded to said anything at all about evolution.

You assumed way to much.

obvious Child said:
Behe is the founding father of modern intelligent design.

That would depend on who you asked.

obvious Child said:
I argued that Behe and ID never rejected all of evolution. You cited otherwise. Therefore it is relevant to your replies as it shows that Behe and his model of ID do not reject entirely TOE unlike YEC.

Please point out where I stated Behe rejected evolution? I said his theory had a problem with the theory, nothing more.

Please stop assuming.

obvious Child said:
Perhaps, but unless we clearly define the term in a way that actually has meaning, we're just spinning our wheels.

Nothing needed to be defined. You brought in the anti-Christian bigotry. I nor the poster I responded to said anything about evolution at all.

As for spinning our wheels, I suppose the dictionary is just spinning it's wheels anytime someone looks up ID? :roll:

obvious Child said:
Main Entry:
su·per·fi·cial Listen to the pronunciation of superficial
Pronunciation:
\ˌsü-pər-ˈfi-shəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Late Latin superficialis, from Latin superficies
Date:
15th century

1 a (1): of, relating to, or located near a surface (2): lying on, not penetrating below, or affecting only the surface <superficial wounds> bBritish of a unit of measure : square <superficial foot>2 a: concerned only with the obvious or apparent : shallow b: seen on the surface : external c: presenting only an appearance without substance or significance

Incorrect. Notice I said fundamental not all. Please try to read more carefully in the future.

I suggest you take your own advice.

obvious Child said:
Perhaps your post but not necessarily the thread.

You responded to my post and your follow up had little to do with anything said as this is not an evolution vs ID debate.

obvious Child said:
Intelligent Design of the mainstream notion is little more then "Don't know = Goddidit"

In your opinion. Which at this point means little to this thread or my post.

You disguise your anti-Christian and Muslim bigotry under the guise of bringing some kind of context. Please don't make me laugh.

obvious Child · Feb 21, 2009

Blackdog said:
I nor the poster I responded to said anything at all about evolution.

Not exactly. You did say that there was problems with Behe's model and evolution.

That would depend on who you asked.

Perhaps so, but a discussion of Intelligent Design without Behe is rather lacking. After all, ID is principally based upon the notion of Irreducible Complexity which Behe invented.

Please point out where I stated Behe rejected evolution? I said his theory had a problem with the theory, nothing more.

But I also stated not in the sense that YEC has problems with evolution. Behe's model is inherently not rejecting many of the key components.

Nothing needed to be defined. You brought in the anti-Christian bigotry.

Since when was Behe's model of Intelligent Design anti-Christian bigotry?

If anything, Intelligent Design is a joke on Christanity, teaching one to not think, not examine and not seek to understand God's world. If we don't know, assume Goddidit and stop there. Hardly Christian thinking.

As for spinning our wheels, I suppose the dictionary is just spinning it's wheels anytime someone looks up ID? :roll:

Depends how you define it. Superficially or with depth?

In your opinion. Which at this point means little to this thread or my post.

You disguise your anti-Christian and Muslim bigotry under the guise of bringing some kind of context. Please don't make me laugh.

LOL. Amusing what some people will call Anti-Christian bigotry.

Excuse for thinking beyond the God of the Gaps. If your belief is that simple, that is your right.

Me on the other hand, well, not knowing does not equate to Goddidit.

Black Dog · Feb 21, 2009

obvious Child said:
Not exactly. You did say that there was problems with Behe's model and evolution.

After YOU brought it in. I nor the original poster had anything to say about evolution.

obvious Child said:
Perhaps so, but a discussion of Intelligent Design without Behe is rather lacking. After all, ID is principally based upon the notion of Irreducible Complexity which Behe invented.

I was not discussing Behe or ID in any great detail. Did you even read what I was responding to?

"What is the definition of inteligent design? Because I can't seem to get a clear answer." - Radical Ron

He did not ask for a dissertation on ID vs evolution. He asked for a clear definition which I gave him.

obvious Child said:
But I also stated not in the sense that YEC has problems with evolution. Behe's model is inherently not rejecting many of the key components.

And yet it rejects others. So what? Irrelivant (as you admitted) to my post.

obvious Child said:
Since when was Behe's model of Intelligent Design anti-Christian bigotry?

It's not, it is your comments...

"Too bad too many IDers don't realize it."
"ID can be defined as "too complex to explain now/don't know = Goddidit."
"What is interesting is that the vast majority of people backing ID are fundamental Christians and Muslims."

I probably came off to strong. Everyone has some kind of bigotry in themselves, including me. I don't mean it as strong as it sounds, but I think "hate" is to strong a word. So I use the word "bigotry" instead of hate.

obvious Child said:
If anything, Intelligent Design is a joke on Christanity, teaching one to not think, not examine and not seek to understand God's world. If we don't know, assume Goddidit and stop there. Hardly Christian thinking.

This is hardly what Christianity teaches. Some of the greatest minds of the last 4 century's were Christian.

obvious Child said:
Depends how you define it. Superficially or with depth?

You tried to turn a simple explanation into a one sided debate. To say you did not would be dishonest.

I would hardly call it "depth" more like personal opinion with anti-religious thought thrown in for good measure.

obvious Child said:
LOL. Amusing what some people will call Anti-Christian bigotry.

Excuse for thinking beyond the God of the Gaps. If your belief is that simple, that is your right.

Yes, no bigotry in that statement. :roll:

obvious Child said:
Me on the other hand, well, not knowing does not equate to Goddidit.

Good for you? :mrgreen:

obvious Child · Feb 21, 2009

Blackdog said:
It's not, it is your comments...
"Too bad too many IDers don't realize it."
"ID can be defined as "too complex to explain now/don't know = Goddidit."
"What is interesting is that the vast majority of people backing ID are fundamental Christians and Muslims."

I probably came off to strong. Everyone has some kind of bigotry in themselves, including me. I don't mean it as strong as it sounds, but I think "hate" is to strong a word. So I use the word "bigotry" instead of hate.

And where exactly did I say all Christians and Muslims? Notice I said fundamental. That would imply people like Dobson, not someone like SouthernDemocrat.

A fundamentalist does not represent all of one religion.

This is hardly what Christianity teaches. Some of the greatest minds of the last 4 century's were Christian.

Indeed. Christanity does not teach you to stop thinking, stop examining and stop trying to understand God's world. That however, IS intelligent design. Hence why I said it was a joke on Christanity. ID of Behe's model is nothing more then if something is too complex to explain now, it must be intelligently designed. That's effectively Animism which seeks to explain what cannot be explained currently with a God.

I would hardly call it "depth" more like personal opinion with anti-religious thought thrown in for good measure.

Incorrect. It's anti-stupid thinking. Just because you can't explain something doesn't mean you assume God. That's silly. Don;t know how a microwave works? God! Don't understand the water cycle? God. Don't understand anything? God. Way to shutdown one's brain rather quickly given how truly ignorant we are of most things. If we all thought the way that the ID model of Behe works, we wouldn't do anything, invent anything or learn anything new. What we don't know would be automatically attributed to God and we'd stop there. That's a surefire way to end up a very, very, poor nation.

Yes, no bigotry in that statement. :roll:

There are much better reasons to believe then the God of the Gaps.

Black Dog · Feb 21, 2009

obvious Child said:
And where exactly did I say all Christians and Muslims? Notice I said fundamental. That would imply people like Dobson, not someone like SouthernDemocrat.

A fundamentalist does not represent all of one religion.

It was a group of comments, not just that one.

obvious Child said:
Indeed. Christanity does not teach you to stop thinking, stop examining and stop trying to understand God's world. That however, IS intelligent design. Hence why I said it was a joke on Christanity. ID of Behe's model is nothing more then if something is too complex to explain now, it must be intelligently designed. That's effectively Animism which seeks to explain what cannot be explained currently with a God.

This is a great misunderstanding on your part. No one is saying it is to complex to understand. They are saying the structures are to complex for evolution to be an explanation. We do not think nature has the tools to do such complex structures on its own. It may be God, it may be something else. We will not stop looking, but for now it is not explainable.

obvious Child said:
Incorrect. It's anti-stupid thinking. Just because you can't explain something doesn't mean you assume God.

We thought it was God long before any other theory's came along. I do whole heartedly believe in God and think he created everything. He did not tell us the mechanics involved, but this we can discover through science.

obvious Child said:
That's silly. Don;t know how a microwave works? God! Don't understand the water cycle? God. Don't understand anything? God. Way to shutdown one's brain rather quickly given how truly ignorant we are of most things. If we all thought the way that the ID model of Behe works, we wouldn't do anything, invent anything or learn anything new. What we don't know would be automatically attributed to God and we'd stop there. That's a surefire way to end up a very, very, poor nation.

I have more than explained how this is not true above.

obvious Child said:
There are much better reasons to believe then the God of the Gaps.

If Behe were the final word you mite have a point, but he is not.

You have been way off course from the beginning and I am done. I did not post an explanation to derail this thread.

You have your self a good night and God bless.

First Thought · Feb 21, 2009

Blackdog said:
"Behe says he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but that after reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution. Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures." - Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ugh, poor Behe. If only he understood evolution, he would not have made such a fool out of himself.

Debunking Christianity: Notes on Draper's Article on Behe's Design Argument, Part 3: Are Behe's Examples Really Irreducibly Complex?

Black Dog · Feb 21, 2009

EgoffTib said:
Ugh, poor Behe. If only he understood evolution, he would not have made such a fool out of himself.

Debunking Christianity: Notes on Draper's Article on Behe's Design Argument, Part 3: Are Behe's Examples Really Irreducibly Complex?

What does your comment have to do with my post?

Even in your "blog" post it says he may not be correct, it says nothing about he is absolutely wrong.

obvious Child · Feb 21, 2009

Blackdog said:
It was a group of comments, not just that one.

Aka, you're grasping at straws.

This is a great misunderstanding on your part. No one is saying it is to complex to understand. They are saying the structures are to complex for evolution to be an explanation. We do not think nature has the tools to do such complex structures on its own. It may be God, it may be something else. We will not stop looking, but for now it is not explainable.

On the contrary, that is not even close to what ID argues. ID is in fact saying that it is too complex to explain and understand now. The whole eye senario is a perfect example of don't know = Goddidit. And as you say, IDers don't think nature has such tools, the problem is applying that historically, everything we couldn't explain is therefore credited to God.

We thought it was God long before any other theory's came along. I do whole heartedly believe in God and think he created everything. He did not tell us the mechanics involved, but this we can discover through science.

Which is contradictory to ID as ID is not science, cannot be tested and has no evidence.

I have more than explained how this is not true above.

No you didn't. You pretend you did.

We should teach ID in the classroom. It would take all of 10 seconds.

"If something cannot be explained currently, therefore God."

Black Dog · Feb 22, 2009

obvious Child said:
Aka, you're grasping at straws.

You have got to be kidding. :roll:

obvious Child said:
On the contrary, that is not even close to what ID argues.

I and many others do support that argument. So tell me how you know the mind of everyone who supports ID? :2wave:

obvious Child said:
ID is in fact saying that it is too complex to explain and understand now.

Wrong. One man is saying this and some others follow it. This is your limited perception of a broad subject with many views and theorys.

obvious Child said:
The whole eye senario is a perfect example of don't know = Goddidit.

On the contrary it is a perfect example of your complete and utter lack of understanding the fact that those who support ID have many different views and opinions. But please continue in your ignorance and continue to make blanket statements. :sinking:

obvious Child said:
And as you say, IDers don't think nature has such tools, the problem is applying that historically, everything we couldn't explain is therefore credited to God.

So what? Evolution itself is accredited to God in other circles. :mrgreen:

obvious Child said:
Which is contradictory to ID as ID is not science, cannot be tested and has no evidence.

And who was arguing this point? I certainly would like to know. So again you try to change the subject and interject things that litterally have nothing to do with the thread or what I posted.

obvious Child said:
No you didn't. You pretend you did.

Than I can only assume you cannot read or are in denial.

obvious Child said:
We should teach ID in the classroom. It would take all of 10 seconds.

That is your opinion and nothing more. In the end it still has nothing to do with myself, this thread or to much of anything that was stated AGAIN.

obvious Child said:
"If something cannot be explained currently, therefore God."

Here is the part you seem to be missing...

God did it whether we know how it happened or not. There is no "God of gaps" there is only God, period.

Do You Believe in Creationism?

Do You Belive In Creationsm?

Yes I do - The Biblical version

Yes I do - "Intelligent Design" - God created everything

No - I believe in the Theory of Evolution (Darwinism)

None of the above - please explain

Member

Pathetic Douchebag

Pragmatist

Matthew 16:3

King Of The Dog Pound

Pragmatist

Member

King Of The Dog Pound

Equal Opportunity Hater

King Of The Dog Pound

Equal Opportunity Hater

King Of The Dog Pound

Equal Opportunity Hater

King Of The Dog Pound

Equal Opportunity Hater

King Of The Dog Pound

Equal Opportunity Hater

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

Equal Opportunity Hater

King Of The Dog Pound