View Poll Results: Do You Belive In Creationsm?

Voters
73. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes I do - The Biblical version

    3 4.11%
  • Yes I do - "Intelligent Design" - God created everything

    9 12.33%
  • No - I believe in the Theory of Evolution (Darwinism)

    51 69.86%
  • None of the above - please explain

    10 13.70%
Page 32 of 34 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 336

Thread: Do You Believe in Creationism?

  1. #311
    King Of The Dog Pound

    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,749

    Re: Do You Believe in Creationism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Radical Ron View Post
    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.


    No Lives Matter

  2. #312
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Do You Believe in Creationism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    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."
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #313
    King Of The Dog Pound

    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,749

    Re: Do You Believe in Creationism?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    That's a rather broad definition.
    ID is rather broad.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Too bad too many IDers don't realize it.
    Just had to throw an insult in didn't you.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.


    No Lives Matter

  4. #314
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Do You Believe in Creationism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    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.
    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.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  5. #315
    King Of The Dog Pound

    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,749

    Re: Do You Believe in Creationism?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    "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.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.


    No Lives Matter

  6. #316
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Do You Believe in Creationism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    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?
    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"
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  7. #317
    King Of The Dog Pound

    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,749

    Re: Do You Believe in Creationism?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Behe is the founding father of modern intelligent design.
    That would depend on who you asked.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.


    No Lives Matter

  8. #318
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Do You Believe in Creationism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    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?
    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.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #319
    King Of The Dog Pound

    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,749

    Re: Do You Believe in Creationism?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Me on the other hand, well, not knowing does not equate to Goddidit.
    Good for you?


    No Lives Matter

  10. #320
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Do You Believe in Creationism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    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.
    There are much better reasons to believe then the God of the Gaps.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 32 of 34 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •