Do You Believe in Creationism?

Blackdog said:

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.

Click to expand...

His argument from "irreducible complexity" has been utterly destroyed by tons of biologists. That was my point.

Blackdog said:

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

Click to expand...

Not my fault if you wish to define ID as anything you want. I however, will use an actual model that isn't freely open to revision as one seeks dependent upon their losing position in a debate.

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.

Click to expand...

Ah, how nice. A belief without any real meaning. Free to change whenever, for whatever reason, any at time. Totally useful eh?

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:

Click to expand...

See above.

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

Click to expand...

By whom? Creationists?

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.

Click to expand...

You said that Christanity taught people to seek to understand. You also argued that ID does this. This is factually wrong as ID is little more then God of the Gaps. Therefore, ID is an anti-thesis to Christanity's idea to seek knowledge.

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

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

Click to expand...

I'm starting to agree with Scourge that some religious people cannot be reasoned with.

EgoffTib said:

His argument from "irreducible complexity" has been utterly destroyed by tons of biologists. That was my point.

Click to expand...

This has something to do with my post or this thread how? I notice you sort of ignored this the first time as well.

As for your "tons of biologists" this is false as he has not been "destroyed" as it cannot be proved one way or the other yet. Neither side has enough evidence to do much of anything as your own article pointed out. It is an educated guess on both sides.

Now if you had said which is most likely, I could then agree with your statement. But it is absolutely not a forgone conclusion by any means.

obvious Child said:

Not my fault if you wish to define ID as anything you want. I however, will use an actual model that isn't freely open to revision as one seeks dependent upon their losing position in a debate.

Click to expand...

The red highlights sum up your arguments quite well.

"Some disagreements about design are unavoidable because people just disagree. But in debates about design some of the "more heat than light" is due to confusion about definitions of design. This is partly due to ignorance, when people don't think about what they're saying. But some confusion seems intentional, when debaters (on both sides) think distortion will help them appeal to listeners they want to impress. - Intelligent Design in Science & Society*(science, philosophy, theology)

"four types of intelligent design
• The properties of nature are "just right" for a wide variety of life-allowing phenomena. For example, we have sunshine because natural processes produce a fine-tuned balance between opposing forces, in a tug-of-war lasting billions of years. Does this fine tuning of nature indicate a divine design of nature?
• Judeo-Christian theists believe that God responds to prayer, and He can change our situations and our thoughts & actions. Usually, all of this happens in a way that appears normal and natural, yet God is actively involved in a divine guiding of natural process in our daily lives. In a similar way, maybe God also guided the formative history of nature to produce desired natural-appearing results instead of other natural-appearing results.
•• Judeo-Christian theists also believe that God can use miraculous-appearing action. And humans can produce objects and events that would not occur if we just let nature "do what it does" with undirected natural process. For example, if you receive a radio signal — 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, ... — and you think "this long string of prime numbers probably was not produced by undirected natural process," you are proposing a theory of Intelligent Design.

The paragraphs above describe four types of design. When scientists study a feature of nature (a star, bacteria, whale, biochemical system, radio signal, car,...) they can ask about its origin. Was it produced by intelligent design, by:
• natural process because, before history began, the universe was designed so this would happen;
• natural process that was supernaturally guided in a natural-appearing way to produce a desired natural-appearing result, or
detectable design-directed action by a supernatural agent (•) or natural agent (•), which was necessary because undirected natural process would not produce the feature;
or maybe there was no design, and the feature was produced by natural process that was not designed, not undetectably-guided, and not detectably-directed. - Intelligent Design in Science & Society (science, philosophy, theology)

Looks like many people disagree with your narrow definition.

obvious Child said:

Ah, how nice. A belief without any real meaning. Free to change whenever, for whatever reason, any at time. Totally useful eh?

See above.

Click to expand...

Nice dodge. Now respond to what I was actually talking about.

obvious Child said:

By whom? Creationists?

Click to expand...

No. By doctors who preform abortions. :roll:

obvious Child said:

You said that Christanity taught people to seek to understand. You also argued that ID does this. This is factually wrong as ID is little more then God of the Gaps. Therefore, ID is an anti-thesis to Christanity's idea to seek knowledge.

Click to expand...

That statement is so moronic I don't even know where to begin.

#1 This was not a debate Creation Vs Evolution thread.
#2 Saying God did something does not cancel out the mechanics of said operation or the search for said natural mechanics.
#3 The only thing I have seen so far that is "anti-thesis" is your argument to intelligence.

obvious Child said:

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

Click to expand...

After your ridicules arguments, this does not mean much coming from you.

obvious Child said:

I'm starting to agree with Scourge that some religious people cannot be reasoned with.

Click to expand...

:shock:

Blackdog said:

This has something to do with my post or this thread how? I notice you sort of ignored this the first time as well.

Click to expand...

You posted about Behe, and so did I. That's really all that happened. Nothing too challenging there to grasp.

As for your "tons of biologists" this is false as he has not been "destroyed" as it cannot be proved one way or the other yet. Neither side has enough evidence to do much of anything as your own article pointed out. It is an educated guess on both sides.

Now if you had said which is most likely, I could then agree with your statement. But it is absolutely not a forgone conclusion by any means.

Click to expand...

His "theory" of irreducible complexity is a joke. Let me dismantle it for you.

A lot of body parts that Behe or others claim are irreducibly complex are far from it. Example: The eye. The claim is made that the eye is perfectly designed for sight and is too complex to evolve. Behe has stated that half of an eye would do an earlier lifeform no good. This is false, becuase there are plenty of amphibians that have just enough visions to see shadows and changes in brightness. This allows them to see enough of an environment to escape a predator.

Another one is wings. Behe has also stated that wings are irreducibly complex. Another false claim. Having an underveloped pair of wings would allow an animal to effectively hanglide(like a flying squirrell) or hover from treetops.

EgoffTib said:

You posted about Behe, and so did I. That's really all that happened. Nothing too challenging there to grasp.

Click to expand...

Then you should have responded to the actual person who brought him in.

EgoffTib said:

His "theory" of irreducible complexity is a joke. Let me dismantle it for you.

A lot of body parts that Behe or others claim are irreducibly complex are far from it. Example: The eye. The claim is made that the eye is perfectly designed for sight and is too complex to evolve. Behe has stated that half of an eye would do an earlier lifeform no good. This is false, becuase there are plenty of amphibians that have just enough visions to see shadows and changes in brightness. This allows them to see enough of an environment to escape a predator.

Another one is wings. Behe has also stated that wings are irreducibly complex. Another false claim. Having an underveloped pair of wings would allow an animal to effectively hanglide(like a flying squirrell) or hover from treetops.

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with what I said. I understand his premise just fine, you seem to think speculation is fact.

Both sides do not have enough proof to state either position as fact, period.

Blackdog said:

Then you should have responded to the actual person who brought him in.

This has nothing to do with what I said. I understand his premise just fine, you seem to think speculation is fact.

Both sides do not have enough proof to state either position as fact, period.

Click to expand...

The FACT that their are animals with 50% of an eye that can only see shadows and differences in brightness proves that the eye is not irreducibly complex.

EgoffTib said:

The FACT that their are animals with 50% of an eye that can only see shadows and differences in brightness proves that the eye is not irreducibly complex.

Click to expand...

Not really as many would say it is complex and that it is indeed a whole eye as it can perceive light.

Again an educated guess or speculation, not fact.

PS: that is also one example of many that could be argued ad nauseam as it is not a forgone conclusion at this point scientifically speaking.

Blackdog said:

Not really as many would say it is complex and that it is indeed a whole eye as it can perceive light.

Again an educated guess or speculation, not fact.

Click to expand...

So then what would the human eye be? If that is considered a whole eye, and it is 50% less effective than ours, what does that make the human eye?

EgoffTib said:

So then what would the human eye be? If that is considered a whole eye, and it is 50% less effective than ours, what does that make the human eye?

Click to expand...

I don't know, and I don't care. You should ask the people making the claim.

I do not believe in creationism but, the correct counter example should be abiogenesis since both items deal with the origin of life while evolution says nothing about the origin of life.