Intelligent Design is not creationism

Quote from jem:
More...

On these last few pages there is a false dichotomy that keeps returning.

The universe can be designed and there still be evolution.

Yes, designed, but not Created as permanent.

Evolution does not rule out a creator either.

It rules out a "creator" but not a "designer".

The questions how did this universe arise?

Ask, and it shall be given unto you.

What caused the big bang.

Ask, and it shall be given unto you.

For that answer you have a choice,

You always have a choice.


1. We do not know.

Speak for yourself.


2. We do not know but it looks designed.

This is the closest to the truth. You are near the Kingdom of God.

3. well it looks designed but there are really billions of universes so we have no indicatioin that we have a designer.

This does not follow. "Billions" does not rule out a designer any more than billions of cells in your body rule out a design.

Only those who do no understand the current state of science pretend that an athiest has a more rational postion than a person who believes in a creator.

Indeed, faith falls to either side. When you can distinguish between design and creation you will almost be home. This is the basis of the false dichotomy.

Choose again.

Jesus
 
Quote from jem:

The universe can be designed and there still be evolution.
More...

Why include unnecessary rubbish hypotheses?

The concept of the evolution of species is not required by any observation ever made by science.
 
Quote from 2cents:

i see the design & non-evolution muppets are back :)

so, we all agree that your creator was a chimp, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution
More...

Timeline of evolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the history of evolutionary biology, see History of evolutionary thought.
This timeline of the evolution of life outlines the major events in the development of life on the planet Earth. For context, see geologic time scale, and the history of Earth. Dates given are estimates based on scientific evidence. The table uses the symbols "Ma" for "mega-annum (million years ago)" and "ka" for "kilo-annum (thousand years ago)". English literature also uses the abbreviations "mya" (m.y.a) and "tya" (t.y.a) or "kya" in the same sense.

In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation. Its occurrence over large stretches of time explains the origin of new species and ultimately the vast diversity of the biological world. Contemporary species are related to each other through common descent, products of evolution and speciation over billions of years.

The basic timeline is a 4600 million year old Earth, with

4000 my (million years) of simple cells,
3000 my of photosynthesis,
2000 my of complex cells,
1000 my of multicellular life,
600 my of simple animals,
500 my of fish and proto-amphibians,
475 my of land plants,
400 my of insects and seeds and amphibians,
300 my of reptiles,
200 my of mammals,
150 my of birds,
100 my of flowers and
65 my since the non-avian dinosaurs died out.
For a list of our common ancestors with other living species, see The Ancestor's Tale.

continued...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

While we are on the subject of fantasy...

How about a theory that from non life, life suddenly and mysteriously appears...as if by magic.

So we have nothing but non life, i.e. rocks, atmosphere, water, earth, gravity, light, day, night, etc....but no living things.

Then suddenly, what exactly is it that mutates into the first form of life? Why? A form that is entirely different than what it came from, i.e. having life, a living thing, a survival instinct, needing materials external to itself to survive, a well defined lifespan, etc. suddenly appears from matter which has no such properties.

LMAO...

Do we even see examples of non life spontaneously randomly mutating at all? See any rocks producing life? Any life coming from 100% pure H20? From the sky? From fire? From any element, or combination of elements just sitting in a corner?

LOL...

Take the moon, it is assumed that no life exists there. Okay. Let's now imagine (imagination is big in the Darwinists way of thinking, absolutely necessary for its very existence and perpetuation) that we place the perfect atmosphere around the moon, that supports life. Exact same atmosphere here on earth, same gravity, same temperature, some basic raw materials...so when exactly does the moon suddenly and mysteriously produce biological organisms out of non living materials?

Oh man...

Are these gargantuan gaps in reason ignored, out of convenience? Or ignored out of ignorance? Or ignored by the design of those who are atheistic...

Hey Darwinists, why not just tell everyone that your ancestors are lifeless rocks...shoot, the way scientists have been deified, the non thinkers will accept anything they say as true...

Rocks in their heads, perhaps...
More...
Because you can recognize patterns and shapes does not mean they have been designed or that they have been designed by a designer.

The only ignorant chance is your gamble that there must be a designer for things that do not require one.
 
Quote from jem:

On these last few pages there is a false dichotomy that keeps returning.

The universe can be designed and there still be evolution.

Evolution does not rule out a creator either.

The questions how did this universe arise?

What caused the big bang.

For that answer you have a choice,

1. We do not know.

2. We do not know but it looks designed.

3. well it looks designed but there are really billions of universes so we have no indicatioin that we have a designer.

Only those who do no understand the current state of science pretend that an athiest has a more rational postion than a person who believes in a creator.
More...
Obviously it is yourself who doesn't understand science otherwise you would realize there are more than 3 "choices".
 
did Stu's post server a purpose.

The odds are he is about to start a debate in which he makes up a new definition for the word "know" and then refuses to acknowledge the definition provided by a dictionary.
 
Doesn't mean they are not patterns of design either...

So we are back to square one, ignorance of chance or design. No real verified knowledge of design or chance, so why again is it that so called scientists build a foundation of "scientific knowledge" on the basis of ignorance, then indoctrinate children into such dogmatic thinking?

Too funny...

Really, as far as biological processes go, there is no gamble on simple observation and teaching fact in evidence. What the children come to believe is instigating that change, either design or chance should be their conclusions, not the consequence brainwashing into a dogmatic belief system of atheists.

Quote from stu:

Because you can recognize patterns and shapes does not mean they have been designed or that they have been designed by a designer.

The only ignorant chance is your gamble that there must be a designer for things that do not require one.
More...
 
Oh yes. Now the "scientists" are going to redefine what we all know to fit their agenda, which is not discovery of truth in this case, but to defend to the death their belief in ignorant chance as a "known."

I'm telling you, this all revolves around the concept of ignorant chance vs. design, and the entire theory that is so near and dear to them hinges on that concept. A concept only, in which massive intellectual buildings of speculative thinking are erected.

It really is quite an ingenious defense they have built around their atheism, as in order for them to question their own foundation of their dogma, it must be proved definitively that there is design at work, as they have made an assumption of ignorant chance as their blueprint. No, you can't assume design, you must assume ignorant chance.

Why? Because to assume design over ignorant chance would mean to them two things:

1. That they are wrong in their belief system.
2. That God may exist.

So could they be wrong? Scary thought for you atheists, eh? Bet you get goosebumps just thinking about that.

Does design have to mean God?

Nope. Not at all.

If we see a crop of corn in ordered rows, we know with high certainty that there were corn seeds sown first.

So some "designer" could have visited this earth planet. The "designer" knew the nature of the universe. He didn't create the universe, but he understood its mechanics. He planned to "design" the earth to have life, not because he created life, but because he could "plant" life on earth. The designer planted the seeds of life on earth, because at that time the earth was ripe for life. So the seeds sprouted and grew according to nature's programming. Programmed evolution if you will, by design. No God required...

Are you happy now? Could you atheists sleep at night with that possibility?

Oh yeah, then we get back to how and why the universe is programmed to sustain and maintain life.

LOL!

Quote from jem:

did Stu's post server a purpose.

The odds are he is about to start a debate in which he makes up a new definition for the word "know" and then refuses to acknowledge the definition provided by a dictionary.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Doesn't mean they are not patterns of design either...

So we are back to square one, ignorance of chance or design. No real verified knowledge of design or chance, so why again is it that so called scientists build a foundation of "scientific knowledge" on the basis of ignorance, then indoctrinate children into such dogmatic thinking?

Too funny...

Really, as far as biological processes go, there is no gamble on simple observation and teaching fact in evidence. What the children come to believe is instigating that change, either design or chance should be their conclusions, not the consequence brainwashing into a dogmatic belief system of atheists.
More...
Doesn't mean to say they are not patterns the Fairies designed either, but no evidence of Fairy or equally God designer is present.

Other than the unnecessary chance guess at explaining pattern and shape recognition by inserting a Fairy or a God designer where none is present or necessary is the dumb ignorant chance gamble you seem to be stuck with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top