-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
what good is Intelligent Design?
- Thread starter UnchartedSpirit
- Start date
Link for Tuataras...
Little changed for 225 million years... and can't survive in environments over 77 degrees F. Pretty amazing odds against this one.
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200603.htm
Little changed for 225 million years... and can't survive in environments over 77 degrees F. Pretty amazing odds against this one.
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200603.htm
Part deux...
The only way creationists have maintained the macro/micro distinction is by constantly redefining microevolution to include more evolution.</font>[/QUOTE] What a hypocritical joke of an accusation. What is static and certain about ToE? Nothing except the absolute faith by those presupposing naturalism of it being somehow true.
Here's a stable definition for you. Microevolution pertains to the ability within the genome to adapt to its environmental conditions. Macroevolution pertains to the speculation that microevolution will exceed the boundaries of the genome to become a novel species.
Materialists rely on natural explanations for gravity, electricity, magnetism, disease and nuclear power as much as they do for speciation and the diversity of life. Are you willing to throw out the "materialistic" explanations for all of those things as well? If not, why the inconsistency?</font>[/QUOTE] No inconsistency since you don't have to presuppose anything about "why" those "operational" areas of science work for them to be of value. Evolution has no operational value that cannot be replaced by simple categorization.
But that simply isn't a better explanation.</font>[/QUOTE] Yes it is. It relies on processes actually observed in the natural world. That makes it dramatically superior to any theory that relies on purely speculative mechanisms for most of its parts.
That isn't necessary for the idea to be true. You have no idea where the precursors for the Cambrian explosion came from... yet you are willing to place complete faith in the materialists' assertion that they were there. You have no mechanism that reasonably accounts for the diversity in the natural world via evolution... yet you place your faith in the materialists' explanations for how it might have happened.
a) Common design features in the basic, pristine genomes. b) Much more openness to these types of insertions prior to the massive deletions resulting from speciation. c) Simply the statistical, mathematical truth that having the insert in one place in one species does not preclude having it in the same place in another species.... especially if either the host or the original virus had a predisposition for those locations.
Yes and no. I have no doubt that early diversity was amazing by our standards. Also, Noah took two of every kind onto the Ark... that doesn't mean that every species was taken.
Can you site this old dna?
And the proof that they were not more adaptable genetically than modern animals. Further, I would anticipate most of the speciation to have occurred fairly quickly after the fall and then again after the environmental changes resulting from the flood.
Actually the dating methods are demonstrably flawed and based on circular reasoning at its very worst.
As far as the fossil record is concerned, recent discoveries have baffled evolutionists precisely because very old animals appear to be more complex than their supposed descendents.
Not demonstrated by anything other than the interpretations of the data. [/quote][/qb] It even contradicts what you stated earlier about "the fossil record shows complexity arising suddenly", since complexity should not arise at all according to your view, except at the very beginning.[/quote][/qb] Not at all. Complexity is inherited, not acquired. The conclusion that an explosion of diversity occurred from the original kinds following the dramatic shift in natural law caused by the fall is consistent with earlier forms being more complex than later forms.
a) The gaps in the fossil record may or may not be there... though evolution depends on the presupposition that they are. b) My theory suggests no such thing. Please don't suppose to speak for me.
So what? You accept evolution. A theory that has massive problems and directly contradicts what God said He did.
Unsurprisingly, consensus science does. Maybe that's why the consensus view among scientists in general is no different than the consensus view among Christian scientists. </font>[/QUOTE]Conclusion not in evidence. The only thing we know about scientists' "concensus view" is that most of them were taught and accepted the naturalistic presupposition concerning nature and evolution.
The concensus view of the Hitler youth was that Jews were subhuman... that didn't make it true... it only meant that when only one voice is allowed to speak in education... that voice becomes the concensus.
First, note that this "crack in the sidewalk" was widely accepted even by those who opposed evolution. In other words, it does not work to say that the evidence of the age of the earth or the evidence falsifying a global flood is all in the minds of those evil evolutionists. Even creationists saw it. In fact, creationists were influential in establishing those things.
Secondly, I don't accept evolution based on materialistic presuppositions, and neither do Christian scientists who accept it. Evolution is consensus science because scientists, regardless of their presuppositions, come to the same conclusion. That is what separates it from creationist ideas that can only be seen if you look through the right glasses (and even then, you have to squint).
Most of your arguments against evolution are based on attempting to tie it to materialism, or attempting to claim that only atheists believe it, or attempting to expand the term "evolution" to refer to everything in science you disagree with. Do you really expect those approaches to be compelling to someone like me who rejects materialism, is a Christian, and knows that evolution explains life's diversity, not the universe as a whole?
Agreed. I'm curious, would you accept the common descent of all other life except for humans? If not, where do you draw the line, and do you have any biblical basis for where you draw it?
Who are you referring to? People like me who accept consensus science, including evolution? My own experience was quite the opposite. I assumed YEC but the evidence eventually pushed me to TE. Probably most of the non-YECs on this board had a similar experience, whether they ended up as OEC or TE. They probably didn't change their view because they wanted to, but because the facts they became aware of compelled them to.
No... Because God DID claim creation and gave a specific though not detailed NARRATIVE for how He did it. What kind of straw man argument is that anyway?</font>[/QUOTE]It's not a straw man because using a literal interpretation of Scripture also leads to God providing specific though not detailed accounts that contradict modern science on these other things.
If you want one in narrative form, check out what Genesis 30:25-43 says about genetics. Note that this passage does not indicate a miracle (though I think it was a miracle), and the final verse states that Jacob's actions were effective (though I think it happened in spite of his trickery, not because of it). I just don't think the author of Genesis knew as much about DNA, genes and heredity as we do today. I don't think God needed to reveal these things to allow that author to write this passage. The only problem is if one tries to extract scientific details from texts not intended to provide them.
Nope. As you have so adequately proven, it is based on explanations of observations as governed by presuppositions that favor the theory.</font>[/QUOTE]If I had an interest in doing so, I could handwave all the observations of gravity away the same way you handwaved away some observations that lead to the conclusion of common descent. But in both cases, that is denying reality, not showing that the observations do not exist. The end of that thinking is nihilism. The point is that the observations exist, and they are the basis of the theories. Both for gravity and evolution.
And what is "the boundary"? If it is so clear, surely you can define it.
SuperBaptist
New Member
Who really cares about what MEN think about the origin of the Universe. I mean, come on, Cane and Abel married women from the tribes of Ick and Od or something like that. Where did they come from? There is no contradiction between Genesis and Evolution if we allow for the theory that they coexisted. Before the creation of the sun, how long was a day? 5 Million years maybe? If you know, maybe YOU are God. I think not.
None of this changes the nature of our salvation. Saved by faith, living by love.
Maybe we will be visited by some spirit with the truth of the matter, or upon our deaths and resurrections to the Heavens.
None of this changes the nature of our salvation. Saved by faith, living by love.
Maybe we will be visited by some spirit with the truth of the matter, or upon our deaths and resurrections to the Heavens.
[Godwin's Law] supported once again.
[Godwin's Law] supported once again. </font>[/QUOTE]Straw man demonstrated once again.
My point was not to compare evolutionists to Nazis in any moral or substanative way... only in their employment of propaganda and information control.
Look at the current controversy over evolution in education most recently manifested in SC- evolutionists aren't just resisting the teaching of ID or Creationism... they are adamantly opposed to an honest critical approach to the theory of evolution itself. An approach that challenges young science students to be critical thinkers and not just accept the party line.
A teacher in Washington state was defrocked because he dared to have students read an article by Stephen Gould criticizing the use of debunked "evidences" for evolution in education. IOW's, nothing that would cause students to look critically at evolution is to be allowed. That cannot be properly called science... much less education. It can only be called indoctrination.
The desire to be accepted and successful within one's circle is very strong. Few if any science students question that they will be ostracized if they reject naturalism or macroevolution as a fundamental framework for explaining natural history... much less adopting a supernaturalist or creationist point of view.
The comparison is completely valid. Another would be the information control, education, and indoctrination under the old Soviet Union. People were taught atheism officially... and mocked if they rejected it... and even worse if they tried to spread religion.
Yet another would be the indoctrination going on in Middle Eastern Islamic schools. They are noted as breeding grounds for terrorists since they will completely indoctrinated to hate the west and Israel by the time they become adults... just like evolutionists want science students to be indoctrinated with uncritical, unquestioning acceptance of the theory.
First off, you can drop the melodrama. I think evolutionists are wrong. I think what they sincerely and for the most part innocently believe is in fact evil since it is contradictory to God's Word... but I have not, and do not, say they are "evil".
Second, the global flood has something all the handwaving against it doesn't have... and handwritten eyewitness account... relayed by God to Moses. Perhaps your theory is that God lied to Moses... or perhaps that the texts are so corrupted as to be untrustworthy. But the account is given in the form of a narrative- not poetry.
Yes you do... but not your own. You say you don't accept materialism... then turn around and swallow hook, line, and sinker the explanations and speculations of those who do. Worse yet, you accept these human, materialists opinions and speculations even as they directly contradict what God said He did.
He asked you to have faith in Him... even when men, maybe even most men, say different.
First off, concensus is NEVER a valid measure of TRUTH. Second, concensus opinions can be created through the control and manipulation of information... exactly as evolutionsts have done for roughly 100 years now.
That is utterly and totally false not to mention condescending. MOST of the strong advocates for creation and ID were once evolutionists and were definitely taught evolution. I was.... and not as a theory either. I tried my best to figure out how to reconcile it with the Bible.That is what separates it from creationist ideas that can only be seen if you look through the right glasses (and even then, you have to squint).
But then information gave me another option. I found through my own studies that evolution wasn't a rock solid piece of science like the textbooks say. I found that there are other plausible explanations that don't make naturalistic assumptions. I discerned that while some of these explanations aren't necessarily probable... many of evolution's most critical mechanisms are even more improbable.
Do I bring a supernaturalist presupposition to the evidence? Of course. I won't deny it... like evolutionists and their followers do. But I have, and can still, put that other hat back to get perspective.
I have looked at the issue from a supernaturalist standpoint as well as naturalist... and the prior answers the critical questions much better than the latter.
That's because it is irrevocably linked to assuming materialism/naturalism to come up with explanations. You can believe that God is somehow operating in the background if you like... but you cannot deny that evolution's design explicitly makes God unnecessary to explain nature.
Do what?
Depends on just how blind you truly are to what you are accepting. On the one hand you claim to reject materialism and on the other you accept naturalistic assumptions as limits to what can be "true" about natural history.
The problem with that is that evolution doesn't explain it within the realm of operational/experimental science.
Natural selection does work in a way. Certain traits will be favored environmentally. However, there are limits to the extent of change the genome will allow. Experimentally, science finds that any permanent changes in a genome will be a loss, not accummulation, of genetic information.
They then grasp at the straw of mutation to provide the necessary new information but even if you allow that novel, beneficial information does arise... it has never created a new species nor does it occur in sufficient amounts to account for diversity. Unless of course conditions in the past somehow made those beneficial mutations more prevalent... but if you would accept that, why would you reject a proposal that God's perfect created order was made up of vastly superior and purer genomes than those after 6000-8000 years of sin corruption?
Agreed. I'm curious, would you accept the common descent of all other life except for humans?</font>[/QUOTE] Not from one form but rather from an original set of animal "kinds". Yes.
The biblical line around man's creation is given by God Himself in claiming to directly rather than indirectly create him... a fact affirmed by Jesus Himself.... as was the flood.
BTW, the flood being global is affirmed by the NT in Hebrews, Luke, Matthew, and especially 2 Peter 3... the last one is really good. A local flood doesn't really do well as a comparison to God's coming destruction of the world by fire.
Who are you referring to? People like me who accept consensus science, including evolution?</font>[/QUOTE] If the shoe fits...
The "facts" or the arguments? IOW's, Did you go out and study the evidence for yourself or simply believe what someone operating on the assumption of evolution said about it? I would tend to agree that evolutionists have more resources to make their case than creationists... they even normally use much more impressive language.
In fact, I would hold this very much in the favor of evolution's detractors. With very limited resources, they have not only countered with plausible theories and explanations... they have shown numerous cases where evolution is ridiculously improbable. It probably serves you well to ascribe evolution to God since it comes so close to be miraculous at very many points... however if you are going to ascribe something to God... it should probably agree with what He claimed Himself.
Got to go. Enjoying the exchange but I have things to do. I'll try to get to the rest later but my time may be short for several days.
Quick tidbit:
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200603.htm
Evolutionists' hysteria about having the theory challenged is quite telling. If they aren't worried about evolution being "true" then they shouldn't have any problem whatsoever with critics taking their best shots. Instead, they want them silenced and mocked... perhaps tarred and feathered too.
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200603.htm
Evolutionists' hysteria about having the theory challenged is quite telling. If they aren't worried about evolution being "true" then they shouldn't have any problem whatsoever with critics taking their best shots. Instead, they want them silenced and mocked... perhaps tarred and feathered too.
SuperBaptist
New Member
I think maybe the evolutionists may object to the church coming to their government school and imposing a religious view on their children; they oppose their children being told they are going to hell. Maybe they are just a little bit touchy. I just can't understand!
Who knows, maybe the Muslims will have a tyranny of the majority in the US some day and they will then allow their bible to become the textbook for the science classes of your children. Is that ok with you?
Who knows, maybe the Muslims will have a tyranny of the majority in the US some day and they will then allow their bible to become the textbook for the science classes of your children. Is that ok with you?
I am here to advocate for Intelligent Falling.
Now some people will have you believe that this unknown force called gravity is responsible for the interaction of mass. It is true that some ideas about gravity can accomodate some observations concerning these kinds of interactions. But that is all it is. An accomodation of the evidence.
Consider this. For the other fundamental forces, we have observed the particles that carry the force. Gluons and photons for example. Now they tell us that the graviton carries the gravitational force. But has anyone EVER observed a graviton. No! It is a made up story.
Or consider this. The closest idea that tries to explain gravity rather than just accomodating it is relativity. But relativity utterly falls apart when you try to apply it to regions where quantum mechanics is important. Relativity cannot be used to accurately describe what we actually observe. Notice that there is no quantum theory of gravity. It does not exist. How can gravity be true when there is such a glaring problem.
Go to Google and search on "Einstein was wrong." You will find numerous other problems with this "theory." That's all that it is. A theory, a wild guess for which there is no real evidence.
The reality is that it is merely a metaphysical assumption to suggest that gravity naturally acts to make mass attract other mass. There is no proof at all for this unseen force. Do not fall into the materialistic trap of gravity.
Gravity is just a poor, atheistic substitute for Intelligent Falling.
Intelligent Falling is far superior to gravity. There are no "missing particles." There are no inconsitencies. There is no data whatsoever against the concept of Intelligent Falling. Look for yourselves. You will find no credible argument against why Intelligent Falling could not be possible.
Intelligent Falling will never be falsified. I can explain every aspect including those where the Theory of Gravity fails. It is a much better theory, more grounded in reality and without any metaphysical assumptions or commitment to materialism.
Now some would argue that we do not need Intelligent Falling. They will tell you that we have a nonsupernatural explanation for gravity. You must remember that this is just an unprovable metaphysical assumption.
Do not let anyone try and tell you that God would not have done it this way. I challenge anyone to show a detailed description of the natural workings of gravity in the Bible. It is not there! The Theory of Gravity is for heretics and others who hate God.
And has anyone ever "seen" a "black hole?" No one has ever seen one or visited one or directly measured the properties of one. Yet science accepts the ToG when it suggests that such beasts should exist. We all know that matter cannot be compressed to infinite density. I cannot belive that some people belive such fanciful ideas.
We should immediately abandon any guess or theory that predicts such an unlikely and inconceivable notion as a black hole.
Now some people will have you believe that this unknown force called gravity is responsible for the interaction of mass. It is true that some ideas about gravity can accomodate some observations concerning these kinds of interactions. But that is all it is. An accomodation of the evidence.
Consider this. For the other fundamental forces, we have observed the particles that carry the force. Gluons and photons for example. Now they tell us that the graviton carries the gravitational force. But has anyone EVER observed a graviton. No! It is a made up story.
Or consider this. The closest idea that tries to explain gravity rather than just accomodating it is relativity. But relativity utterly falls apart when you try to apply it to regions where quantum mechanics is important. Relativity cannot be used to accurately describe what we actually observe. Notice that there is no quantum theory of gravity. It does not exist. How can gravity be true when there is such a glaring problem.
Go to Google and search on "Einstein was wrong." You will find numerous other problems with this "theory." That's all that it is. A theory, a wild guess for which there is no real evidence.
The reality is that it is merely a metaphysical assumption to suggest that gravity naturally acts to make mass attract other mass. There is no proof at all for this unseen force. Do not fall into the materialistic trap of gravity.
Gravity is just a poor, atheistic substitute for Intelligent Falling.
Intelligent Falling is far superior to gravity. There are no "missing particles." There are no inconsitencies. There is no data whatsoever against the concept of Intelligent Falling. Look for yourselves. You will find no credible argument against why Intelligent Falling could not be possible.
Intelligent Falling will never be falsified. I can explain every aspect including those where the Theory of Gravity fails. It is a much better theory, more grounded in reality and without any metaphysical assumptions or commitment to materialism.
Now some would argue that we do not need Intelligent Falling. They will tell you that we have a nonsupernatural explanation for gravity. You must remember that this is just an unprovable metaphysical assumption.
Do not let anyone try and tell you that God would not have done it this way. I challenge anyone to show a detailed description of the natural workings of gravity in the Bible. It is not there! The Theory of Gravity is for heretics and others who hate God.
And has anyone ever "seen" a "black hole?" No one has ever seen one or visited one or directly measured the properties of one. Yet science accepts the ToG when it suggests that such beasts should exist. We all know that matter cannot be compressed to infinite density. I cannot belive that some people belive such fanciful ideas.
We should immediately abandon any guess or theory that predicts such an unlikely and inconceivable notion as a black hole.
SuperBaptist
New Member
That's so hilarious. I have to remember that one, Intelligent Falling, and with not so much as a crack of a smile! You are my hero!
SuperBaptist
New Member
Maybe, if there is no gravity, the Earth just sucks!
