Help...God is shaking me down!

[gdnp]

Intelligent Design at least has some basis in fact, as can be seen in the relationship between the cells of the human body, between flowers and bees, and sexual reproduction. It can also be seen in that the nature of our earthly atmosphere (degrees in temperature etc. etc.) was made for the support of life. To say that these are utterly random circumstances that were spawned from an explosion that came from *nowhere* is not science. It's foolishness.

This just demonstrates the point maxfrost made about theism being self-fulfilling. That earth supports life is evidence of intelligent design, even though there are other planets in our solar system that cannot suport life, and billions of other solar systems, some which may and some which might not. If only a tiny fraction of planets suport life--maybe only ours--what were all the others billions upon billions designed for?

 

[Sunstealer]

I've just finished watching "I love the 90's" and Oral Roberts was mentioned as a porn star. Is it the same person?

 

[Psi Baba]

And I suppose what you've studied is the "evolutionary jump"? When one creature suddenly transforms into something else despite the fact that there is absolutely no grounds in logic for it doing so? Or maybe you've studied about why there are no creatures alive today that are half man and half ape despite the fact humanity is supposed to have evolved from them? Maybe you've studied about how the human race could evolve later on in the future? Maybe one day we'll decide we don't want to walk anymore, sprout wings and fly away? Good luck.

As for me, I think that the idea that one can leave the sphere of one's own species to become something entirely different is ludicrous- as much so as the idea of apes developing man-like intelligence. No matter how much you try to educate an ape, and no matter over how many generations, the most one could do is domesticate one. It will throw tantrums, screech, smash things, eat bananas, but it won't gradually turn into a different creature, whether a man, a bird, a fish or anything else. And it won't have intellectual conversations with you. If we apply this evolutionary rule to all life forms, we're expected to believe that this (and men growing wings) is perfectly plausible.

Intelligent Design at least has some basis in fact, as can be seen in the relationship between the cells of the human body, between flowers and bees, and sexual reproduction. It can also be seen in that the nature of our earthly atmosphere (degrees in temperature etc. etc.) was made for the support of life. To say that these are utterly random circumstances that were spawned from an explosion that came from *nowhere* is not science. It's foolishness.

Wow. There are enough strawmen in that post to have a self-sustaining population.

 

[Akhenaten]

In what way was the thought that my belief cannot stand mockery implied from my quote? Maybe I said Christian beliefs were being mocked- but that the belief couldn't stand it? I don't think so.

Methinks thou doth protest too much. The idea of being able to withstand mockery implies that your beliefs have factual backing and/or that you have a sense of humour about them. Christianity is a double failure here.

And where did I say science bothered me?

Every time you attempt to state your understanding of it. It may be more accurate to say that science eludes you, rather than it proves bothersome.

Once again, theism is itself a form of science. And yes- of course I realize you laugh at the sophistication of such sciences, otherwise why would I have pointed this out in the first place?

Theism is most definitely not a form of science. It's a self-perpetuting study of absolutely nothing. You may hear laughing alright, but I don't think "the sophistication of such sciences" is the cause. Pointing out that theism is a science in the first place is fairly risable though, so maybe that induced the giggling that you hear.

And if I'm "imagining the mockery", s you put it, then just look at Bobrayner's quote, which re-enforced my point.

No, you aren't imagining the mockery. What you're imagining is that it's not justified.

Yes I do believe we are designed by an intelligent mind as opposed to coming out of an explosion thats cause has no grounds in logic.

If those are the only two choices you have allowed yourself for something to believe in, then you are totally stuffed from the outset. False dichotomy is false.

And you laugh at the Intelligent Design argument when the only point you have against it is that humans can catch cancer? If this is your so-called scientific evidence then I'm dubious.

I laugh at the ID "argument" for lots of reasons, and other people doubtless have their own reasons. Included in both sets would be laughing at ridiculous straw-man arguments. No doubt you will find this dubious.

Kids go to school to learn; I've already said that theism is in itself a form of science, and from the way you brush aside the ID argument, more scientific than evolution.

My Latin isn't good enough, so I'll improvise. Non sequiter³

How noble of you- painting all religious doctors as people with no knowledge of the human body who would "mess around" with your loved ones. One of those doctors might just save your life one day. Funny you should mention hospitals though. Ever heard of the Salvation Army? How about St. Bartholemu's? And you said "evolutionary" physiology; how could having knowledge of evolution possibly help with being a doctor? It has nothing to do with medical remedies. As for "peddling their beliefs to your kids", you speak about this as though it's a crime- is it now wrong for Christians in schools to tell a few Bible stories to children? Or is it wrong for points towards God's existence to be heard because they pose a threat to evolution? That could be called "bias", or even "covering up".

Now we reach the climactic point in the struggle between the straw men and the non sequiters. Once the Salvation Army gets involved, one can only pray(?) that St Bartholemu's can cope with the massive casuaties. Fortunately, no logical thought processes are likely to be harmed.

Wrong. Theism is supported by more evidence than evolution, and as for remaking historical records- many of today's great modern inventions came from England or branches of it in the 17th and 18th centuries, when Christianity was extremely prominent.

You have quite the knack for combining the beginning of one sentence with the ending of another, unrelated sentence. Well, not entirely unrelated, since both are complete drivel. "England or branches of it" ??!eleven? Now there's an educated-sounding phrase.

But evolutionary "scientists" as we call them, wouldn't want us to know that, would they?

I've long suspected a plot by conspiritors posing as evolutionary scientists to suppress English history. We should collaborate on a thread to expose this dastardly plan. You go first.

That's an interesting question by the way; ignorance of the law should not excuse one from criminal behaviour in court. If we apply this rule to yourself, then similarly, your ignorance of theistic science should not excuse you from criticism either- or rather, your refusal to achknowledge points for God's existence, so that you have to brush them aside when you can't answer them. ID.

How much do you know about invisible pink unicorns?

Your ignorance of theistic science invisible pink unicorns should not excuse you from criticism either- or rather, your refusal to achknowledge points for God's invisible pink unicorns' existence, so that you have to brush them aside when you can't answer them.

Hmmm?

And I suppose what you've studied is the "evolutionary jump"? When one creature suddenly transforms into something else despite the fact that there is absolutely no grounds in logic for it doing so?

Such creatures are known as Homo Culmus. Most here have more than a passing aquaintance with them. In fact, here comes another group of them right now:

Or maybe you've studied about why there are no creatures alive today that are half man and half ape despite the fact humanity is supposed to have evolved from them? Maybe you've studied about how the human race could evolve later on in the future? Maybe one day we'll decide we don't want to walk anymore, sprout wings and fly away? Good luck.

As for me, I think that the idea that one can leave the sphere of one's own species to become something entirely different is ludicrous- as much so as the idea of apes developing man-like intelligence. No matter how much you try to educate an ape, and no matter over how many generations, the most one could do is domesticate one. It will throw tantrums, screech, smash things, eat bananas, but it won't gradually turn into a different creature, whether a man, a bird, a fish or anything else. And it won't have intellectual conversations with you. If we apply this evolutionary rule to all life forms, we're expected to believe that this (and men growing wings) is perfectly plausible.

You are correct in one thing though, I must admit. Some apes just can't be educated.

Intelligent Design at least has some basis in fact, as can be seen in the relationship between the cells of the human body, between flowers and bees, and sexual reproduction.

You're not too solid on the definition of fact, are you? In any case I'd love to see you expand on this "relationship between the cells of the human body, between flowers and bees, and sexual reproduction." and how it supports intelligent design.

One could easily conclude from your statement above that you don't understand ID any better than you understand evolution. Bummer.

It can also be seen in that the nature of our earthly atmosphere (degrees in temperature etc. etc.) was made for the support of life.

Only by looking at the entire situation backwards.

To say that these are utterly random circumstances that were spawned from an explosion that came from *nowhere* is not science. It's foolishness.

Agreed. The trouble is, you're the only one saying it.

 

[Alice Shortcake]

Why do we mock religion? Because it's so...well, mockable!

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act on them…” - Thomas Jefferson

 

[krelnik]

Believe in the Big Bang or be mocked, scorned and called irrational by evolutionists for the rest of your life. Don't you do the same thing as the religious?

Really, Relic, what the heck does cosmology (e.g. Big Bang theory) have to do with evolutionary biology? Those two branches of science are about as distant from each other as is possible.

According to evolutionary theory, isn't it true that mankind evolved from bacteria that originated from the "big bang", an event taking place in space?

Nope.

Now you're mixing three separate ideas together: "big bang", "panspermia" and "evolution". Each of these is a separate scientific theory, and they are largely independent of each other. They also have widely varying levels of support: big bang and evolution are quite well supported by evidence, panspermia not as much.

These three theories all deal with very different scientific questions. What was the origin of the universe? What was the origin of life on earth? How has life on earth changed over time?

Really, man, if you are going to debate scientific theories on a board full of experts, at least get your basic facts straight.

 

[gdnp]

Originally Posted by Relic
Or maybe you've studied about why there are no creatures alive today that are half man and half ape despite the fact humanity is supposed to have evolved from them?

Maybe we should look at the predictive value of evolution vs. intelligent design (the biblical form).

Creationism/Intelligent design states that all the species of animals that ever existed were created at one time, that about 10000 years ago that two of each were selected and put on a big boat, and that no knew species have developed since then.

Evolutionary theory states that life began as simple organisms that gradually, through the process of mutation and natural selection, developed increasing complexity and new functions, while more primative/less fit organisms became extinct. (sorry for the oversimplification).

So if we were to look at fossils, what would ID predict? Well, the old fossils should be pretty much similar to the recent fossils, and both should be similar to current plants and animals.

What would evolution predict? Old fossils should be primitive, with more recent fossils increasingly complex and more similar to current plants and animals. Both old and new should contain species that no longer exist, because they have become extinct.

Which model agrees with reality? Sorry, evolution.

ID states that the earth was created in 6 days. When this happend is not explicitly stated in the bible. Many believe less than 10,000 years ago.

Evolution, being a branch of science, cannot stand if it contradicts other parts of science. Like cosmology or geology. So if techniques like carbon dating placed the age of the earth at 10,000 years, evolution theory would have a big problem. So what do the completely different fields of cosmology and geology say about the age of the earth? Well, they say that the earth is billions of years old. Evolutionists can breath a sigh of relief. Creationists? Well, they need some creative handwaving. "God created the world 10,000 years ago but did it so it looked like it was billions of years old."

How about biochemistry? Darwin came up with his theories long before DNA had been discovered. What would evolution predict about DNA? Well, all species should be based on similar chemistry, and use the same DNA code. Closely related species should have closely related DNA. More distantly related species should have larger differences. Some of the genes should be similar to other genes. Pieces of DNA should be useless--filler that serves no current purpose.

What would intelligent design predict about DNA? Well, not a whole lot. If the design were truly intelligent, one might guess that every piece of DNA would serve a useful purpose. No junk and filler. One might expect the copy mechanism would be foolproof: who wants errors in God's design? That would lead to differences that God did not create that might lead to...Gasp!...a natural advantage of one creature over another and...evolution.

So you see, evolution is part of a fabric of knowledge that we call science. I'm not saying we know everything or that everything we think we know is true. You can't just pluck out evolution and replace it with ID. You have to replace cosmology, geology, biochemistry, molecular biology.

Maybe you've studied about how the human race could evolve later on in the future? Maybe one day we'll decide we don't want to walk anymore, sprout wings and fly away? Good luck.

Actually evolutionary theory states that we are unlikely to spontaneously sprout wings and fly away no matter how devoutly we desire it. Studies in the sciences of anatomy, physiology, comparative zoology, and aeronautics would confirm this view. If humans do gain the power of flight in the future, it probably will be on the basis of intelligent design: That is, scientists intentionally modifying the human genome to make wings.

The bible, on the other hand, states that if you pray for it in the name of Jesus Christ it will be granted to you.

I think I'll stick with the scientific method and take a plane if I wish to fly.

 

[arthwollipot]

Creationism/Intelligent design states that all the species of animals that ever existed were created at one time, that about 10000 years ago that two of each were selected and put on a big boat, and that no knew species have developed since then.

Correction. One flavour of creationism states that. Young Earth Creationists, although noisy in the US, are actually in a minority even among creationists. As for intelligent design, it merely states that things that appear designed are designed. However, I've yet to encounter an ID advocate who was not also a creationist. Creationists believe in ID by default, it's just that some of them are honest about stating their position.

 

[gdnp]

Correction. One flavour of creationism states that. Young Earth Creationists, although noisy in the US, are actually in a minority even among creationists. As for intelligent design, it merely states that things that appear designed are designed. However, I've yet to encounter an ID advocate who was not also a creationist. Creationists believe in ID by default, it's just that some of them are honest about stating their position.

I admit that I have oversimplified. Certain beliefs tend to cluster together, but just as not all conservatives believe in the death penalty not all believers in ID are young earth creationists. I assume there are Muslim creationists, Hindu creationists, etc. We just don't hear that much about them in the US where judeo-Christian theology dominates.

 

[arthwollipot]

I admit that I have oversimplified. Certain beliefs tend to cluster together, but just as not all conservatives believe in the death penalty not all believers in ID are young earth creationists. I assume there are Muslim creationists, Hindu creationists, etc. We just don't hear that much about them in the US where judeo-Christian theology dominates.

Indeed. It's the YECs who get the most airtime, via the Creation Museums and suchlike, but they're a minority. There's Old Earth Creationists, Day-Age Creationists, Vedic Creationists... almost as many sects of creationism that there are sects of religion. Hmm. I wonder why that might be...

 

[gdnp]

Indeed. It's the YECs who get the most airtime, via the Creation Museums and suchlike, but they're a minority. There's Old Earth Creationists, Day-Age Creationists, Vedic Creationists... almost as many sects of creationism that there are sects of religion. Hmm. I wonder why that might be...

I know! So many different cultures couldn't have come up with it independently if it weren't true! More proof that evolution is a lie...

Of course...the fact that they all contradict each other...well...

It's a mystery. We can't understand the mind of God.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

...I've yet to encounter an ID advocate who was not also a creationist.

Jonathan Wells is a Moonie and then there's Raelians and new agers who believe in Sitchin.

Indeed. It's the YECs who get the most airtime, via the Creation Museums and suchlike, but they're a minority.

In the U.S., of those who claim to be Creationists, I'd say the majority are YECs. Of the overall population I'd say the biggest category would be "don't know/don't care" though.

 

[gdnp]

In the U.S., of those who claim to be Creationists, I'd say the majority are YECs. Of the overall population I'd say the biggest category would be "don't know/don't care" though.

Reminds me of a quote from an evangelical environmentalist: to paraphrase, "when Jesus returns I don't think he'll ask us how God created the world. He may ask us, though, what we've done with it since"

 

[Beerina]

I was just watching “I love the 80’s.” They talked about one of my favorite old school televangelist Oral Roberts. It is so funny that he used the “God said he will take me home unless I come up with 8 million dollars” scam and it worked.

He is perhaps second only to Gene Scott in his balsy, brazen efforts in collecting cash "for God."

 

[Beerina]

Reminds me of a quote from an evangelical environmentalist: to paraphrase, "when Jesus returns I don't think he'll ask us how God created the world. He may ask us, though, what we've done with it since"

Jesus: "What have you done to the world?!?!?"

Beerina: "Deliberately messing it up because you, and God, are asses! Any questions, idiot? No? Good. Now go conjure up me some stripper robots and a cheeseburger and get the hell out of my way."

 

[maxfrost]

Relic, excuse me, but I have to ask this. You seem to have a handle on this ID concept, so tell me, who designed the Intelligent Designer?

 

[Relic]

Relic, excuse me, but I have to ask this. You seem to have a handle on this ID concept, so tell me, who designed the Intelligent Designer?

The Intelligent Designer is eternal, not only in the sense of forever going back and forward, but also in the sense of creating time itself as a tool for human beings to live within. Further more, the Intelligent Designer is in possession of infinite power- logical grounds for having created the universe.

 

[shadron]

Maybe we should look at the predictive value of evolution vs. intelligent design (the biblical form).

...

How about biochemistry? Darwin came up with his theories long before DNA had been discovered. What would evolution predict about DNA? Well, all species should be based on similar chemistry, and use the same DNA code. Closely related species should have closely related DNA. More distantly related species should have larger differences. Some of the genes should be similar to other genes. Pieces of DNA should be useless--filler that serves no current purpose.

Let me go into some detail on this one. Specifically, evolution predicts that species, as they evolve and separate, will create structures or characteristics which are useful in their respective environments, and pass them on all of their offspring species. Thus, at one very early point in multicellular evolution, a new being later called an "animal" was created whose defining characteristic was the ingestion of other creatures around him to provide materials and energy, rather than deriving them directly from the elemental environment, as most plants do. One branch of this proto-animal evolved a tubeway within itself to capture its food within and ingest it internally. It did this by creating a dimple at one end of its integument which everted internally, creating a sac, and eventually met the integument at the other end, merging and opening a gut. It then proceeds to "eat" food from the new opening and expel wastes through the original hole created. Respectively, a mouth and an anus. Not only does every, single animal thereafter do the same thing to create it's gut during gestation, but it does it in precisely the same order - anus, then mouth. No exceptions. Why would that be the case? Well, perhaps the creator is being parsimonious. But then...

Another example. Multicellular organisms at some point evolved an internal circulatory system to manage growth beyond he stage where every cell in the body had direct contact with the environment. This occurred after the separation of two of the main trunks of the tree of life, mollusks on the one hand and the rest of animals on the other. The mollusks developed a blood supply with blue blood in it, the rest of animals have red blood. Thereafter, every mollusk species sports blue blood, without exception, and all the rest have red blood, again without exception. Where did the parsimony go? However, these are exactly the sorts of predictions/observations which evolution makes, two of many.

Kudos to AronRa, a youtube contributor for presenting this specific information. See

 

[JFrankA]

And I suppose what you've studied is the "evolutionary jump"? When one creature suddenly transforms into something else despite the fact that there is absolutely no grounds in logic for it doing so? Or maybe you've studied about why there are no creatures alive today that are half man and half ape despite the fact humanity is supposed to have evolved from them? Maybe you've studied about how the human race could evolve later on in the future? Maybe one day we'll decide we don't want to walk anymore, sprout wings and fly away? Good luck.

...that's called mutation. It's part of the evolutionary theory.

And make sure you know evolution before you try to debate it: Evolution is not a ladder: it's a bush. Some species are linked some are off shoots of others. It is clear you really don't know what is evolution at all. I'm no expert at evolution, but I understand that much at least....

Also, since you say

Once again, theism is itself a form of science

, I put this "theory" out here and call it true, based on your statement:

We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

 

[arthwollipot]

And I suppose what you've studied is the "evolutionary jump"? When one creature suddenly transforms into something else despite the fact that there is absolutely no grounds in logic for it doing so? Or maybe you've studied about why there are no creatures alive today that are half man and half ape despite the fact humanity is supposed to have evolved from them? Maybe you've studied about how the human race could evolve later on in the future? Maybe one day we'll decide we don't want to walk anymore, sprout wings and fly away? Good luck.

I'm no expert at evolution, but I understand that much at least....

The point is, you don't need to be an expert to understand the bogosity of that post. Just a tiny amount of reading will tell you that it is ridiculous.

There is no logical grounds for one creature to suddenly transform into something else. There are no creatures that are half man and half ape. Humans won't suddenly sprout wings and fly away. No. You're absolutely right. It's beyond stupid. To even think so is absolutly ludicrous - almost as ludicrous as somone thinking that evolution is actually supposed to work like that. It doesn't, and any reasonable book on biology can tell you that evolution does not work that way.