Intelligent Design

[BigPaul]

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
So 72 hours have passed since the questions to the evloutionists were asked. What we have gotten has been a hodgepodge of smoke screens, changed questions, insults, and plain old nasty comments.

What we haven’t gotten are cogent answers that make any sense. Just the same old tired lines that “Evolution is Science” and that we have all of the proof and you Creationists just don’t understand."

Actually, we do understand. We understand that in your zealous effort to follow a theory of a man instead of the Word of God, you will say anything and do anything to defend your position, except of course answer the most basic questions about the Origins of life and how it all came to be.
[/quote]

Do you actually believe this, or are you just making these coments in the interest of being inscendiary? I will surely concede that most of the posters in this thread could not tell their ass from a hole in the ground but I have noticed a few exceptions, at least enough to stop short of calling all of the posts smoke screens. Some mental midgets changed the questions asked, some people pointed out the inaplicability of the questions asked. There are insults and nasty comments a plenty though.

I could easily rephrase your second paragraph from above from the opposit perspective as:

Actually, we do understand. We understand that in your zealous effort to follow a religious dogma instead of applying the scientific process, you will say anything and do anything to defend your position, except of course answer the most basic questions about the Origins of life and how it all came to be.

(as a side note, I noticed you capitalized ‘origins’ in your post - I take this as a reference to god, no?)

I do not mean to pick on you, but your post was simply the most cogent of those thus far that expresses what I see to be a clash of the pure ideologists (both the creationists and evolutionists, I think the ID people long ago abandoned this charade of a discussion). Neither group is even willing to concede when the other side of the argument has brought up a relevant point of contention, perhaps out of commitment to their respective dogmas, out of pure close-mindedness, or out of sheer ignorance of the basics of the viewpoint from wich the other comes. I find it quite interesting that all continue to quarell when an impasse has clearly been reached insofar as nonoe of those left in the discussion are willing to so much as acknowledge the slightest fallibility of thier dogma.

[steveo5801]

I think that this will be my last post here since we have gone as far as we could go in making our respective points.

To answer Big Paul’s question if I “really do believe” what I posted before that our questions have really not been answered – yes I do believe this or I would have not said it.

I have been accused of not thinking or not trying to understand the “answers” and only giving Christian “dogma.” I would simply point out that most, if not all, of these “answers” are Evolutionist dogma and you guys are as much “bound” by your dogma as I may be “bound” by mine.

I do not concede this point, however, because since I have only been a Christian for 11 years and I have had a problem with Evolution ever since I was taught this (as fact by the way) in the public school way back when.

I never “bought” completely the fact that I came from some sort of monkey and that this pseudo-divine “natural selection” using mutations (which in the observable world is almost always bad) could have caused all that I see.

The “heavens declare the glory of God.” One day, in the not so distant future, you and I will all know which one of us is right. If you are right, then the worst that can happen is that I follow the Bible and live the best life I can following its principles. However, if I am right about the truth of God’s Word, then those who have not come to Christ will be in a bit of trouble…

I hope I haven’t offended anyone in my posts. No offense was meant. Keep an open mind. My challenge to you is to read the Bible and investigate its claims yourself. I have read extensively about the Theory of Evolution and haven’t come to my conclusions (as some would accuse me without knowing the facts) lightly or just by “blind faith.”

What about you guys? Have you read the Bible? Do you really know what it says?

Take care!

[BigPaul]

SteveO,

I was not asking if you believed what you had posed in reference to your personal beliefs, but rather if you believed that all of those posts in contradiction to your views were simply smoke screans and dodged questions. I know quite well that you actually do believe what you believe-if that makes any sense.

[Xvim]

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
I never “bought” completely the fact that I came from some sort of monkey and that this pseudo-divine “natural selection” using mutations (which in the observable world is almost always bad) could have caused all that I see.[/quote]

That statement demonstrates you really haven’t taken the time to understand the things you’ve read about evoltion theory. I want to make it clear, I do not think you’re a stupid person, on the contrary.

I just think that in this one area, you’ve allowed your faith to overcome your reason… and I’m sure you’re thinking something along the same lines about myself and others in this thread.

[orion]

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

You will have to face God someday. Then what?[/quote]

If I have lived my life like a man a big-breasted blond woman with a helmet is going to guide me to Walhalla, where I will eat, drink, fuck and fight untill the G?tterdaemmerung, where I will fight the forces of evil side by side with Thor, God of Thunder, and Odin, father of men.

If I live my life on my knees I will just die and be forgotten, the fate that all cowards deserve.

[orion]

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

God’s actions will never contractict God’s written Word. God cannot lie! If He could, He would cease to be God.

Peace to you![/quote]

Maybe God puts a little spin on it, withholds information, misleads a little bit?

Maybe we do not understand everything, because he is like, hyyyyyoooge, and we are like, stupid.

Maybe he is a trickster, like the coyote in American Indian tales?

[orion]

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
“Christian right wing zealots” – come now you almost hurt my feelings…

Hey feelings…I wonder how these evolved???[/quote]

Psychological adaptations to solve problems that came up during the evolution of man.

Mating preferances, mutual altruism, i.e friendship…

Buss, 2005. " The handbook of evolutionary psychology"

Just in case you want to understand what “evolutionists” actually do claim.

[veruvius]

Okay, the essence of the second law of thermodynamics is that everything that happens causes the entropy of the universe to increase. You can arbitrarily find a system where its entropy decreases, but the surroundings, aka the rest of the universe, still sees an increase in entropy.

Evolution is taught in schools because it is science. It’s quite obvious evolution is a real phenomenon, but there is no way to PROVE that we are around through evolution, hence it is a theory and always will be, just like gravity and the second law of thermodynamics are actually theories. We just know it is possible.

Religion should be taught in schools, but all religions, and the purpose should be to learn the philosophies, not preach. Throw Intelligent Design in there somewhere.

[mertdawg]

[quote]
Mertdawg:

“Christian right wing zealots” – come now you almost hurt my feelings…

Hey feelings…I wonder how these evolved???[/quote]

According to ID theory, feelings evolved by natural selection. ID IS a theory of natural selection with “assistance.” In other words, it starts with the supposition that natural selection is the basic mechanism of change. ID starts with the supposition that humans evolved from lower forms of life.

I am only asking you to honestly admit that you believe in special creation, not intelligent design.

[mertdawg]

[quote]veruvius wrote:
Okay, the essence of the second law of thermodynamics is that everything that happens causes the entropy of the universe to increase. You can arbitrarily find a system where its entropy decreases, but the surroundings, aka the rest of the universe, still sees an increase in entropy.

Evolution is taught in schools because it is science. It’s quite obvious evolution is a real phenomenon, but there is no way to PROVE that we are around through evolution, hence it is a theory and always will be, just like gravity and the second law of thermodynamics are actually theories. We just know it is possible.

Religion should be taught in schools, but all religions, and the purpose should be to learn the philosophies, not preach. Throw Intelligent Design in there somewhere.[/quote]

First, know what the heck intelligent design says. IT ACCEPTS the second law of thermodynamic. It has to.

And by the way, anyone who thinks that the second law of thermodynamics is violated by living things emerge from disorder needs to get off of this forum now unless it is your goal to look “unintelligent”. There is nothing that anyone can teach you here in this case, you simply need gene therapy to increase the amount of functioning brain tissue you have.

[veruvius]

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
veruvius wrote:
Okay, the essence of the second law of thermodynamics is that everything that happens causes the entropy of the universe to increase. You can arbitrarily find a system where its entropy decreases, but the surroundings, aka the rest of the universe, still sees an increase in entropy.

Evolution is taught in schools because it is science. It’s quite obvious evolution is a real phenomenon, but there is no way to PROVE that we are around through evolution, hence it is a theory and always will be, just like gravity and the second law of thermodynamics are actually theories. We just know it is possible.

Religion should be taught in schools, but all religions, and the purpose should be to learn the philosophies, not preach. Throw Intelligent Design in there somewhere.

First, know what the heck intelligent design says. IT ACCEPTS the second law of thermodynamic. It has to.

And by the way, anyone who thinks that the second law of thermodynamics is violated by living things emerge from disorder needs to get off of this forum now unless it is your goal to look “unintelligent”. There is nothing that anyone can teach you here in this case, you simply need gene therapy to increase the amount of functioning brain tissue you have.

[/quote]

Okay, I really can’t tell, were those comments put in addition to what I said, or directed at me? I do agree with what you just wrote. Especially the gene therapy part. That, or electro-shock therapy.

[skrying]

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
I never “bought” completely the fact that I came from some sort of monkey and that this pseudo-divine “natural selection” using mutations (which in the observable world is almost always bad) could have caused all that I see.[/quote]
See, this just shows your fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. We never came from “some sort of monkey.”

[mertdawg]

[quote]veruvius wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
veruvius wrote:
Okay, the essence of the second law of thermodynamics is that everything that happens causes the entropy of the universe to increase. You can arbitrarily find a system where its entropy decreases, but the surroundings, aka the rest of the universe, still sees an increase in entropy.

Evolution is taught in schools because it is science. It’s quite obvious evolution is a real phenomenon, but there is no way to PROVE that we are around through evolution, hence it is a theory and always will be, just like gravity and the second law of thermodynamics are actually theories. We just know it is possible.

Religion should be taught in schools, but all religions, and the purpose should be to learn the philosophies, not preach. Throw Intelligent Design in there somewhere.

First, know what the heck intelligent design says. IT ACCEPTS the second law of thermodynamic. It has to.

And by the way, anyone who thinks that the second law of thermodynamics is violated by living things emerge from disorder needs to get off of this forum now unless it is your goal to look “unintelligent”. There is nothing that anyone can teach you here in this case, you simply need gene therapy to increase the amount of functioning brain tissue you have.

Okay, I really can’t tell, were those comments put in addition to what I said, or directed at me? I do agree with what you just wrote. Especially the gene therapy part. That, or electro-shock therapy.[/quote]

Sorry, I meant to respond to your remark to throw ID in there somewhere. I wanted to say that you can throw ID in there somewhere if you can find someone who actually knows what it says. You can’t have someone go into a classroom and tell kids ID is a scientific theory that says that evolution is wrong-which is what a lot of people on the thread seem to think.

The rest of what I wrote was not a response to you, but I don’t have time any more to respond point by point to people like steveo and then have them pick out 2 out of 14 points and shoot back something that sounds profound, and ignore the rest.

Apologies

[mertdawg]

[quote]skrying wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
I never “bought” completely the fact that I came from some sort of monkey and that this pseudo-divine “natural selection” using mutations (which in the observable world is almost always bad) could have caused all that I see.
See, this just shows your fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. We never came from “some sort of monkey.”[/quote]

I’ve heard this before, and never really understood. I think that our modern model does have humans evolving from what would taxonomically be considered a monkey-several stages back, and not a modern monkey of course. Am I wrong here?

[skrying]

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
I’ve heard this before, and never really understood. I think that our modern model does have humans evolving from what would taxonomically be considered a monkey-several stages back, and not a modern monkey of course. Am I wrong here?[/quote]

We share a common ancestors with modern monkeys, but none that would taxonomically be categorized as a monkey.

That’s my understanding at least, (limited to one college course on evolution*).

*But, let me add, that’s a lot more than most people.

[DPH]

[quote]rlawrence wrote:

1. “It’s not the Red Sea anyway, it’s the Sea of Reeds”

Proper translation principles rely on a whole lot more than simply looking up a word in a modern lexicon. Context must always take priority, and frankly, I’ll trust the scholors of the 17th century that knew from five to as many as twelve languages fluently. BTW, how would the shallow waters of the Sea of Reeds destroy an army?

For more on the Exodus:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bb971126.htm
[/quote]

and yet the correct translation is ‘sea of reeds’ not ‘red sea’…

how could a marsh land destroy an army? ever try and drive a chariot through a march land? every chariot that drove into the marsh would be bogged down and rendered worthless…

2. Quotes from Job and Matthew showing that they thought the world was flat as arguement against the scripture in Isaiah showing they knew the world was round.

Isaiah showed that he knew that the earth was a circle…not rounds…that’s why he wrote circle…

a. Our Old Testament is grouped categorically. Job falls within what we call the ‘poetic’ books. Read the whole thing and you’ll see he spoke allegorically, not literally. If you look out your window today, would you say the ‘land’ seems round, or flat?

so when you find scripture that doesn’t support your bogus claim you try to pass it off as mere poetry…

how convienient for you…

is Matthew mere poetry also?

b. What mountain did the devil take Jesus up to? Well, throughout the bible we have reference to a Heavenly Mount (Mt. Zion). So yes, it was probably this mountain they viewed the rotation of the Earth with satan promising Jesus all of the kingdoms thereof.

the quote was that the whole of the earth could be seen from that mountain…if the writer thought the earth was a sphere he would have never made this claim…even from the moon you can see at best half of the earth at any one gaze…

3. Can’t trust the bible, man has had his hands on it and ruined it through translation over the ages.

The Bible is God’s message, his road map for man. He WANTS people to understand HIm. A God powerful enough to inspire his word, can also preserve it. Actually, he promised to do just that in Psalms 12:6-7. To deepen this thought, people speak of ‘faith’ as if it totally blind. They say, “what’s the differnce in that and in me believing in the invisible pink unicorn!?”

A lot. Our faith has to do with trusting in God’s promises. Promises written down and preserved for centuries.

and yet all the different versions of the bible show differences…greek orthodox, catholic, and the myriad of other versions are all different from one another…

this alone shows that men muck things up with the Bible…

4. The idea that my initial questions about space, time, energy and matter have, “ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with evolution”.

How tidy and convienient. I used to hear the term Cosmic Evolution quite a bit. Basically, the term has been changed so evolutionists (I’m sorry you hate that term, but for the purposes of these specific distinctions, what would you prefer?) don’t have to deal with it. Big Bang theory and evolution have always gone hand in hand. The cooling of the earth, the 100 million year rain, the ‘enzyme soup’, and ‘viola!’, I mean ‘poof!’, life!

What gives ‘evolution’ the right to claim what it claims when it can’t tell us how it started? (please don’t come back with, "Well where did God come from? He says, “I am the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end”. In other words, God is the closed system in which all exists.)

big bang theory and evolutionary theory are different things…if you actually knew anything about them you would already know this…

big bang theory does not predict how species evolve and the theory of evolution does not predict cosmology…

Earlier in the thread, I mentioned the archeological find of Exodus era chariot wheels along with human and horse skeletons at the bottom of the Red Sea in the Gulf of Aqaba. One man replied to the effect, “So, there’s wheels and bones and stuff all over Mesopotamia, that doesn’t prove anything”.

you butchered the shit out of what I wrote…why don’t you give an exact quote instead of making crap up?

and yes…ship wrecks with cargo of horses and chariots can be found all over the black sea, the red sea, and the mediterranean sea…the finding that you refer to proves nothing…

Is this guy on crack? This is a significant find which corroborates with biblical writing, and simply because he doensn’t want it to be true, he dismisses the evidence and later even called it a ‘bogus’ claim.

is does not corroborate with biblical writings…you seem to believe something that isn’t true simply because you desperately want it to be true…are you on crack?

[KeepAwaySheeple]

DPH,

You are not a Christian. A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ read out of the old testament as he taught his followers almost the entire time he was on earth.

This means that you don’t care that he did that. You simply believe what you want to believe. You can’t pick and choose what you want to believe out of the Bible when you are a Christian, otherwise, what would the point of a Bible be. Why even have one?

Also that scripture about how the earth takes shape like clay under a seal. Think about it. He wasn’t saying the entire earth is one big flat piece of mass. He was saying the earth takes shape LIKE (key word here) clay under a seal. He’s not saying the earth is the clay and it is being smashed into a flat pancake and that’s the shape. He’s saying that it takes shape LIKE clay being smashed by a seal. A seal easily shapes clay.

[KeepAwaySheeple]

DPH,

If you really want to know the truth study the scriptures.

My NKJV Bible reads:

“It takes on form like clay under a seal” Job 38:14

You are reading from the New International Version. This one says it “takes shape”. Mine says “takes on form”. This is why I will never read a NIV. NIV has been proven time and time again to have changed scriptures around. I know what you are going to say about this. You’re going to say “that’s my point! You can’t trust what the scriptures say because man has tinkered with them over thousands of years.”

Hold on though. If you really want to seek God’s word, you will do just that. The Bible was written in Hebrew. When you compare scripture by scripture the dead sea scrolls with the King James Version Bible or the New King James version Bible, it is incredibly accurate. The New International Version twists words and meanings around.

An anology for taking on form is describing the physical event of how something takes on form. When you start pressing a seal onto clay, it easily TAKES ON FORM.

Please don’t twist the Bible around to say what you want it to and then claim to be a Christian.

God said “seek and you shall find”.

If you want to find something, you have to seek it and It really doesn’t sound like you’re doing that.

[DPH]

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
DPH,

You are not a Christian. A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ read out of the old testament as he taught his followers almost the entire time he was on earth.

This means that you don’t care that he did that. You simply believe what you want to believe. You can’t pick and choose what you want to believe out of the Bible when you are a Christian, otherwise, what would the point of a Bible be. Why even have one?
[/quote]

fundamentalists make up about 5% of christians…and yet fundamentalists firmly believe that any christian that does not interpret the Bible the way they do is not a christian and is going to hell…

my wife went to a catholic university and I remember years ago one day I was picking her up from school and while I was waiting I got into a conversation with one of the priests that taught there…one of the things he told me that day: “christian fundamentalism is a form of insanity”…

I just shrugged it off…but maybe he was right after all…lol!

[quote]
Also that scripture about how the earth takes shape like clay under a seal. Think about it. He wasn’t saying the entire earth is one big flat piece of mass. He was saying the earth takes shape LIKE (key word here) clay under a seal. He’s not saying the earth is the clay and it is being smashed into a flat pancake and that’s the shape. He’s saying that it takes shape LIKE clay being smashed by a seal. A seal easily shapes clay.[/quote]

again, you’re interpreting things the way you want to see them…not as how they actually are…

clay that has been smashed under a seal is flat…

oh, by the way, you couldn’t possibly be a TRUE christian…you’re just an insane lunatic that chooses to interpret the Bible in whacky ways…

[DPH]

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Hey DPH,

I would encourage you to research the Dead Sea Scrolls. I think that this would encourage your faith and give you a better appreciation for the validity of God’s Word (at least in the accurate translations of God’s Word from the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (for the NT).

God’s actions will never contractict God’s written Word. God cannot lie! If He could, He would cease to be God.

Peace to you![/quote]

I’ll check out the dead sea scrolls…

thanks!