@Kielicious,
thysin wrote:It still feels like you are refusing to see the validity of evolution. I don't want to go down the 'how do we know anything past our own senses to be true' road because it goes nowhere. There ARE fossil records of species changing over the millenia so if that is true, it goes to show that macroevolution is not only plausible but true. Take for example flightless birds...why do they have wings? They have wings because earlier in time their ancestors DID fly but they eventually were presented with circumstances that made flying obsolete so now they have vesitgial wings.
I truly am no expert on this but these are my thoughts.
Again that is micro evolution is it not? A bird is a bird albiet one with out wings.
xris wrote:A real live creationist in my presence, i dont think ive ever had the opportunity to confront one. Do you really believe the world is only thousands of years old?
Since when is the term creationist synonymous with a view of a thousand year world?
Where then is the idea of a 10,000 year old world coming from? The Bible of course. Though it is completely inferred and can never be read as stating an official date of creation.
Look at Genesis 1:
[INDENT]1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was [
a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
[/INDENT]I am by no means a Bible theologian though I will try my best to show you how 10,000 years is merely an inference. I'm going to keep it short though I could go on for much longer so don't take my brevity as any less then that.
I view verse one as a title. Created the "heavens and the earth". You can read on that in what way he created the heavens in the earth is then later detailed.
Verse 2: There is 'earth' and water and God hovering. One thing that can not be known directly is where this first form (water/earth) came from as we are not told.
The word used for 'day' in Chapter one can not be interpreted surely as being a 24 hour time expanse though their are other uses in the Hebrew referencing a day as a 24 hour period. Though there are other examples where a 24 hour period is not in reference. Gen 24:1 was the first one I could find. It is referring simply to a period of time.
So there are literal 6 dayers and non literal 6 dayers in the view of Creationism. Of course even so with the knowledge of the universe that we have today there are creationists who hold to a literal 6 days. How can they do that you may ask? You may say that it is obvious through paralax that the age of a star must be a certain age as light doesn't travel faster then it does and so to view a star it must have been millions of years old as a light source. You have to then remember that we are talking about an allpowerful being who when having created the stars could have also created the expanse of light that we view from the stars.
ddancom wrote:I think creationists share the burden of proof.
Ok so you do agree that there is a burden of proof on both parties, good. So why then are you getting all irked at me when I was asking for proof?
Kielicious wrote:
Creationism -
a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis. creationism - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Intelligent Design -
the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence. intelligent design - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
If you cant see the similarities already then might I ask you to put on your reading glasses and thinking helmut. Creationism and Intelligent Design are synonymous. They both make non-natural unfalsifiable claims about the universe/reality that are glazed in religious rhetoric. If you still dont believe me than I can refer you to the Dover trial court case via the Wedge Document and the word count to publications of
Of Pandas and Peoples. Link Of Pandas and Peoples word count changed dramatically because of the 1987 Supreme Court ruling that creationism cannot be taught in schools, so they simply changed all the creationism words to "intelligent design". And so the plot thickens...
Additionally, evolution =/= atheism. Some may find this obvious but to the common lay theists it is almost universally accepted to believe that we werent specially created in god's own image is blasphemous. Mainly because evolution goes against their specific dogmatism. Ironically enough, the pope endorses evolution while belittling creationism as absurd. Another common misconception is that evolution is supposed to explain how life got here but evolution doesnt propose that at all. Evolution explains the diversity of life while
abiogenesis is the attempt to explain life's origins. Also Im sure you guys have heard of the attempt to downgrade evolution by calling it "just a theory". Whoever says this has no experience with science whatsoever. In short theory is
the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another... just like Atomic Theory, Cell Theory, Germ Theory, Music Theory, Theory of Gravity and so on.. A theory is as high as you can go on the scientific heirarchy. Yes even laws are under theories...
Now on to the good stuff...
So you claim there is an intelligent designer? Lets try and find the intelligence behind these design flaws: in humans the retina is inside-out which causes a blindspot in our vision, males have nipples, your "funny bone" is actually an exposed nerve that runs along the outside of your bone rather than internally, in males the urethra passes right through the prostate gland which is prone to infection (why would you put a colapsable tube through an object that expands?), wisdom teeth are often pulled because our jaws are too short, the appendix, etc etc... and thats just a small portion from the human perspective. I could easily talk about flightless birds or whales and snakes having leg bones... or cosmologically our galaxy is in a direct collision course with the andromeda galaxy. So I will ask again, where is the intelligence behind these designs? And this is just scratching the surface! Here's NDT's vid on stupid design:
Link
So to summerize, ID is not science and relies soley on faith. The universe shows no sign of being designed intelligently. The anthropic principle doesnt even come close to evidence for a god/diety or to rational objectivism. Evolution also has a masssive amount of transitional fossils and the whole debate on macro-evolution just shows one's ignorance to the subject at hand. You cant walk a mile without taking one step at a time and the steps are "micro" and the end result (aka the mile) is the "macro". Just like how a baby doesnt turn into a man instantaneously but rather through time. These vids will help out or you can go to talkorigins.org, darwinwasright.com or any site that is somewhat credible.
I want to start off by saying that you have wasted a lot of time attacking the wrong person. It is obvious by your post that you have either not read any of the OP or you glazed over it specifically missing the part he wanted you to understand, He supports evolution and he is agnostic. You really should read before you post.
I don't agree with that definition of creationism. It may apply to some creationists but not all. I'm referencing "God created out of nothing" There is again only an inference to that and to my knowledge not an absolute certainty. As well as when it says "much like Genesis" as I said above some creationists waver between literal or not 6 day creation.
Even as to your own definitions Creationism and ID are not synonymous. Creationism is a sub-field of ID. There are many other religions that have their own form of ID but you would not say that they have their own form of creationism because by definition creationism holds to the christian God. ID covers all religions (that have an ID) and their ideas of an intelligent designer.
Is it not possible that those fossils which are touted as transitional fossils were on their own a specific species when they were in existence?
To the examples of "bad design" who are you to determine why an intelligent designers design is wrong? It seems as though a lot of arguements against religion are like so "Life should be like this, since it is not, God doesn't exist."
You assume that what you call bad is wrong in an absolute sense without reason. Why stop with such specifics? Be general. i.e. :
[INDENT]Why should we have to drink water? Must be bad design...
Why can't I fly? Must be bad design...
Why does lots of food make me fat? Must be bad design...
[/INDENT]I think you understand my point though. Your desires of how things 'ought' to be or 'should' be make you assume that something is 'wrong'.
