Intelligent Design Theory Solution

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Why can't evolutionists fund their research?

Or do you believe that evolutionists are the owners of the public universities, etc where research takes place, so they ARE funding their own research?

........The reality of course is that Universities hire the people who they believe best represent their academic standards, and those people choose what research to do, and most of them choose to spend their money on scientific study (including evolution).

But you have managed to imply that "evolutionists" own the public universities and control which thing is researched, thus implying a conspiracy to promote evolution.............

Fact is, I've heard this circular argument from others previously. I made reference to it just a few posts ago in this thread.

0 Replies

Creationists have already exhuasted their research in creationism, and came out empty handed. Expecting evolutionist to waste money to research creation is foolish.

0 Replies

CI,

I don't have money for research. I'm not rich like you. Laughing

But have you ever wondered how is it that some of the planets in our solar system rotate in opposite directions?

0 Replies

real life. Try to stay focused.

BAck a ways. did you ask whyI invoked Duane Gish's name or are you not sure about Duane Gish.If youre not sure, he can be found at the ICR as one of its stellar deniers of science by inserting "Creation" in front of SCience

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

real life. Try to stay focused.

BAck a ways. did you ask whyI invoked Duane Gish's name or are you not sure about Duane Gish.If youre not sure, he can be found at the ICR as one of its stellar deniers of science by inserting "Creation" in front of SCience

Focused'R Us . But thanks for the encouragement.

You stated that Gish would disagree with me. I wondered what you were referring to specifically. Are you referring to my pessimism on the Dover case? Or some other issue that you think Gish and I would differ on?

I know who he is of course, but really haven't read him as extensively as some. Just a little really.

0 Replies

You stated, I assumed in jest , that Creationists were not scientists. Most of the world would agree. However , Gish has been lecturing for years on the validity of their science , even though hes been reminded that his "science" has no evidence in its support.
I believe it was Rude (the Philosopher) who stated that
"Creationists find problems with the evidence produced in support of Evolution, yet quietly ignore the fact that their own views have no evidence at all"

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

You stated, I assumed in jest , that Creationists were not scientists. Most of the world would agree. However , Gish has been lecturing for years on the validity of their science , even though hes been reminded that his "science" has no evidence in its support.
I believe it was Rude (the Philosopher) who stated that
"Creationists find problems with the evidence produced in support of Evolution, yet quietly ignore the fact that their own views have no evidence at all"

Hi Farmerman,

Creationists have the same evidence that evolutionists have.

One group does not have ownership of the evidence and thus that evidence can only be used to support that group's view. That is not how it is. All evidence is available to anyone to consider and interpret.

Creationists differ with evolutionists on the interpretation[/b], not the existence of the same evidence that is available to both.

0 Replies

Thre is evidence of ID which can be interpreted?

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Thre is evidence of ID which can be interpreted?

If your theory of origin is *poofism*, then everything that exists is proof of the poof. Right RL?

0 Replies

The bible says so.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:
You stated, I assumed in jest , that Creationists were not scientists. Most of the world would agree. However , Gish has been lecturing for years on the validity of their science , even though hes been reminded that his "science" has no evidence in its support.
I believe it was Rude (the Philosopher) who stated that
"Creationists find problems with the evidence produced in support of Evolution, yet quietly ignore the fact that their own views have no evidence at all"

Hi Farmerman,

Creationists have the same evidence that evolutionists have.

One group does not have ownership of the evidence and thus that evidence can only be used to support that group's view. That is not how it is. All evidence is available to anyone to consider and interpret.

Creationists differ with evolutionists on the interpretation[/b], not the existence of the same evidence that is available to both.

0 Replies

According to the bible, the earth is no more than 7,000 years old. There are no current geological, anthropological, palaeontological, proof that this world is less than 10,000 years old. Even carbon dating shows this planet to be much older.

There is no proof of a world flood.

There is no proof that man lived to be over 900 years old. Ramses II lived to be over 90.

The great pyramids were built about 2,600 BC. There are no traces of any floods.

God supposedly destroyed all humans and animals except for those on the ark. That is unreasonable punishment of innocent peoples and children that have never heard of the bible god. Even humans understand "cruel and unusual punishment."

That means the flood was over 29,000 feet - 20 feet above Everest.

How did eight people collect all the animals that walked or crawled on the earth in one year while they built the ark?

0 Replies

Pauligirl wrote:

real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
You stated, I assumed in jest , that Creationists were not scientists. Most of the world would agree. However , Gish has been lecturing for years on the validity of their science , even though hes been reminded that his "science" has no evidence in its support.
I believe it was Rude (the Philosopher) who stated that
"Creationists find problems with the evidence produced in support of Evolution, yet quietly ignore the fact that their own views have no evidence at all"

Hi Farmerman,

Creationists have the same evidence that evolutionists have.

One group does not have ownership of the evidence and thus that evidence can only be used to support that group's view. That is not how it is. All evidence is available to anyone to consider and interpret.

Creationists differ with evolutionists on the interpretation[/b], not the existence of the same evidence that is available to both.

Darwin started with his grandfather's view of evolution and 'worked his way backwards'.

Evolutionists today assume evolution and ask 'where does this fit into the evolutionary framework?'

0 Replies

Pauligirl wrote:

The following are held by members of the board of Answers in Genesis to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture.
Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole Creation.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six (6) consecutive twenty-four (24) hour days of Creation. . .etc.

cicerone imposter wrote:

According to the bible, the earth is no more than 7,000 years old. There are no current geological, anthropological, palaeontological, proof that this world is less than 10,000 years old. Even carbon dating shows this planet to be much older. . . etc.

You both fail to realize that many of the same folks who misrepresent the authority of the bible to maintain their positions of power have also misrepresented the teachings of the bible. There is no reason to aver the earth was created in six literal days. The word day simply represents a period of time as in Genesis 2:4, where all the created days are lumped into one.

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, the bible does not say the seventh day has ended.

0 Replies

Well, try 'ID is responsible for all living things,' and stop all research.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Well, try 'ID is responsible for all living things,' and stop all research.

What in the world are you talking about?

Your posts often have no context and I, for one, usually haven't a clue which aspect of a discussion you are trying to address.

0 Replies

There are something over 300,000 known species of beetles, and that's just a small percentage of all the kinds of beetles out there. And that's just beetles. So Noah and the kids and wife spent their time off from ark-building on hands and knees gathering two of each? Was there a beetle room on the ark to keep those couple million beetles in? What about the similar numbers of ants? And arachnids from microscopic on up? And bees and butterflies and moths and..... And what possessed them to save mosquitos? But the bible alleges they found two of each of those millions and millions. Yeah, sure.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Well, try 'ID is responsible for all living things,' and stop all research.

What in the world are you talking about?

Your posts often have no context and I, for one, usually haven't a clue which aspect of a discussion you are trying to address.

I, for one, understood it perfectly. If ID is the answer then why bother to continue to do scientific research on the questions of development of life on earth. An Intelligent Designer did it. No need to keep asking questions.

Anyway ci sorry to make an assumption but that's how it read to me.

0 Replies

real life

Quote:

Darwin started with his grandfather's view of evolution and 'worked his way backwards'.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? because Erasmus felt that species were not immutable?

The fact that Erasmus was correct but lacked a mechanism means nothing, yet heres an example of an idea that was formulated by a handful of individuals over nearly 100 years, yet, today, ever since Morris published "Flood Geology" there are thousands of descendent devotees who dont even require any convincing evidence to "buy into" the fact-free position of Creationism.

Interesting position, sort of like belief in leprechauns.

0 Replies

goodfielder, Thanks for your clarification. I can be cryptic sometimes, but especially for IDers. LOL

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory Solution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know