The Origin Of (Our) Species

[SmileyMcGee]

Back to square one over and over and over again...

Please acknowledge that ID and Young Earth Creationism are two separate theories/paradigms.

Hi Rob,

Would you mind explaining how ID and young earth creationism differ? My understanding is that ID asserts that all life forms were created in essentially their present form (most IDers seem to be okay with micro evolution), birds with wings, fish with fins, etc. I think this is what YE creationists believe. Is age of the earth the only difference? From a geological perspective the difference views of the age of the earth would be significant, yet from a biological perspective the difference seems insignificant: ID = designer(s) created life over long or short time span, YE creation = designer created life in 6 days. Either way life forms have been essentially static. However, it is nice that IDers don't have to embarrass themselves by claiming that Adam lived with dinosaurs

Edited March 5, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[SmileyMcGee]

Repeat

Edited March 5, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Ahab]

There are no humans on the sun or the moon despite what Brigham Young believed.

You don't know that and you can't prove that.

Honestly all you can say is you don't know if there are.

[SmileyMcGee]

You don't know that and you can't prove that.

Honestly all you can say is you don't know if there are.

No, you can say, "based on our understanding of physics and the tolerances of the human body it is extremely unlikely that humans inhabit the moon and sun, and anyone asserting that humans do inhabit the moon and sun needs a very good explanation for such an assertion (and probably some Thorazine)."

[thesometimesaint]

You don't know that and you can't prove that.

Honestly all you can say is you don't know if there are.

 

It has been proven repeatedly. The moon doesn't have enough gravity to have an atmosphere. Enough water to support life. Is constantly being bombarded by deadly radiation from our sun. The surface of the sun is 10,000 degrees F.

 

I'm a fan of Thorazine.

Edited March 5, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[ALarson]

You don't know that and you can't prove that.

Honestly all you can say is you don't know if there are.

Sounds like you're contradicting your earlier posts regarding how you can KNOW that there is a God.

....You can't know that and you can't prove that....

[Ahab]

No, you can say, "based on our understanding of physics and the tolerances of the human body it is extremely unlikely that humans inhabit the moon and sun, and anyone asserting that humans do inhabit the moon and sun needs a very good explanation for such an assertion (and probably some Thorazine)."

I'm more broad minded than you are, apparently. This "our" you speak of when talking about "our" understanding doesn't include many of the people I know who understand what it would take for humans to be able to live on the sun or the moon. Do you realize the word "human" applies to anyone who is the same kind of being "we" are, including our Lord and our Father and angels and spirit whether pre or post mortal? It would be no problem at all for many of "our kind" to be able to live there.

Don't prescribe any drugs. Just use your mind more the next time you think stupid thoughts.

 

Poster has been removed from the thread.

[Ahab]

Sounds like you're contradicting your earlier posts regarding how you can KNOW that there is a God.

....You can't know that and you can't prove that....

Anyone can know anything by being totally sure about it without any doubt, but nobody can know without any doubt that sonething that is possible isn't possible.

[SmileyMcGee]

I'm more broad minded than you are, apparently. This "our" you speak of when talking about "our" understanding doesn't include many of the people I know who understand what it would take for humans to be able to live on the sun or the moon. Do you realize the word "human" applies to anyone who is the same kind of being "we" are, including our Lord and our Father and angels and spirit whether pre or post mortal? It would be no problem at all for many of "our kind" to be able to live there.

Don't prescribe any drugs. Just use your mind more the next time you think stupid thoughts.

....hmmm....is "broad-minded" the correct term? Regardless, you're a great ally for the anti-creationism crowd. Keep up the good work!

Edited March 6, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Ahab]

....hmmm....is "broad-minded" the correct term? Regardless, you're a great ally for the anti-creationism crowd. Keep up the good work!

Creating means to organize, and we have always created.

[Rob Osborn]

Because you refuse to accept the evidence that is right in front of your face.

 

They are part and parcel of the same thing.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

A Discovery Institute report says that Charles B. Thaxton, editor of Pandas, had picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist, and thought "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term."^%5B32%5D In drafts of the book, over one hundred uses of the root word "creation," such as "creationism" and "Creation Science," were changed, almost without exception, to "intelligent design,"^%5B15%5D while "creationists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "cdesign proponentsists" [sic].^%5B14%5D In June 1988, Thaxton held a conference titled "Sources of Information Content in DNA" in Tacoma, Washington,^%5B25%5D and in December decided to use the label "intelligent design" for his new creationist movement.^%5B22%5D Stephen C. Meyer was at the conference, and later recalled that "The term intelligent design came up..."^%5B33%5D

You are purely ignorant of what i am saying. Intelligent design theory, as it stands today, is not creationism. Here- http://www.discovery.org/a/3191

Here-

"Is intelligent design the same as creationism?

No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case." http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=210:intelligent-design-is-definitely-not-creationism

[Rob Osborn]

Hi Rob,

Would you mind explaining how ID and young earth creationism differ? My understanding is that ID asserts that all life forms were created in essentially their present form (most IDers seem to be okay with micro evolution), birds with wings, fish with fins, etc. I think this is what YE creationists believe. Is age of the earth the only difference? From a geological perspective the difference views of the age of the earth would be significant, yet from a biological perspective the difference seems insignificant: ID = designer(s) created life over long or short time span, YE creation = designer created life in 6 days. Either way life forms have been essentially static. However, it is nice that IDers don't have to embarrass themselves by claiming that Adam lived with dinosaurs

They are completely different things. This is fromm on eof the leading Intelligent design organizations-

"Is intelligent design the same as creationism?

No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case." http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

[Uncle Dale]

So, creationist scientists begin by examining the

world, and eventually come to the conclusion that

it just happens to be the truth that such objective

research agrees with Genesis.

Intelligent design scientists, on the other hand,

examine and analyze what can be discovered in

the cosmos, and come to the conclusion that it

was all designed by some supernaturally intelligent

First Cause, which may or may not correspond

perfectly with what we read in Genesis.

What is the conversation like in a room half full

of LDS creation/transmission scientists and half

full of LDS intelligent design advocates?

UD

(perhaps they can find common ground in reading the PGP)

Edited March 6, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[SmileyMcGee]

They are completely different things. This is fromm on eof the leading Intelligent design organizations-

"Is intelligent design the same as creationism?

No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Crtionism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case." http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

I see. i have a few questions. This definition you've posted asserts that ID uses empirical evidence and inferences to determine whether the apparent design in nature is the work of an intelligent designer. Also you have repeatedly referred to evolution as a fairytale based on imaginations its proponents. Can you explain how the inferences made by ID are valid and those of evolutionary biologists are fairy tales? Can you provide examples of evidence that is being interpreted incorrectly by evolutionists but is correctly interpreted by IDers? Can you explain the standard you use to distinguish a valid inference from an invalid one? do you know the counter arguments to such things as irreducible complexity and can you explain why these arguments are not valid?

[Rob Osborn]

So, creationist scientists begin by examining the

world, and eventually come to the conclusion that

it just happens to be the truth that such objective

research agrees with Genesis.

Intelligent design scientists, on the other hand,

examine and analyze what can be discovered in

the cosmos, and come to the conclusion that it

was all designed by some supernaturally intelligent

First Cause, which may or may not correspond

perfectly with what we read in Genesis.

What is the conversation like in a room half full

of LDS creation/transmission scientists and half

full of LDS intelligent design advocates?

UD

(perhaps they can find common ground in reading the PGP)

Some 20 years ago when I first became interested in the whole evolution debate I sided with many creationists. It wasnt long before I found that I didnt really have much in common with them and decided to move away from their objectives. Thats when I found out about Intelligent Design. The more I read the more interested I became because for the first time we had a theory that truly doesnt require a type of god nor does it refute one either. It was truly neutral and honest. I debate a lot with creationists and let me say- they are worse than evolutionists to debate with. The problem with creationists is that they believe only in a strict literal reading of the bible and will not allow science to do its work side by side with its theory. ID theory is completely opposite where even under ID theory, evolution itself is not questioned at all. What is questioned, and this is important, is the "mechanism" for why intelligence exists and how it could have arose. ID rejects Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms where intelligence rose by "chance". Thats what ID refutes- the mechanism. Creationism refutes Darwinian chance because "God said so". Theres a big difference.

[Rob Osborn]

I see. i have a few questions. This definition you've posted asserts that ID uses empirical evidence and inferences to determine whether the apparent design in nature is the work of an intelligent designer. Also you have repeatedly referred to evolution as a fairytale based on imaginations its proponents. Can you explain how the inferences made by ID are valid and those of evolutionary biologists are fairy tales? Can you provide examples of evidence that is being interpreted incorrectly by evolutionists but is correctly interpreted by IDers? Can you explain the standard you use to distinguish a valid inference from an invalid one? do you know the counter arguments to such things as irreducible complexity and can you explain why these arguments are not valid?

The number one case of inference of ID theory, in my opinion, is that life only comes from life preceding it. Or, in simpler terms- intelligence itself can only arise from an intelligent action/process preceding it thus giving the inference that intelligence is "always" the product of intelligence itself. Some of evolutions many fairytale claims is that life arose by chance on this planet due to non intelligent processes that jump started life through random chance actions. The reason this is a fairytale is because scientific experiments have proven over and over again with extreme accuracy that life doesnt come from non intelligent processes in nature.

[SmileyMcGee]

The number one case of inference of ID theory, in my opinion, is that life only comes from life preceding it. Or, in simpler terms- intelligence itself can only arise from an intelligent action/process preceding it thus giving the inference that intelligence is "always" the product of intelligence itself. Some of evolutions many fairytale claims is that life arose by chance on this planet due to non intelligent processes that jump started life through random chance actions. The reason this is a fairytale is because scientific experiments have proven over and over again with extreme accuracy that life doesnt come from non intelligent processes in nature.

But which experiments are you referring to? and what evidence confirms ID? And how do you justify calling all of evolution a fairy tale because abiogenesis has not been proven? How do you explain how intelligence first arose? If you believe that intelligence has always existed can you explain how that is possible and what evidence you have for it always existing?

Edited March 6, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Rob Osborn]

But which experiments are you referring to? and what evidence confirms ID? And how do you justify calling all of evolution a fairy tale because abiogenesis has not been proven? How do you explain how intelligence first arose? If you believe that intelligence has always existed can you explain how that is possible and what evidence you have for it always existing?

What evidence confirms ID? You must be joking. Every scientific experiment proves intelligence is used and is acknowleged because of the intelligent cause preceding it.

Take the classic case for artificial intelligence for example. ID theory makes the prediction from inference that no new intelligent information could possibly arise from a program that was deemed to write a new program for new intelligence. So far this prediction has proven itself exactly correct. Artificial intelligence is the mere product of the exact input of the intelligent source that put the information in. It has been proven time and time again that intelligence itself is not the product of chance and that any "new" intelligent process or action is only the result and product of the input intelligence preceding it.

[Teancum]

Macro-evolution has already been debunked. Problem is that evolutionists dont want to see that truth.

All things denote their is a God. Atheists try to discount this fact.

CFR re Macro evoltions debunking.

CFR outside your unique LDS scriptural assumption that all things denote there is a God.

[Rob Osborn]

CFR re Macro evoltions debunking.

CFR outside your unique LDS scriptural assumption that all things denote there is a God.

Here is a start. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/a_reader_asks_c090811.html

If you really do not believe all things denote there is a God then I cannot help you. No CFR would ever do. Besides that, it isnt a CFR issue.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Rob Osborn

[thesometimesaint]

Here is a better start.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20872000/The-Discovery-Institute-s-Wedge-Document#scribd

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Discovery_Institute

[Robert F. Smith]

.........................................................................................   

Intelligent design scientists, on the other hand,

examine and analyze what can be discovered in

the cosmos, and come to the conclusion that it

was all designed by some supernaturally intelligent

First Cause, which may or may not correspond

perfectly with what we read in Genesis.

What is the conversation like in a room half full

of LDS creation/transmission scientists and half

full of LDS intelligent design advocates?

.................................................................................   

The U.S. Patent Office is filled with intelligent designs which are not supernatural.  Indeed, intelligent design only needs an intelligent designer, not a supernatural being.

 

One of the reasons why ID is so compelling is that we see it in all the inventions of man, and realize that advanced civilizations in our galaxy would have even more clever designs than we have at this point in our development.

[thesometimesaint]

The U.S. Patent Office is filled with intelligent designs which are not supernatural.  Indeed, intelligent design only needs an intelligent designer, not a supernatural being.

 

One of the reasons why ID is so compelling is that we see it in all the inventions of man, and realize that advanced civilizations in our galaxy would have even more clever designs than we have at this point in our development.

 

Teleological argument

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

 

ID is inextricably bound to the Christian God

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

 

Here is what one of the major proponents of ID Ken Ham has to say about NASA.

http://www.examiner.com/article/creationist-ken-ham-says-nasa-is-a-waste-of-money-and-aliens-don-t-exist

Edited March 6, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Teancum]

Here is a start. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/a_reader_asks_c090811.html

If you really do not believe all things denote there is a God then I cannot help you. No CFR would ever do. Besides that, it isnt a CFR issue.

 

 

I will look at your link,

 

For the second point you then agree you position is it is nothing more than an expression of personal faith?

 

And no I do not believe ALL things denote a God though I think some things might.

[Rob Osborn]

I will look at your link,

 

For the second point you then agree you position is it is nothing more than an expression of personal faith?

 

And no I do not believe ALL things denote a God though I think some things might.

I see it more as basic logic to see the hand of God in all things.