Home > Creationism Group > Discussion Board

In reply to #24: Exactly! That is what Intelligent Design is all about.

 In reply to #16 replying to #13:

 You're Welcome! 

 lotsa good it did........:|  As they say in debate school, let's agree to disagree and not be disagreeable.

If my tone appears angry it's because I find being told to 'come in to the light'  utterly disagreeable. It implies I live in the dark. It is perfectly clear that because I am not a Christian, a Christian on this thread has judged me as failing or somehow in need.

I also feel that being told fatal hurricanes are a good God's lesson to a wayward humanity is sick and genuine evidence of brain-washing.

Christianity, like all religions, insists on being respected and tolerated. Religious people demand their beliefs are not molested, but they seem perfectly happy to trample all over someone else's beliefs. My Atheism was a personal struggle involving a great deal of 'soul' searching and contemplation. But Christians think it has no value and feel at liberty to demean it and change it. Fine. But don't expect your beliefs to be 'untouchable', if our beliefs aren't.

I don't believe in your stone-age God. Nor do I particularly respect your belief in it. In a few centuries time, when religion is thankfully behind us, psychologists will diagnose religious belief as a mental imbalance and treat it accordingly. Yes, I truly believe that. And I believe going to church every Sunday to praise your localised, humourless diety, while we drift through the utter vastness of a near-infinite universe is perverse.

Pray for me. It'll make you feel better about yourself.

I think that schools should be able to teach different theories and let the students make up their own mind, but when there is solid evidence of one of theories, that should be taught.  I am sorry, evidence will always rule over belief.

@34

There is already solid evidence. Evolution is perfectly provable. Creationists say, 'teach the controversy' but this is a smokescreen. There is no controversy. Go to any science department in any non-religious university in the world and you will find all the scientists for the last 100 years have studied evolution, not creation. No genuine scientist is interested in studying 'Creation' scientifically. And the more they study evolution, the more refined their knowledge becomes and the more it works as a tool for studying the historic record. It is a working breathing living theory of the development of life. It is a provable scientific theory. 'Creation' is not a scientific theory. 'Creation' is easily disprovable. Creation wouldn't last five minutes of genuinely rigorous scientific enquiry. There is no need or justification to mention it in a science lesson. There is no controversy. Evolution exists. Creationism doesn't. There is no controversy.

No, evolution is still speculation. There is no solid evidence that one creature turned into another creature.

Again, given your cynicism about your own biography, how can anyone take you seriously?

@36 My my my... you really don't like jokes, do you Linda? And repeatedly saying, "I can't take the naughty man seriously cos he made a funny on his bio" is rather tiresome. Just for the record Linda, I'm not really a baboon, honest. (I share 98% genetic similarity with a baboon though)

Evolution is not speculation. Your 'Discovery Institute' may say it is, but they are fooling you. Along with stuff about boats on mountains and middle eastern archaeology. The psuedo-scientific sources you quote are shunned by the scientific community as charlatans whose aim is to prove the Bible is correct. Unfortunately for these websites, they can't do that, it's impossible, so they distort the scientific facts (up to and including changing the speed of light, the most fundamental constant of universal physics, they just give it a quick tinker and Hey Presto! You can prove the earth is 4000 years old.) This IMMEDIATELY excludes them from serious scientific discussion. If you took the time to read some independent publications, you would quickly find out you are being misled. There is solid evidence for evolution. There is (literally) mountains of it. I swear to you, you have been tricked by people who know you are not very good at science and take advantage of that.

(Just for fun Linda... which came first, the chicken or the egg? and, yes, there is an answer, evolution has even answered this parlour-game paradox.)

I believe both hold valid evidence, but neither can be proven. Unfortunately none of us was there at the beginning of the universe. I believe that both should be explored because there is validity to both sides. I believe in acknowledging one and ignoring the other you only look at half the picture. I believe personally that there are holes in both views because a theory obviously by definition cannot be proven. Creationism or intelligent design is not strictly a religious viewpoint, I know many secular scholars that acknowledge the validity of intelligent design, in turn I also know religious professionals who acknowledge that the evolutionary theory has some valid points as well. There are two parts to the evolutionary-macro and micro evolution. Macro being the species to species evolution and micro being defined as adaptation. I personally hold to a viewpoint that meshes the evolutionary theories with creationism. There are also many facets to the creationism theories....day/age, old earth, new earth, etc. As I deepen my understandings in studying the origins of the universe I lean toward a combination of micro evolution and day/age creationism. Before you make an opinion of which is better, or if you feel one should be taught in schools or not, research and dig in to find out what they are truly about. There is a lot more than the superficial textbook teachings of the public school system. 

no matter what the point of view of anyone is i just want to thank you all for answering my question.......

                                                            - Marlon07

@38

Sorry, you're wrong. You say

"I personally hold to a viewpoint that meshes the evolutionary theories with creationism. There are also many facets to the creationism theories....day/age, old earth, new earth, etc."

I have no idea how you 'mesh' evolution with creationism, but either way it ain't science. It is scary how many teachers on this site (from a country that is supposed to be the most advanced in the world) are unable to separate logically concluded facts based on observed evidence, from pseudo-science that is substantially flawed.

Creationism is NOT a science. They have never submitted their work for peer review and 'creation scientists' refuse to discuss their theories in public with genuine scientists. Creationists must allow free discussion of their work if they wish to be respected. But they know their work is just window dressing so they do not interact with other scientists and shout 'it's a miracle' whenever their theory hits a snag.

The Supreme Court has sat on this issue and concluded that creationism and intelligent design do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. It is NOT science. They concluded that as science, creation and ID were 'deliberately misleading' and 'intellectually dishonest'. They belong in church where the constitution can defend them. This is the finding of the highest court in the land.

Creationism and Intelligent Design have no scientific merit. That is the simple and easily provable truth.