Timothy Spurlin
Active Member
ID and creationism are two different things.
There, better?
Thank you for clearing that up.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
ID and creationism are two different things.
There, better?
The DNA in your body came from your parents. If you're talking about the origin of life, the answer is we don't know.Where did the DNA and its CODE come from?
That's good.By the way, im a quarter the way through stevens journal so far.
Don't fall for it. Jollybear is flat out wrong.Thank you for clearing that up.
Absolutely.Thank you for clearing that up.
Don't fall for it. Jollybear is flat out wrong.
The term intelligent design (ID), as it's presently used, sprung from the need to disguise the concept of creationism.
And here is the proof of the attempted switch from "creationists" to "intelligent design proponents" in Of Pandas and People, which was presented at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. A rather amusing typo, "cdesign proponentsists," that reveals their ill conceived ploy." 'Creation' terms replaced by 'intelligent design'
Textbook at heart of evolution trial revised after 1987 ruling,
References to creationism in drafts of a student biology book were replaced with the term “intelligent design” by the time it was published, a witness testified Wednesday in a landmark trial over a school board’s decision to include the concept in its curriculum.
Drafts of the textbook, “Of Pandas and People,” written in 1987 were revised after the Supreme Court ruled in June of that year that states could not require schools to balance evolution with creationism in the classroom, said Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University.
source
Interestingly enough, here is a chart showing how the publishers of Of Pandas and People replaced "creationism" with "intelligent Design." in those versions following the 1987 ruling.
So the ID camp can rant and holler all it wants that ID is not creationism, but we all know better. And so do they.
.
Joe:
God created the universe
God designed it.
Tom:
God created the earth
God designed it.
The above are your exact words, copied and pasted.
The only slight difference is that in Joe's case you used the term "universe", in Tom's case you used "earth".
Are you suggesting, that Tom believes that God designed and created the earth, but some other entity created the universe?
Are you suggesting that is the difference between Creationism and ID?
Usually when people think of creationists, they think of bible believers or young earthers.
ID is not that.
Theres more to intelligence then being a good writer.
Thats only synthetic
Nonsense, there are people who read Genesis literally but just disagree with the meaning of the word "day". So, if you want to say there is a difference between young earth Creationists and old earth Creationists, OK.
Both believe everything was Created by an Intelligent Designer.
In your own words, shown above, you showed they were the same.
You failed to address:
Are you suggesting, that Tom believes that God designed and created the earth, but some other entity created the universe?
Are you suggesting that is the difference between Creationism and ID?
Why cant you see the door swings both ways here?
Accusing religionists as stifling scientific knowledge by saying "God did it" ...
well you atheistic naturalists stifle scientific knowledge by saying "undirected natural forces did it.".
That puts us no more near knowledge and understanding of how the world works then saying "God did it".
Yes, intelligence design that too. Because the water molecule consists of parts, and those parts also consist of other parts. God built the universe.
Your linked article does not support your allegation.To say chance and time did it IS against naturalistic principles. We KNOW from controlled experiments that chance does not even exist. So how can chance do anything if its not even there?
The Not So Random Coin Toss
Cosmic 'DNA': Double Helix Spotted in Space
This is pretty cool. A DNA nebula.
Looks like DNA. What if all of this universe is one big body we are in, and all those miniature enzymes in our body are looking out seeing our DNA and calling it a nebula? Lol.
As the saying goes "as above, so below"
I didn't accuse "religionists as stifling scientific knowledge by saying "God did it". I said:
Having no concept of the true nature of nature, the only answer they could come up with was "GodDidIt".
The stifling of science came much later and continues to this day. The ancients had an excuse, they didn't know better. Modern day people intentionally let their religious beliefs stand in the way of scientific knowledge.
Why are you afraid to admit that most scientists are not atheists?
Nonsense. We have much more knowledge and understanding of how the world works than the people who told the stories in your Bible.
In any case, you originally stated ancient man came to believe in god because he saw a well-designed world. You did not address my comment: I doubt ancient man, seeing his crops destroyed by locusts, declared: "What a well-designed world we live in".
Person A: How do you know the universe is Intelligently Designed?
Person B: Because things consist of parts and those things consist of parts.
Bottom line from your response is that you believe that your God individually puts together every molecule of water. I guess that could explain why He doesn't have the time to make World Peace".
Your linked article does not support your allegation.
The nebula may look like DNA but, according to your link, its origin is quite different. The helical nebula was produced by the twisting of magnetic field lines in an interstellar gas disc that is in orbit around the Milky Way's central black hole; biological DNA is the product of chemical reactions. There is no analogy between the two.
Are you?I dont know, why does it have only 2? I dont know how to read DNA language. Im only learned in the english language.
Much of it, yes.I wonder if scientists can read DNA? i know they mapped it, but can they read it yet?
Probably so - I wonder where they send their bucks (I mean, besides their own pockets).All very true, but it makes me wonder.....what's their end game with all that? They're not advocating for ID creationism to be taught in schools, they're not trying to convince the scientific community, they're not doing any actual research into ID creationism, so what's their point? What are they trying to accomplish?
All I can figure is that at this point, they're just out to make money.
And yet, those who are not LOVE pretending that they are - look at all the non-expert experts just in this thread!Sometimes experts, in talking down to us who are not, over simplify reality.
I agree that the DNA "code" is not like the label on a Wheat Chex box. It would be great fun to become a Genetic Scientist, but right now it all seems like smoke and mirrors to me.
And weird that he had never heard of Hazen... Only heard of Shapiro, apparently, as is so often the case.Can you cite one paper you have read published by scientists working on abiogenesis?
Cr
crying victim, no. He could prove me wrong by simply posting research data counter to what I have posted.
LOL!Yeah, I got it. You post nothing to support abiogenesis. You want evidence, then when it is supplied, you ignore it. Classy
I understand how RNA and DNA work. That is basic cellular chemistry. Your point is what ? Why is my understanding of RNA/DNA important to your support of abiogenesis ? If you want to refute a point, why not just refute it and provide evidence ?
Clean up your approach to discussing abiogenbesis, deal with factual refutation and citable evidence, then get back to me.
Since you ¨ don´t care ¨ about what a notable abiogernesis researcher says on the issue, you must only care about me.
I am not interested in discussing me, and getting into a pissing contest with you, which is what you apparently want.
The issue is abiogenesis