# How does "Intelligent Design" account for ... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 4, 2005, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-intelligent-design-account-for/319986 "2005-09-04T03:09:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-intelligent-design-account-for/319986/121 "2005-09-11T11:53:21Z")
First of all, concerning the End Times, Jesus, Himself, said He didn’t know the day and hour of His return, only His Father in heaven. He also said this in [Matthew 24:23-28:](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:23-28;&version=31;) > [@](#): > > At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time. > > "So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather. Therefore, when anyone tells me “We’re living in the End Times”, this Christian will obey the command of her Lord and Saviour and disbelieve them. Besides, I don’t hold with the “Look busy! The Boss is coming!” attitude which seems so pervasive throughout End Times theology. If I am so weak and inadequate a Christian that I need the lash of hellfire and eternal damnation to serve God, rather than doing so out of love and joy, as He commands me, then perhaps I’d better find another religion. I’m doing no service to Christianity. As for Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creation in particular, here’s my take on it. Christ specifically said the Greatest Commandment was to serve God with all our minds as well as all our hearts. Most of His teachings are recorded in the form of parables, a form of teaching which requires critical thinking, and He is recorded in the Bible as encouraging people to think critically. He has created a world full of wonders and puzzles, not to mention marvelous hints. The theory of plate tectonics came about when someone looked at the coastlines of Africa and South America and noticed they fit together like pieces of a jigsaw. The theory of evolution came about when Charles Darwin noticed the myriad forms birds had evolved into and wondered how it came about. I have no doubt whatsoever that God was present in every aspect of evolution and continues to be so. I like to think of the famous Manchester moths as being a hint to us that we’re on the right track with evolution and areas like the Grand Canyon and the cliffs of Dover which leave the history of the earth exposed for us to puzzle over as clues He’s given us as to how He created this marvelous world of ours. As for telling me that light coming from stars 10,000 light years away and other such things are tricks intended to test my faith, why would God do that? He knows me. He created me and knows me better than I possibly can myself. I don’t recall Jesus entrapping His disciples or testing their faith. When St. Thomas doubted, Jesus didn’t condemn him, but came to him specifically. When St. Peter denied Him outright, Jesus still kept him as His chief disciple. Thirteen years ago tomorrow, I was lying in a hospital bed, insane and out of touch with reality in the aftermath of a Category 5 hurricane. God restored my life and made my faith irrevocable by what I consider a miracle. If He didn’t want me pushing keys on a keyboard and arguing in favor of evolution, He could very easily have left me there. For reasons I still don’t understand or expect to understand, He didn’t. If God is such a cruel trickster that He would set traps for those who want to believe and follow Him, then I am truly destined for a lake of fire because I _cannot_ shut down my questioning mind. I tried to 13 years ago. God had other ideas. Love God with all your mind. Question what you know and measure it against the commandments Christ gave us. Look with awe and wonder at this bounteous creation and know that when God created it, He called it “Good”. This is what I know, although not all of it. If I can take pleasure in solving a jigsaw puzzle, why can’t I take a similar joy in watching my fellow men solve the larger scale jigsaw puzzles of cosmology and creation? I own a few cable-knit sweaters; I bought them whole and their quite nice. I’ve also knit a couple for friends, and seeing the patterns grow under my hands until several balls of yarn become a finished product that will give friends joy for years gives me a hint of how I think my Creator may have felt as geologic processes transformed the earth from a ball of rock to the verdant planet it is now. My knowledge of evolution, plate tectonics, and cosmology enhances my joy and wonder of creation and leaves my heart singing praises to God and all His wondrous works, just as my voice shall be doing in a couple of hours. Since this is Sunday morning and I am every bit as religious, as Christian as anyone arguing in favour of Young Earth Creation and the End Times, I will not deny my faith and finish as I intended. Alleluia! May God be praised for all His wondrous works. With all my soul, _ **Alleluia!!!** _ Here endeth this Sunday morning’s sermon. 😉 Respectfully, CJ ---
**Author:** ![duffymo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@duffymo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffymo)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-intelligent-design-account-for/319986/122 "2005-09-11T14:17:30Z")
> [@Bible man](#): > > Jesus was speaking of the generation which saw the particular sign(s) under discusssion not the generation He was speaking to. What a convenient out this is. I don’t think the apostles viewed it that way. They thought he was speaking directly to them. > [@](#): > > Jesus addressed the end times in detail in Matthew ch 24 and Luke ch 21 and likened it to birth pains which increase in intensity and frequency. Each generation experiences the same type of problems, but they increase to involve the entire world in the end times. The warning of Luke21:34-36 should be heeded by all generations, but especially the last generation, “But take heed to yourselves and be on your guard lest your hearts be overburdened and depressed with self indulgence, drunkenness, and worldly worries and cares, and that day come upon you suddenly like a trap or a noose; For it will come upon all who live upon the face of the entire earth. Keep awake then an watch at all times, praying that you may have the full strength and ability and be accounted worthy to escape all these things that will take place, and to stand in the presence of the Son of man.” Plenty of examples of people who were certain that they were the last generation. What makes you so sure that this is the one? > [@](#): > > Peter summarizes the delayed return of Christ in 2Peter3:9, “The Lord is not slow about what He promises (ie, His return) according to some people’s conception of slowness, but He is longsuffering toward you, not desiring that any should perish, but that all should turn to repentance.” Thus, His delayed return is for the purpose of bringing as many as possible into the kingdom of God. Unless they happen to not embrace the faith, in which case they can burn in Gehenna for eternity. How does this square with a doctrine of love? > [@](#): > > I don’t think you can consider the forces at work in the world right now and expect things to ever be stable again, Nonsense. How do you define stability? Not changing? If that’s true, you’re correct, because life on this planet is dynamic and appears to always be changing. “Stability” is the exception, not the rule. > [@](#): > > conditions are ripe for further violent social eruptions not to mention increased physical calamities. As they have been since the beginning of human history. > [@](#): > > We’re on the Titanic, and the only good news is that Christ promises that He will return with His kingdom following the troublesome times. And if he does not with this generation or the next, we’ll still be left with the task of undestanding our world as best we can and resolving our problems based on our efforts. > [@](#): > > Zechariah 12:10 prophesies that the nation of Israel will recognize Christ as their Messiah at the end. It amazes me to see folks who believe that all significant learning stopped more than 2,000 years ago and filter all other information acquired since then through this lens. The Bible also can be used as a justification for stoning criminals, owning slaves, and beating your wife and children if they look at you cross-eyed. You don’t have to lose all sense of spirituality or wonder or awe to be a scientist. But it does demand that you reason based on the evidence before you that others have equal access to and can independently verify. As for me, I think the universe makes just as much sense, and is no less wonderful, if there is not an Intelligent Designer and no Grand Plan or Destiny that governs every choice we make. I’m not saying that I know the answer one way or the other. But if I leave out that Designer, a life on a plane orthogonal to this one after I die, and all its implications, the world I see around me still makes sense and is worth being here for. Wait, God just whispered something in my ear: He said that narrow-minded zealots have been misinterpreting what He said for centuries and He wants them to stop immediately. He loves Jews and Buddhists and Hindus just as much as Christians. Don’t believe me? Take it on faith, because I said so. % ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-intelligent-design-account-for/319986/123 "2005-09-11T14:28:47Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Statistics doesn’t demostrate impossibility. It is not a legimate use of probablility and statistics to claim that an exceedingly low probablility for an event that has alread happened means that it must have had a supernatural origin. Clear something up for me, if you will. Isn’t the probability of an event happening that has already happened 1? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-intelligent-design-account-for/319986/124 "2005-09-11T14:48:50Z")
> [@jimpatro](#): > > Hey, **Bible man**. Whassamatta Xtian? Xciat got your tongue? This is a bit out of place in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![duffymo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@duffymo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffymo)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-intelligent-design-account-for/319986/125 "2005-09-11T14:54:53Z")
> [@Bible man](#): > > You have summed up the problems exactly. The science we have been using is sufficient to examine natural processes but fails in its examination of the supernatural, but only because it refuses to bend. Actually, there’s a wonderful book by Steven Weinberg entitled “The First Three Minutes” that runs the movie backwards to the first three minutes of the universe and describes how it might have gone. There’s no “refusing to bend” in that. What he doesn’t do it try to extrapolate science beyond what it can do. Whether or not there was a time zero or God’s action in those first three minutes is scientific speculation, so he rightly leaves that out. If you’d like to inject an Omnipotent and Sovereign Being into that singularity, or hypothesize about what happened before, you’re welcome to do so. It won’t change what has been observed since, and it’s not science. > [@](#): > > The Biblical account reports that a supernatural event undertaken by an Omnipotent and Sovereign Being was the beginning point of the physical realm. If science refuses to acknowledge that truth and keeps embracing theories which even oppose it, it not only ceases to be a force for good but becomes destructive. How so? How is science being destructive? > [@](#): > > If science can’t find a way to yield itself to the truth, what good is it? We used to believe that illness was God’s way of punishing those who strayed from the path. Science taught us that microbes and cancer were not God-sent plagues and had nothing to do with behavior. How is science being destructive in that case? > [@](#): > > The ID camp is coming up with some fascinating presentations that show how science can cooperate with the supernatural in a very convincing way. Neither fascinating nor convincing. The argument always consists of “You’re wrong, I’m right, God is the reason for all of it. No, I can’t present any evidence beyond my argument from authority and it predicts and explains nothing.” > [@](#): > > As more progress is made, the Darwin camp is going to start shrinking geometrically. This might be true. As more and more of society buys into your irrational views, it might be true that the Darwin camp will shrink. We can only hope that society will do its best to remain rational and not retreat to being dominated by a Christian Taliban. % ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-intelligent-design-account-for/319986/126 "2005-09-11T15:30:15Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Clear something up for me, if you will. Isn’t the probability of an event happening that has already happened 1? In a way I guess, but you can’t really talk about probability in connection with things that have already happened. What ID and other creationists do is say that an exceedingly low advance probablity means that the event couldn’t have happened by chance which is ridiculous on its face. ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-intelligent-design-account-for/319986/127 "2005-09-11T17:13:33Z")
Sorry. Drunken stupor. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-intelligent-design-account-for/319986/128 "2005-09-11T23:27:52Z")
> [@Bible man](#): > > As more progress is made, the Darwin camp is going to start shrinking geometrically. Creationists have been claiming the imminent demise of evolution for nearly two centuries now; it’s known as the [longest running flasehood in Creationism](http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/demise.html) ---
**Author:** ![yerba\_buena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/7ea924/32.png) [@yerba\_buena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yerba_buena)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2005, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-intelligent-design-account-for/319986/129 "2005-09-12T21:40:41Z")
Is there a non-coincidental correlation between fundamentalism and inability to quote correctly, or is it just me? > [@Bible man](#): > > Some believe the days are not literal and refer to large, undetermined periods of time, this allows for evolution to fit into the Genesis creation account … All the days in the Genisis account are defined as consisting of an evening and a morning, no more and no less. That is my point exactly. The Bible itself would support an interpretation of 6 distinct “phases” of creation, with a definite beginning and end. For someone who grew up in an ancient Egyptian culture (such as Moses), the best way of describing it may have been a “day”. However, the Bible does not support a literal 24-hour day. > [@Bible man](#): > > 24hours of earth rotation equals one day. That remains the same even if the sun and moon vanish. Without a frame of reference, that the Earth is even rotating would be impossible to distinguish. > [@Bible man](#): > > I believe the incompetency comment was referring to the Darwinian theory premise that everything is constantly improving and getting better with time: to then place God in that process, who announced that everything created was “good” from the start, would be inconsistent with an omnipotent God. Fair enough. But then any small imperfection that we could find with any organism today would then be similarly inconsistent with an omnipotent God. And there would be many who would jump on that. > [@Bible man](#): > > Time was created for us, God is outside of time ( “I am He Who inhabits eternity”) Why He took certain amounts of time in the creation process is not really explained in the Scriptures. Exactly. God neither explains it, nor does he attempt to, in the Bible. The Bible was meant as a description of WHY the Earth was created, not HOW. Many times the Bible favors scientific inaccuracy in order to make the point more clear – for example, Jesus called a mustard seed the smallest of all seeds ([Mark 4:30-32](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%204:30-32;&version=31;)), when, in fact, it is not literally the smallest of all seeds. It’s unsurprising that Jesus didn’t stop in the middle of his story to explain that there were smaller seeds in the tropical rain forests of Brazil, which was located on a continent across an ocean they had never seen. Likewise, it’s unsurprising that God wouldn’t have explained to Moses the concept of a radiation-dominated universe or how at one point top quarks may have existed. > [@Bible man](#): > > Considering the massive assumptions of time involved in such a process with absolutely no living proof or fossil record proof, it’s inappropriate to fault the Young earthers for simply pointing out some current observable processes to support their own beliefs, something Darwinists have never been able to do. That YEC’s use observable processes to support their beliefs is not being criticized – that they are using it incorrectly is. The complaint is not that YEC’s can’t use magnetic field decay to measure the age of the Earth, the complaint is that nobody (evolutionists, creationists, or anyone else) can do so because the data are not amenable to such an analysis. There are many current, observable processes which give the age of the Earth, among which is the radiodating of mixed minerals in rocks (isochron dating). Each of these processes gives the same age of the Earth, and it is not 6,000 years old. > [@Bible man](#): > > There is an established Evolution based monolith in the scientific community that is very daunting to anyone with a different viewpoint. Job security doesn’t always come with standing up for the Truth and explains why only a few Young Earthers are seen on the science landscape. There is an evolution-based monolith in the scientific community because, not surprisingly, most scientific evidence points towards evolution. That isn’t to say that there aren’t Christians in the sciences - only that they (read:we) regard you with a fair amount of disdain. There is no reason in the Bible to assume that the Earth was created in six literal days. There are two ways of arguing against the evolution-dominated landscape: (a) Admitting that science does support evolution, and then declaring science invalid on the basis of bias. This is undoubtedly the argument of choice. Christians choose to exclude themselves from science because scientists are evil, then they complain about there being an overwhelming anti-Christian bias among scientists. :rolleyes: (b) Aruging that science does not support evolution. This line of argument seems to be increasingly common – take a process, assume it’s linear, extrapolate to absurdium, prove the Earth cannot be older than 6,000 years old, get laughed out of the scientific community, resort to presenting your “findings” to non-scientists who are easily fooled. :rolleyes: > [@Bible man](#): > > The greater amount of Truth that is proclaimed, the greater amount of opposition is encounterd. The greater amount of Lies that is proclaimed, the greater amount of opposition is encountered as well. > [@Bible man](#): > > We can’t be sure about the exact number of years since the creation by using the geneologies but it is definitely on this side of 10,000 On what Biblical basis do you base that belief? Is there a Biblical reason why Adam could not have lived 1,000,000 years ago and the geneologies skipped thousands of generations? ---
**Author:** ![yerba\_buena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/7ea924/32.png) [@yerba\_buena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yerba_buena)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2005, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-intelligent-design-account-for/319986/130 "2005-09-12T21:48:12Z")
Is there a non-coincidental correlation between fundamentalism and inability to quote correctly, or is it just me? > [@Bible man](#): > > Some believe the days are not literal and refer to large, undetermined periods of time, this allows for evolution to fit into the Genesis creation account … All the days in the Genisis account are defined as consisting of an evening and a morning, no more and no less. That is my point exactly. The Bible itself would support an interpretation of 6 distinct “phases” of creation, with a definite beginning and end. For someone who grew up in an ancient Egyptian culture (such as Moses), the best way of describing it may have been a “day”. However, the Bible does not support a literal 24-hour day. > [@Bible man](#): > > 24hours of earth rotation equals one day. That remains the same even if the sun and moon vanish. Without a frame of reference, that the Earth is even rotating would be impossible to distinguish. > [@Bible man](#): > > I believe the incompetency comment was referring to the Darwinian theory premise that everything is constantly improving and getting better with time: to then place God in that process, who announced that everything created was “good” from the start, would be inconsistent with an omnipotent God. Fair enough. But then any small imperfection that we could find with any organism today would then be similarly inconsistent with an omnipotent God. And there would be many who would jump on that. > [@Bible man](#): > > Time was created for us, God is outside of time ( “I am He Who inhabits eternity”) Why He took certain amounts of time in the creation process is not really explained in the Scriptures. Exactly. God neither explains it, nor does he attempt to, in the Bible. The Bible was meant as a description of WHY the Earth was created, not HOW. Many times the Bible favors scientific inaccuracy in order to make the point more clear – for example, Jesus called a mustard seed the smallest of all seeds ([Mark 4:30-32](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%204:30-32;&version=31;)), when, in fact, it is not literally the smallest of all seeds. It’s unsurprising that Jesus didn’t stop in the middle of his story to explain that there were smaller seeds in the tropical rain forests of Brazil, which was located on a continent across an ocean they had never seen. Likewise, it’s unsurprising that God wouldn’t have explained to Moses the concept of a radiation-dominated universe or how at one point top quarks may have existed. > [@Bible man](#): > > Considering the massive assumptions of time involved in such a process with absolutely no living proof or fossil record proof, it’s inappropriate to fault the Young earthers for simply pointing out some current observable processes to support their own beliefs, something Darwinists have never been able to do. That YEC’s use observable processes to support their beliefs is not being criticized – that they are using it incorrectly is. The complaint is not that YEC’s can’t use magnetic field decay to measure the age of the Earth, the complaint is that nobody (evolutionists, creationists, or anyone else) can do so because the data are not amenable to such an analysis. There are many current, observable processes which give the age of the Earth, among which is the radiodating of mixed minerals in rocks (isochron dating). Each of these processes gives the same age of the Earth, and it is not 6,000 years old. > [@Bible man](#): > > There is an established Evolution based monolith in the scientific community that is very daunting to anyone with a different viewpoint. Job security doesn’t always come with standing up for the Truth and explains why only a few Young Earthers are seen on the science landscape. There is an evolution-based monolith in the scientific community because, not surprisingly, most scientific evidence points towards evolution. That isn’t to say that there aren’t Christians in the sciences - only that they (read:we) regard you with a fair amount of disdain. There is no reason in the Bible to assume that the Earth was created in six literal days. There are two ways of arguing against the evolution-dominated landscape: (a) Admitting that science does support evolution, and then declaring science invalid on the basis of bias. This is undoubtedly the argument of choice. Christians choose to exclude themselves from science because scientists are evil, then they complain about there being an overwhelming anti-Christian bias among scientists. :rolleyes: (b) Aruging that science does not support evolution. This line of argument seems to be increasingly common – take a process, assume it’s linear, extrapolate to absurdium, prove the Earth cannot be older than 6,000 years old, get laughed out of the scientific community, resort to presenting your “findings” to non-scientists who are easily fooled. :rolleyes: > [@Bible man](#): > > The greater amount of Truth that is proclaimed, the greater amount of opposition is encounterd. The greater amount of Lies that is proclaimed, the greater amount of opposition is encountered as well. > [@Bible man](#): > > We can’t be sure about the exact number of years since the creation by using the geneologies but it is definitely on this side of 10,000 On what Biblical basis do you base that belief? Is there a Biblical reason why Adam could not have lived 1,000,000 years ago and the geneologies skipped thousands of generations? ---
**Author:** ![Bible\_man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@Bible\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bible_man)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-intelligent-design-account-for/319986/131 "2005-09-13T06:17:24Z")
> [@Bible man](#): > > Time was created for us, God is outside of time ( “I am He Who inhabits eternity”) Why He took certain amounts of time in the creation process is not really explained in the Scriptures. > [@yerba buena](#): > > Exactly. God neither explains it, nor does he attempt to, in the Bible. Many times the Bible favors scientific inaccuracy in order to make the point more clear – for example, Jesus called a mustard seed the ([Mark 4:30-32](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%204:30-32;&version=31;)), when, in fact, it is not literally the smallest of all seeds. It’s unsurprising that Jesus didn’t stop in the middle of his story to explain that there were smaller seeds in the tropical rain forests of Brazil, which was located on a continent across an ocean they had never seen. You’re quite wrong on this, you will see in those passages that Jesus was referring to a comparison of the seeds sown by men in a garden and not with all seeds which might be growing wild in the earth. In the creation account, on the third day God created all the vegetation that “the earth brought forth” (Gen1:11-12), but He withheld the herbs and plants of the field which required a man to sow and tend them, these He created the same day Adam was formed (Gen2:5). The parable Jesus told was about a man who sowed the smallest of seeds in a garden and that is precisely the mustard seed. Wild seeds which need no sowing or tending are excluded from the parable. There are no scientific inaccuracies in the Bible and Jesus, being the Truth, cannot err. > [@Bible man](#): > > Some believe the days are not literal and refer to large, undetermined periods of time, this allows for evolution to fit into the Genesis creation account. > [@yerba buena](#): > > That is my point exactly. The Bible itself would support an interpretation of 6 distinct “phases” of creation, with a definite beginning and end. For someone who grew up in an ancient Egyptian culture (such as Moses), the best way of describing it may have been a “day”. However, the Bible does not support a literal 24-hour day. Not true. In the Bible, a day is used in prophecies to mean a year (ex: Num14:34, Ezek4:6, Rev2:10), and can sometimes be 1000 years (Ps90:4, Hosea6:2, 2Pet3:6), but in the Creation account the time period is specifically stated as consisting of an evening and a morning; one literal day. Other misinterpretations of Scripture have occured when the 24 hour designation was ignored. For instance, the followers of William Miller calculated the 2300 day prophecy of Dan8:14 as 2300 prophetic days (ie 2300 years) and calculated Christ’s return to be in 1843. Their mistake was that the 2300 days were clearly stamped as consisting of 2300 evenings and mornings. These were not prophetic years but literal days, and so are the 6 days of creation. . > [@yerba buena](#): > > The Sun is not created until Day 4 – how is time measured before then? > [@Bible man](#): > > 24hours of earth rotation equals one day. That remains the same even if the sun and moon vanish. > [@yerba buena](#): > > Without a frame of reference, that the Earth is even rotating would be impossible to distinguish. God was the only one there (until day 6), and He didn’t need reference points to know when the earth had completed a revolution. > [@Bible man](#): > > I believe the incompetency comment was referring to the Darwinian theory premise that everything is constantly improving and getting better with time: to then place God in that process, who announced that everything created was “good” from the start, would be inconsistent with an omnipotent God. > [@yerba buena](#): > > Fair enough. But then any small imperfection that we could find with any organism today would then be similarly inconsistent with an omnipotent God. No, when sin was introduced by the Fall, then death and corruption immediately overtook man and the rest of creation. We don’t know what God’s original plan might have been because it was interrupted by the Fall, after that, the earth was cursed (famine, sickness, death, imperfections,etc) > [@yerba buena](#): > > There are many current, observable processes which give the age of the Earth, among which is the radiodating of mixed minerals in rocks (isochron dating). Each of these processes gives the same age of the Earth, and it is not 6,000 years old. In the first week of creation God created many things in their final mature form including Adam, animals, trees, rocks etc. If you went back in time, no matter what scientific method was used to analyze them, it would not yield the correct age of between 1-7 days because God supernaturally bypassed the natural development process. Although Adam and those animals are gone, the rocks and the universe He made are still here - and our scientific methods still won’t be able to date them correctly because they were created outside of natural processes. Science must adjust to Reality or remain in darkness and frustration. > [@Bible man](#): > > There is an established Evolution based monolith in the scientific community that is very daunting to anyone with a different viewpoint. Job security doesn’t always come with standing up for the Truth and explains why only a few Young Earthers are seen on the science landscape. Intelligent Designers are more in number because they compromise with Evolution and allow the possibility of large time periods instead of literal days in Genesis. Moral: The greater amount of Truth that is proclaimed, the greater amount of opposition is encounterd. > [@yerba buena](#): > > There is an evolution-based monolith in the scientific community because, not surprisingly, most scientific evidence points towards evolution. That isn’t to say that there aren’t Christians in the sciences - only that they (read:we) regard you with a fair amount of disdain. There is no reason in the Bible to assume that the Earth was created in six literal days. As stated previously, the days are composed of an evening and a morning. Exodus20:11 also states, “For in six days the Lord made heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.” Your disdain is actually for the Bible’s declarations of Truth, I just happen to be an innocent bystander who has told you what it says. > [@Bible man](#): > > We can’t be sure about the exact number of years since the creation by using the geneologies but it is definitely on this side of 10,000 and I’m happy to say that everyone at least agrees that evolution is not a viable theory using that small a number. > [@yerba buena](#): > > On what Biblical basis do you base that belief? Is there a Biblical reason why Adam could not have lived 1,000,000 years ago and the geneologies skipped thousands of generations? The genealogies in Gen5,11; 1Chron1:1-28 and Luke3:34-38 are consistent enough and detailed enough for me personally (some disagree of course) to place the time of creation right at 4000BC. But the plain fact is, you can give yourself a million years or a million generations and that chair you’re sitting in isn’t ever going to get up on its own legs and walk out of the room, yet that’s a better possibility than what the evolutionary theory expects us to believe. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-intelligent-design-account-for/319986/132 "2005-09-13T07:02:45Z")
> [@Bible man](#): > > You’re quite wrong on this, you will see in those passages that Jesus was referring to a comparison of the seeds sown by men in a garden and not with all seeds which might be growing wild in the earth. In the creation account, on the third day God created all the vegetation that “the earth brought forth” (Gen1:11-12), but He withheld the herbs and plants of the field which required a man to sow and tend them, these He created the same day Adam was formed (Gen2:5). The parable Jesus told was about a man who sowed the smallest of seeds in a garden and that is precisely the mustard seed. ummm… no, it isn’t - mustard seeds are actually on the large side, compared against the seeds of very many garden plants. I suppose it could be argued that nobody in first-century Palestine actually _grew_ any of the huge range of vegetables, herbs and flowers that have seeds smaller than that of mustard, but I think that would be a bit of a desperate thing to claim. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-intelligent-design-account-for/319986/133 "2005-09-13T15:02:51Z")
> [@](#): > > In the first week of creation God created many things in their final mature form including Adam, animals, trees, rocks etc. If you went back in time, no matter what scientific method was used to analyze them, it would not yield the correct age of between 1-7 days because God supernaturally bypassed the natural development process. Although Adam and those animals are gone, the rocks and the universe He made are still here - and our scientific methods still won’t be able to date them correctly because they were created outside of natural processes. Science must adjust to Reality or remain in darkness and frustration. So you still hold that God is a liar? He created a world of objects that are all designed to appear as though they were created at widely differing times, just so He could trick us into unbelief? Pretty nasty God you believe in. (Remember, we’re not addressing the red herring of your mature living beings having been created alongside immature beings. We are looking at the fact that the formation of stones, the background radiation of the universe, the ways in which the continents have been shown to have drifted, levels of trapped gasses in ice cores from the poles, and hundreds of other phenomena all provide a consistent record of the age of the Earth or the ages of events upon it. For God to have done that, He needs to be a sneaky little trickster who deliberately planted false evidence throughout the world simply so that He can stand back and laugh at the people who accepted all the evidence He gave them rather than accepting a literal interpretation of a book when even its believers cannot agree on its meanings.) Now, you repeatedly make the false assertion that the (Neo-Darwinian) Theory of Evolution (by Natural Selection) is not scientific and that it cannot be true, yet the only thing you offer against it is a dishonest god and repeated assertions with no foundation. If you have actual evidence that there is anything unscientific about the Theory of Evolution, please produce it or quit making your false assertion. ---
**Author:** ![yerba\_buena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/7ea924/32.png) [@yerba\_buena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yerba_buena)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-intelligent-design-account-for/319986/134 "2005-09-13T19:10:41Z")
> [@Bible man](#): > > You’re quite wrong on this, you will see in those passages that Jesus was referring to a comparison of the seeds sown by men in a garden and not with all seeds which might be growing wild in the earth … The parable Jesus told was about a man who sowed the smallest of seeds in a garden and that is precisely the mustard seed. Wild seeds which need no sowing or tending are excluded from the parable. [Where?](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=4&version=31) > [@Bible man](#): > > There are no scientific inaccuracies in the Bible and Jesus, being the Truth, cannot err. Then there was a mountain high enough in Israel for Satan to point out kingdoms in North America (Mayan kingdoms) as well as Asia (Chinese kingdoms), according to [Matthew 4](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:1-11;&version=31;)? Or was is there a more rational explanation, that the phrase is figurative? Why is it then that [Genesis 2:4-7](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%202:4-7;&version=31;) states that “no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up” when mankind was created, when in [Genesis 1:11-13](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%201:11-13;&version=31;) it clearly states that plants were created on the third day? To take the Bible as a science textbook presents an overwhelming number of logical problems. > [@Bible man](#): > > In the Bible, a day is used in prophecies to mean a year (ex: Num14:34, Ezek4:6, Rev2:10), and can sometimes be 1000 years (Ps90:4, Hosea6:2, 2Pet3:6) I agree with the assertion, but neither the [Ezekiel quote](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezek%204:6;&version=31;) nor the [Psalm quote](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2090:4;&version=31;) nor the [2 Peter quote](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Pet%203:8;&version=31;) (3:8, not 3:6) is prophecy. In addition, neither the [Hosea quote](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hosea%206:2;&version=31;) (3000 years ahead of ~750 BCE = 2250 CE) nor the[Revelations quote](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%202:10;&version=31;) have been fulfilled yet (so it is Biblically unclear whether it is a literal or figurative day). > [@Bible man](#): > > in the Creation account the time period is specifically stated as consisting of an evening and a morning; one literal day. And then you return to the problem of what consititutes evening and morning before Day 4. If you want to be literal about interpretation, then morning is strictly defined as when the Sun rises. There is no Sun yet. Alternatively, of course, you can argue that there is a point source of light (God?) which has a fixed location in space and that the Earth was rotating relative to that – but then the Sun is superfluous. > [@Bible man](#): > > our scientific methods still won’t be able to date (rocks) correctly because they were created outside of natural processes. Science must adjust to Reality or remain in darkness and frustration. So, you’re saying that God created these rocks as to appear to be 4.5 billion years old, when in fact, they were only 6,000? What kind of sick, perverted God would do something like that? Why would he create the world with direct, contrary evidence to its origin? Why would he back-date the universe if he intended all along to show us it was 6,000 years old? For that matter, why would God create a universe that not only appears older, but appears CONSISTENTLY older? Certainly if radiodating of 10 different meteorites gave 10 vastly different ages of the Earth, that would be a far better witness to Special Creation than if 10 different meteorites gave the exact same age? > [@Bible man](#): > > The genealogies in Gen5,11; 1Chron1:1-28 and Luke3:34-38 are consistent enough and detailed enough for me personally (some disagree of course) to place the time of creation right at 4000BC. Consistent enough? The times given for each of the patriarchs even differs from version to version! The Masoretic Text, Septuagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuchs all vary in the ages they ascribe to various people. Even worse, the variations are not random, but systematic – ages of older patriarchs were increased by 100 from text to text. I don’t in any way endorse this site ([Answers in Genesis](http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/chronogenealogies.asp), but it’s a site that shows even Young Earth Creationists admit that there is problems with dating by genealogy. The AiG perspective is that the Earth is somewhere between 5,000 and 7,000 years old, but that different texts show different things. (It’s interesting to note that they dismiss, _a priori_, the radically different genealogy found in the Septuagint, despite the fact that the Septuagint is the Scriptures that Jesus would have read) The site works against itself – it’s clear that the the Bible CANNOT be used as a trustworthy source for chronology data, and people who advocate such an approach must harmonize (a) God allowing his chronology to be corrupted, or (b) the vastly different dates involved. > [@Bible man](#): > > you can give yourself a million years or a million generations and that chair you’re sitting in isn’t ever going to get up on its own legs and walk out of the room, yet that’s a better possibility than what the evolutionary theory expects us to believe. There is no reason to believe that you have any understanding of evolutionary theory, not even at a high school level. You will have to demonstrate knowledge of evolutionary theory before you can make such claims. > [@Bible man](#): > > Your disdain is actually for the Bible’s declarations of Truth, I just happen to be an innocent bystander who has told you what it says. My disdain is for the systematic desecration of the Bible’s truth by people who dogmatically misinterpret it in order to suit their ignorant prejudices. ---
**Author:** ![Bible\_man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@Bible\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bible_man)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-intelligent-design-account-for/319986/135 "2005-09-13T20:32:16Z")
> [@](#): > > My disdain is for the systematic desecration of the Bible’s truth by people who dogmatically misinterpret it in order to suit their ignorant prejudices. Right back at ya! Your own personal prejudice is Evolutionary Theory and you have twisted the Bible to suit yourself (2Pet3:16). You keep bringing up the same questions over and over, refusing to hear my answers. That’s your choice, go back to sleep. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-intelligent-design-account-for/319986/136 "2005-09-13T20:48:06Z")
**yerba buena** and **Bible man** : both of you be sure to not step over the line to launching personal insults. [/Modding] ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-intelligent-design-account-for/319986/137 "2005-09-13T22:01:29Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > And none of the scholars has yet justified to me why God allows Satan to toy with Job. > [@tomndebb](#): > > So you still hold that God is a liar? He created a world of objects that are all designed to appear as though they were created at widely differing times, just so He could trick us into unbelief? > > Pretty nasty God you believe in. It’s all a little easier to understand once you accept that God has a bit of a drinking problem. That bit with Satan and Job? Obviously a bar bet gone terribly wrong. Hiding false objects so he can laugh at us? On the Seventh Day God had a few beers while he rested. The results are perfectly understandable. ---
**Author:** ![yerba\_buena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/7ea924/32.png) [@yerba\_buena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yerba_buena)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-intelligent-design-account-for/319986/138 "2005-09-13T22:53:47Z")
> [@Bible man](#): > > Your own personal prejudice is Evolutionary Theory. My prejudices are not ignorant; that is, I have facts to back up my assertions. My personal feelings on evolution aren’t in question here – as a matter of fact, I challenge you to find a single statement that even confirms that I advocate evolution. Whether I am a hard-core atheist who believes the Bible is a work of fiction, a proponent of Intelligent Design who believes the Bible is figurative, or a Deist who believes God created the world and left it alone, no challenge that I’ve made to you is any less valid. I challenge **you** to prove **the Bible** says that the world was created in 6 literal days. I’ve presented the problems that this strict interpretation creates, and then I’ve presented Biblical evidence that stories are often figurative, not literal. > [@Bible man](#): > > You keep bringing up the same questions over and over, refusing to hear my answers. That’s your choice, go back to sleep. This debate is not unrecorded – you are more than welcome to quote any question I have repeated in support of your point. > [@Bible man](#): > > you have twisted the Bible to suit yourself (2Pet3:16) You are, of course, more than welcome to correct me in my Biblical mistakes. I have spent a considerable amount of time in order to link each verse that I cite, so that, should you disagree with my interpretation, you are free to click on the link, view the verse, and show me exactly where I have misinterpreted. You claim that the analogy of the mustard seed is set in the context of a garden - patently untrue. You claim that the genealogies as transcribed are accurate - patently untrue. Now, in light of the most direct questions about the literal accuracy of the Bible (Gen 1 vs. Gen 2, backdated universe, evidence of manuscript infidelity), you glibly end discussion and dismiss me as an evolutionist heretic? That seems evasive. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-intelligent-design-account-for/319986/139 "2005-09-14T03:44:26Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > How does “Intelligent Design” account for the (rapid) development of resistance to certain antibiotics by bacteria? Quite obviously the Designer cares about all of His designs and doesn’t want to see _streptococcus pneumoniae_ become extinct. Of course that doesn’t explain why the Designer wasn’t so solicitous about the survival those of His designs that did become extinct. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-intelligent-design-account-for/319986/140 "2005-09-14T06:56:10Z")
> [@Bible man](#): > > Right back at ya! Your own personal prejudice is Evolutionary Theory and you have twisted the Bible to suit yourself (2Pet3:16). You keep bringing up the same questions over and over, refusing to hear my answers. That’s your choice, go back to sleep. Strictly speaking, you mean his own personal prejudices are Evolutionary Theory, Zoology, Astronomy, Geology, Archaeology, Nuclear Physics, Genetics… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-intelligent-design-account-for/319986.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-intelligent-design-account-for/319986.md?page=8)