And your series of long scripture lessons bears upon ID, the subject of the OP, how?
The Intelligent Design\Old Earth proponents have made a great try at giving the schools an alternative thought process away from the flawed and unscientific teachings of evolutionary theory. They have made inroads by avoiding the taboo name of God and simply demonstrate the statistical impossibility that complex organisms and systems could come into existence by chance. They have also compromised with evolutionists by leaving open the possibility that the unknown designer did this thru an evolutionary process. Thus they avoid the God\religion problem and pacify the evolutionists by including them. It’s not a bad compromise since they bring some light to those who otherwise dwell in pitch darkness.
The Young Earther’s differ in that they want to identify the Designer as the God of the Bible and want to also identify Darwin’s theory as without any merit at all. The Young Earthers, who are challenged to sit quietly on their hands in the midst of compromise, should be given some slack when some of them jump up now and then and attempt to turn up the lights a little more.
And since this statement is factually false, the premise of the YEC contingent has no basis in evidence or truth and they should be prohibited from corrupting education in any but their own self-imposed ghettoes.
Neither the ID proponents nor the YEC champions have ever “demonstrated” any such thing except to their own predisposed audience. Most of the purported math used to make these demonstrations is flawed (and it is often supported by outright lies), so I see no reason to impose their flawed (and often dishonest) arguments on the educational system, either.
And we can correct these “flaws” and make the theory *more *scientific by including God? God is completely outside the realm of science. If he weren’t, he’d just be a really powerful extraterestrial (or terestrial if you wish). In that case, how did he come into being? You can’t have it both ways.
You will do better, here, if you do not resort to dishonesty to make false claims.
First, Darby is over in your camp, pretending to have interpreted the Revelation of John to describe things never intended by he author.
Second, Darwin’s theory is not only scientific, it has been increasingly supported by scientific discovery, testing, and experiment for over 150 years, despite initial opposition from within the scientific community that has been disproven over the first 70 years of the period.
Nice job of moderation, Tom. But I wish you’d quit holding back and let your real feelings show once in a while. 
Nope. I will suppress my feelings in GD, presenting only demonstrable facts.
A claim that Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection is unscientific, however, is simply wrong on every count and it is distressing to see such nonsense posted (with neither evidence not logic) one more time in this Forum.
I do not think that you are lying. I suspect that you merely filter all information through your beliefs and fail to recognize actual facts when they are presented. However, among the supporters of your position are, indeed, liars and people who deliberately feed you untruths.
(If you wish, we can dig up the list of deliberate lies that Hovind and Gish have had to retract and then went out and told again.)
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. 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. If science can’t find a way to yield itself to the truth, what good is it? The ID camp is coming up with some fascinating presentations that show how science can cooperate with the supernatural in a very convincing way. As more progress is made, the Darwin camp is going to start shrinking geometrically.
The ID camp has not presented one single verifiable solution to any situation in biology and several of its proposed events have already been demonstrated to be false. (In particular, several of the claims made by Michael Behe in his “black box” book have already been demonstrated to be in error–as has the misstatement that he published in that book, claiming that no scientists were researching that area of biology.)
And this long scripture lesson bears upon ID, the subject of the OP, how?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure how we got here but it must have been your fault, I have never been known to stray from the right path.
Bible man
Bible man
Any idea what the statistical improbability of your god just popping into existence might be? Is your god more or less complex than the universe it “created”?
I know, I know. “He has always been”. :rolleyes:
That’s interesting, but ultimately deconstructs all of the creationist arguments about the age of the Earth - if, as you say, old and new can exist simultaneously, the existence of ‘new’ features such as Niagara falls, does not automatically make evidence of a young Earth; only a specific young feature.
More than that, it makes God out to be a liar. He did not simply create mature and immature forms at Creation: he specifically created rocks that would have all the evidence indicating that they were older than they are; he created light emanating from stars that were too far away to be seen, placing the light within 6,000 years of earth to fool the people who saw it even though the stars are more than 6,000 light-years away; he arranged for fossils to be buried in layers so that each higher level would contain examples of species that more closely resembled existing species in a manner to trick people into believing that species evolved over time.
Now, my God is not Loki or Coyote, so I am disinclined to accept the “God was just pulling our legs” meme, but I guess it makes some people happier to know that God is going to try to trick us into not believing in Him.
Quite; it’s as deep as you like; not only do we find that, in mocking up ‘maturity’ in multi-mllion year-old sedimentary rocks, God found it necessary to include ersatz fossils of creatures, but he also found it necessary to create them looking as if they’d been eating each other.
so not only are both the icthyosaur and the ammonite never exist as living organisms, except in the imagination of God, but the icthyosaur bite-mark on the shell of the ammonite represents an entirely imaginary conflict between these non-existent creatures. That’s just fraudulent, whichever way you slice it.
It’s easy to argue that a newly-created apple tree would have to appear mature in order to produce fruit, but even if true, that’s an entirely different scale of fakery as would be creating entire bogus fossil ecosystems, genealogies etc, of organisms, in rocks that will function just as well without them.
And this long scripture lesson bears upon ID, the subject of the OP, how?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t have the slightest idea what happened but I didn’t post this. At least I didn’t knowingly post it. I think it’s a monavis post from up the thread somewhere.
They were responses to arguments used in the thread, hence legitimate.
You might keep Proverbs 16:18 in mind.
If you say so, but I don’t see it myself.
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.
Hold on there, Haus. Science doesn’t “fail” to examine the supernatural-- it cannot do so by its very definition. You are trying to marry science and faith by declaring the Bible to contain “truth” that science must accept. On what basis do you assert that the Bible contains “truth”? In fact it is faith that fails us in the realm of science. Science has no starting place in terms of facts. It discovers what is, and nothing more. By claiming the Bible as the starting point, you aren’t doing science, your engaged in faith.
Hey, Bible man. Whassamatta Xtian? Xciat got your tongue?