Since: Jan 13

Lexington, KY

#24920 Feb 2, 2014
mutt wrote:
I went to that site initially and really didn't see anything that explained a difference between creationism and Intelligent Design. Nor any kind of way to present it as part of a valid option to be taught in a classroom.
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#24921 Feb 2, 2014
joanna50 wrote:
I went to that site initially and really didn't see anything that explained a difference between creationism and Intelligent Design. Nor any kind of way to present it as part of a valid option to be taught in a classroom.
Creationism is a the Christian (and possibly Islamic?) biblical belief that the earth and everything in it was created in 6 days. There are some old-earth Creationists, who believe that the earth was formed before the 6 days of creation.(I'm in that camp.) But ID doesn't identify any creator or religious text. Some people believe that lifeforms from other planets may have planted life here.
Pops

Newport, KY

#24922 Feb 2, 2014
mutt wrote:
Old Guy,
I have a couple more questions for you. What are you thoughts about these things ...
The common consensus seems to be that humans evolved from primates in S Africa and became hominids. It's also accepted as fact that this transformation took millions of years to occur. The only evidence of these so-called hominids are a few skulls and skeletons and single bones and teeth. The hominids supposedly moved out of Africa, where natural selection cause their extinction and the modern human prevailed.
Now, it seems very unlikely to me that, after having existed for millions of years, every single hominid is dead. There are still primates, and there are still humans, but there are no transitional species. Other than speculation, what real evidence is there that humans are descended from primates or any other animal?
How do evolution scientists prove or disprove their theories? Their default explanation for practically everything is "it would have taken billions of years to occur", which automatically renders their theories unprovable.
Makes me wish that Darwin was still here.
Republican 101

Van Wert, OH

#24923 Feb 2, 2014
Isn't it awesome how religious zealots always try to use science to "prove" that their particular religion is correct, but turn around and call scientists "liars" when they disagree with their findings... LOL
Republican 101

Van Wert, OH

#24924 Feb 2, 2014
joanna50 wrote:
<quoted text>I went to that site initially and really didn't see anything that explained a difference between creationism and Intelligent Design. Nor any kind of way to present it as part of a valid option to be taught in a classroom.
What do you really expect from someone who named himself after an animal that spends most of it's day with it's nose up it's own butt?
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#24926 Feb 2, 2014
Republican 101 wrote:
What do you really expect from someone who named himself after an animal that spends most of it's day with it's nose up it's own butt?
That reflects poorly on you, then, because your side is losing the debate. I'm guessing you actually do have your nose up your own butt.
Republican 101

Van Wert, OH

#24927 Feb 2, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, kind of like when liberals bash religion all the time and then try to use biblical quotes to justify liberalism.
So basically, "I know you are but what am I", again.
Well played, truck driving slumlord weather expert. Well played, indeed...
Republican 101

Van Wert, OH

#24928 Feb 2, 2014
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
That reflects poorly on you, then, because your side is losing the debate. I'm guessing you actually do have your nose up your own butt.
Oh look, the trusty old "I know you are but what am I" defense. AGAIN! What a surprise.
Oh, and how does one side "lose a debate" that the other side can't prove or disprove?
Silly little predictable religious zealots...
Pops

Newport, KY

#24929 Feb 2, 2014
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text>That reminds of a quote that Mark Twain put out there about the bible:
"So you believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards,witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that we are the ones who need help?" Oh yeah, how do you split a sea in half?
This sort of reminds me why I am an Agnostic. I have attended services of about 6 denominations besides being raised as a Catholic & lifes lessons. Know what that taught me? Except for the extreme Muslim's, Leave everyone alone in their religious beliefs. It doesn't hurt me, it doesn't hurt my neighbor, my parents, my siblings or my offspring.
I can not fathom 40 days & 40 nights being able to flood the world but at the same time I have have seen the practice of religion save so many marriages, so many families, so many individuals & perform so much charitable work that I don't really care which is true or non-true..
IF the results of playing Domino's brings world harmony, I am for playing Domino's. What else can I say?
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#24930 Feb 2, 2014
Republican 101 wrote:
Oh look, the trusty old "I know you are but what am I" defense. AGAIN! What a surprise.
Oh, and how does one side "lose a debate" that the other side can't prove or disprove?
Silly little predictable religious zealots...
I disproved the theory you support. Thermodynamics. Scientifically speaking, none of us are real and the universe doesn't exist.

That's too easy, though. Let's pretend for a minute that we and the world actually exist, and everything evolved from a common ancestor. Where did millions of years of transitional species go between primates and man? There should still be some alive. Primates are still alive. Modern-day man is still alive. Where did everyone else go?
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#24931 Feb 2, 2014
mutt wrote:
And here, Joanna:

"The Discovery Institute is a U.S. non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design. Its Teach the Controversy campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.
... In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions", and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"."

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

And, Joanna, just in case you are interested in that court's finding:

"The Discovery Institute established its Center for Science and Culture to challenge Darwin's theory and promote the inclusion of intelligent design in school curricula nationwide.

The first legal challenge to requiring the teaching of intelligent design with evolution involved the tiny Dover Area School District, in Pennsylvania ...

It involved two primary questions. First, is intelligent design a science (or is it just creationism under another name)? And second, does requiring the teaching of intelligent design in science classes amount to a governmental endorsement of religion or serve a religious purpose?...

The court heard extensive testimony about whether intelligent design qualifies as science and whether intelligent design took into consideration that there could be any other intelligent designer than God. The petitioners introduced into evidence early drafts of the book on intelligent design referred to by the Dover School Board, Of Pandas and People, some of which had been written before Edwards v. Aguillard and some of it after the opinion had been rendered. This evidence helped to persuade Judge Jones that intelligent design was just a new term for creationism:

By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge:(1) the definition for creation science in the early drafts is identical to the definition of ID [intelligent design]; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist) which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards.

The judge concluded that “this compelling evidence strongly supports plaintiff's assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled.”... Judge Jones summarized the expert testimony in more than 25 pages, concluding that it demonstrated to him that intelligent design is “an interesting theological argument” but is not science for many reasons: it invokes a supernatural cause; it relies on the same flawed arguments as creationism; its attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community; it has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community; it has not generated any peer-reviewed publications; and it has not been the subject of testing or research. The judge quoted from a report on creationism by the National Academy of Sciences as an authoritative and definitive source:“Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of sciences. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief.”

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMlim0...

Welcome to the fray!
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#24932 Feb 2, 2014
mutt wrote:
And here, Joanna:

"The Discovery Institute is a U.S. non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design. Its Teach the Controversy campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.
... In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions", and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"."

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

And, Joanna, just in case you are interested in that Court's findings:

"The Discovery Institute established its Center for Science and Culture to challenge Darwin's theory and promote the inclusion of intelligent design in school curricula nationwide.

The first legal challenge to requiring the teaching of intelligent design with evolution involved the tiny Dover Area School District, in Pennsylvania ...

It involved two primary questions. First, is intelligent design a science (or is it just creationism under another name)? And second, does requiring the teaching of intelligent design in science classes amount to a governmental endorsement of religion or serve a religious purpose?...

The court heard extensive testimony about whether intelligent design qualifies as science and whether intelligent design took into consideration that there could be any other intelligent designer than God. The petitioners introduced into evidence early drafts of the book on intelligent design referred to by the Dover School Board, Of Pandas and People, some of which had been written before Edwards v. Aguillard and some of it after the opinion had been rendered. This evidence helped to persuade Judge Jones that intelligent design was just a new term for creationism:

By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge:(1) the definition for creation science in the early drafts is identical to the definition of ID [intelligent design]; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist) which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards.

The judge concluded that “this compelling evidence strongly supports plaintiff's assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled.”... Judge Jones summarized the expert testimony in more than 25 pages, concluding that it demonstrated to him that intelligent design is “an interesting theological argument” but is not science for many reasons: it invokes a supernatural cause; it relies on the same flawed arguments as creationism; its attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community; it has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community; it has not generated any peer-reviewed publications; and it has not been the subject of testing or research. The judge quoted from a report on creationism by the National Academy of Sciences as an authoritative and definitive source:“Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of sciences. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief.”

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMlim0...

Welcome to the fray!
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#24933 Feb 2, 2014
Sorry for the double post! Just the shaky digits of an old guy...
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#24935 Feb 2, 2014
Thanks for the propaganda, Old Guy. joanna probably didn't see your earlier links.

I wonder if the people who believe that aliens started life on earth will be surprised to find out that ID is just Creationism repackaged? Now they're going to have to start their own theory.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#24936 Feb 2, 2014
mutt wrote:
I wonder if the people who believe that aliens started life on earth will be surprised to find out that ID is just Creationism repackaged? Now they're going to have to start their own theory.
"According to the popular series Ancient Aliens, on H2 (a spinoff of the History channel), extraterrestrial intelligences visited Earth in the distant past, as evidenced by numerous archaeological artifacts whose scientific explanations prove unsatisfactory for alien enthusiasts. The series is the latest in a genre launched in 1968 by Erich von Däniken, whose book Chariots of the Gods? became an international best seller. "

"Ancient aliens theory is grounded in a logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam, or “argument from ignorance.” The illogical reasoning goes like this: if there is no satisfactory terrestrial explanation for, say, the Nazca lines of Peru, the Easter Island statues or the Egyptian pyramids, then the theory that they were built by aliens from outer space must be true."

"Ancient aliens arguments from ignorance resemble intelligent design “God of the gaps” arguments: wherever a gap in scientific knowledge exists, there is evidence of divine design. In this way, ancient aliens serve as small “g” gods of the archaeological gaps, with the same shortcoming as the gods of the evolutionary gaps—the holes are already filled or soon will be, and then whence goes your theory? In science, for a new theory to be accepted, it is not enough to identify only the gaps in the prevailing theory (negative evidence). Proponents must provide positive evidence in favor of their new theory. And as skeptics like to say, before you say something is out of this world, first make sure that it is not in this world."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how...
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#24937 Feb 2, 2014
joanna50 wrote:
So is Intelligent design just a fancy word for creationism?
Yep.
joanna50 wrote:
And if a higher power created us why does it have to be the Christian God?
It doesn't have to be, but most of the folks pushing that argument are conservative Christians, like the Discovery Institute:

"The Discovery Institute was founded in 1990 by Bruce Chapman, George Gilder, and Stephen C. Meyer as a non-profit educational foundation and think tank based upon the Christian apologetics of C.S. Lewis. It was founded as a branch of the Hudson Institute, an Indianapolis-based, conservative think tank."

"By 1995 Chapman and Meyer received a promise of $750,000 over three years from the Ahmansons and a smaller grant from the conservative Christian MacLellan Foundation. This was used to fund the institutes's Center for Science and Culture, then called the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, which went on to form the motive force behind the intelligent design movement. "I was one of the early beneficiaries of Discovery largess," says William A. Dembski, who, during the three years after completing graduate school in 1996 could not secure a university position, receives what he calls "a standard academic salary" of $40,000 a year through the institute."

http://rightwing.wikia.com/wiki/Discovery_Ins...
Pops

Newport, KY

#24938 Feb 2, 2014
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow...after stammering "Mission Accomplished", you really want to take it there? Oh, and...how many US soldiers died because Obama sent them off to attack the wrong country? Bet you were as quiet as a church mouse through all that. Also, could you go ahead and give us a link to the "coalition of 'Blacks for Obama'" thing you were talking about? Bet you can't.
And Obama didn't say that the Islamist terrorist were 'on the run' or losing power or whatever right after 9/11/2012??
Give us all a break if that's all you have in response to this multi-point post.
I am not looking for angry discourse. Only open discussion. What about you?
OR are you trolling again?
Republican 101

Van Wert, OH

#24939 Feb 2, 2014
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
I disproved the theory you support. Thermodynamics. Scientifically speaking, none of us are real and the universe doesn't exist.
That's too easy, though. Let's pretend for a minute that we and the world actually exist, and everything evolved from a common ancestor. Where did millions of years of transitional species go between primates and man? There should still be some alive. Primates are still alive. Modern-day man is still alive. Where did everyone else go?
Hey, I just watched part of your neat little "creation science" spiel on television again. Oh wait, that was actually Jeffrey Dahmer...

ROFLMAO!!!

Since: Jan 13

Lexington, KY

#24940 Feb 2, 2014
Regardless of how we got here my question is what are we going to do now that we are here. Are we going to make our existence better, be uplifting to our fellow man. Shoulder the responsibilities and work hard, be loyal and honest or are we just going to behave selfishly and in total disregard to how our behavior affects others.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#24941 Feb 2, 2014
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationism is a the Christian (and possibly Islamic?) biblical belief that the earth and everything in it was created in 6 days.
Some believe that particular aspect of the creation story had its origins in earlier Mesopotamian creation myths

"Panbabylonists believe the creation myth in the Book of Genesis came from older Mesopotamian creation myths. The Mesopotamian creation myths are recorded in the Enűma Eliš(or Enuma Elish), the Atra-Hasis, the 'Eridu Genesis' and on the 'Barton Cylinder'. Although the plots are different, there are similarities between the Mesopotamian and Jewish myths.

In the beginning of both myths the universe is shapeless and there is nothing but water. In the beginning of Enűma Eliš there is Abzu (freshwater) and Tiamat (saltwater), which mingle together. In the beginning of Genesis, "darkness was over the surface of the deep" and the Jewish god Yahweh is "hovering over the waters".[Genesis 1:2] It has been argued that the Hebrew word for "the deep", tehom, is cognate with tiamat.

In the Enűma Eliš there are six generations of gods, created one after the other. Each god is associated with something, such as sky or earth. This parallels the six days of creation in Genesis, where Elohim (plural) creates a different thing on each day.

In the Enűma Eliš, the sixth-generation god Marduk consults with other gods and decides to make mankind as servants, so that the gods can rest. Likewise, Elohim makes mankind on the sixth day (saying "let us make mankind in our image") and then rests.

In both myths, day and night forego the creation of the luminous bodies (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, and 14ff.; Enűma Eliš 1:38), whose function is to yield light and mark time (Genesis 1:14; Enűma Eliš 5:12–13)."

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

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Westlake Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
375 Lear Rd./Walker Rd. Learwood Center Goodwill!! Apr 1 Avon Lake Goodwill 2
News William W. Stawicki Mar 28 DBozzie 1
Review: Patient First - John Kavlich MD (May '09) Mar '15 anon worker 58
News Teens flee the scene when owner finds them in g... (Sep '09) Feb '15 Michael 2
roof cleaning (Jul '14) Jan '15 maryjaneprincton 2
News FitzGerald says there was nothing improper in 2... (Aug '14) Aug '14 mike 2
News Call about suspicious car led Westlake police t... (Aug '14) Aug '14 Conrad 1
More from around the web

Westlake People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]