Taking back the language

[Forum Monk]

I'm sorry zoe, it looks like we disagree with each other then... At this forum we support the case for ID.

You might want to read up on some of our articles for Evolution vs. Design...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/index.php

What is this Gman. Are you saying this not an open forum? Only those opinions which agree with yours and Rich Deem's are welcome?

[Forum Monk]

Oh, it is political and philosophical? And which party do you think is behind it? This forum is made up of both republicans and democrats who happen to both support the case for ID.. As a registered democrat, I happen to believe in ID, global warming, I'm anti-war, and I support many other environmental issues..

And I don't believe ID because it denies God, I don't believe in global warming because I've done the research, I fully support our president (even if I don't agree with him at times) and as for environmental issues...
God bless America, where we are free to express our opinions.

So? Since we live in a secular society made up of many different faiths.. Why not let the people decide who the creator is?

No problem then, Gman. Are you sure you can live with their decision?

Let me ask you this question.. Where is the fossil evidence to back up the Darwinian evolutionist claim?

Evolution is flawed. The fossil record is another evidence of that. Can we at least say we agree that evolution is not the answer???

[Forum Monk]

Do we really want our philosophies taught by people who don't believe them?

Excellent point. I do not.

[Gman]

I'm sorry zoe, it looks like we disagree with each other then... At this forum we support the case for ID.

You might want to read up on some of our articles for Evolution vs. Design...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/index.php

What is this Gman. Are you saying this not an open forum? Only those opinions which agree with yours and Rich Deem's are welcome?

Just setting the record straight so that people reading this won't get confused as to the purpose of this web site...

[zoegirl]

I have never disagreed with the purpose of ID or the investigative power of ID. Just want to see some testable hypothesis.

[Gman]

Hey Question GMan

How can ID be testable?? Or how can God be Testable??

I have never disagreed with the purpose of ID or the investigative power of ID. Just want to see some testable hypothesis.

Some of it has already been posted on the web site.. Again here is one example from Rich..

A biblically-based ID model is eminently testable and falsifiable. Contrary to the claims of opponents, the biblical model does make predictions. For example, it claims that all men are descended from one man, Noah, whereas women come from up to 4 different blood lines (see Genesis 6). One would predict from this claim that males would have lower genetic variability on their y-chromosomes, compared to the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed on exclusively through women. Published scientific studies confirm this biblical prediction, since the last common ancestor dates for the y-chromosome tend to be less than that for mtDNA

More is here...

Source: //www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.php

Also more of this is covered in the book "Creation As Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/evolution Wars" by Hugh Ross...



Source: //www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creat ... cience.php

[archaeologist]

At this forum we support the case for ID.

i don't recall this being part of the rules one had to agree to.

This forum is made up of both republicans and democrats who happen to both support the case for ID..

i don't do any of the three so does that mean i will be banned shortly? is this a closed-minded forum?

Evolution is flawed. The fossil record is another evidence of that. Can we at least say we agree that evolution is not the answer???

i will agree and disagree here. the evolution theory is flawed but evolution does not exist. the fossil record does not prove any part of the evolutionary theory for one basic reason, there is no way to tell which fossil is the ancestor and the other the descendent. i do not hold to the present dating systems as there are too many flaws and assumptions that come into play there.

For example, it claims that all men are descended from one man, Noah, whereas women come from up to 4 different blood lines

the Bible doesn't teach that all men came from Noah, it teaches that all men came from Adam. this woman example doesn't hold up because all the women descended from ONE woman--EVE.

thus scientific study has come short of the true picture. the Bible does not claim that Noah was the originator of the human race, in fact it makes a point to establish his lineage to adam.

[Gman]

And I don't believe ID because it denies God, I don't believe in global warming because I've done the research, I fully support our president (even if I don't agree with him at times) and as for environmental issues...
God bless America, where we are free to express our opinions.

That's right.. God bless America, where we are free to express our religious opinions as well..

No problem then, Gman. Are you sure you can live with their decision?

Sure why not? As long as we don't kill one another I'm sure we will live together just fine..

Evolution is flawed. The fossil record is another evidence of that. Can we at least say we agree that evolution is not the answer???

Yes Darwinian evolution is flawed which is why it should not be taught as completely factual at the public level....

I believe that Darwinian evolution should be taught though in our public systems just as long as we teach the flaws as well.... That's about it..

[archaeologist]

one of the problems of trying to make i.d. scientific is that creation doesn't follow the rules of secular science and if you try to compromise, diminish God thensubmit His work to secular rules and thought then you might as well pack up and go home.

creation was an one time act which set into motion the way life was to go in the reproductive sense. there is nothing to predict, nothing to hypothesize.

this is why creation is not a scientific issue but a theological one, science has little to do here as guided by the secular criteria.

another thing, science is not owned by the secularists, they do not get to make the rules. God owns it and He gets to set the rules, when Christians learn this fact then maybe they will see clearly what they cna and have to do. as it stands, i.d. is a waste of time and does more damage than good to the cause of Christ.

[godslanguage]

Hey Gman, I completely agree. But the point here is this problem is more centralized around the idea of the definition of science in general.

Evolutionists believe they are practicing hard-science as well as pushing scientific research forward, point is, however that as long as evolution remains classified as hard-scientific discipline, the public believes that evolution will have all the answers sooner or later. This is the central mentality (i believe) around this issue. I completely agree they should teach the flaws, then again, what flaws?, to admit there is a flaw in evolution is almost impossible, because for the more general public its the only plausible scientific explanation, the major flaw lies within the idea or logic that as science progresses and that evolution will end up explaining everything so there is no need for exposing any flaws, or introducing new explanations such as ID. ID would require introducing a new curriculum, not just biology in general, but studying biology in conjunction with information theory, programming, mathematics, physics, design theory, engineering etc.... Perhaps this should get the darwinists to start respecting more of the design principles and start looking at this from a entirely differant perspective.
I actually don't recall ID having no scientific evidence, its how you define evidence, ID has clearly defined the evidence which includes --> CSI and IC. I would never say that ID has never had any evidence when ID has been around alot longer than evolution has, that is before Darwin was around. If you define evidence how ID defines it, then there is clearly evidence, and if you define evidence as how Darwinists define it, ID has no evidence.

By the way, Forum Monk, I am not aware of your definition for ID, or how you understand it, can you please re-iterate on that if you havent already, thanks!

[Gman]

This is the central mentality (i believe) around this issue. I completely agree they should teach the flaws, then again, what flaws?, to admit there is a flaw in evolution is almost impossible, because for the more general public its the only plausible scientific explanation, the major flaw lies within the idea or logic that as science progresses and that evolution will end up explaining everything so there is no need for exposing any flaws, or introducing new explanations such as ID.

Excellent point godslanguage.... Thanks. Yes to teach the truth would be devastating to the Darwinian evolutionists.. This is why they are scared. Even if they were to teach the flaws I'd be content with that.. But they still promote evolution as factual with no flaws... So I'm against their teachings now as being completely factual...

one of the problems of trying to make i.d. scientific is that creation doesn't follow the rules of secular science and if you try to compromise, diminish God thensubmit His work to secular rules and thought then you might as well pack up and go home.

How does ID diminish the case for God?

creation was an one time act which set into motion the way life was to go in the reproductive sense. there is nothing to predict, nothing to hypothesize.

this is why creation is not a scientific issue but a theological one, science has little to do here as guided by the secular criteria.

This sounds like the same argument I had with an evolutionist.. There is nothing to predict, nothing to hypothesize... I just gave you one from here.. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... design.php

another thing, science is not owned by the secularists, they do not get to make the rules.

Where did I ever say that science is owned by the secularists? I said that is was owned by both Christian and non-Christians..

God owns it and He gets to set the rules, when Christians learn this fact then maybe they will see clearly what they cna and have to do. as it stands, i.d. is a waste of time and does more damage than good to the cause of Christ.

Teaching that the earth was intelligently designed hurts the cause of Christ? How? Ok, well just let the Darwinian evolutionists dominate the field then because no one will ever let the Bible be taught in the public schools.. It's a separation between Church and State and I happen to agree with it.. But ID is generic, it only implies a creator to which the majority of Americans believe in, be it Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Christian etc..

the Bible doesn't teach that all men came from Noah, it teaches that all men came from Adam. this woman example doesn't hold up because all the women descended from ONE woman--EVE.

thus scientific study has come short of the true picture. the Bible does not claim that Noah was the originator of the human race, in fact it makes a point to establish his lineage to adam.

Please read your Bible.. The Bible teaches that the flood wiped out all of mankind leaving Noah and his family remaining..

[godslanguage]

Yes, ID does not diminish the case for God. First off I think it is important to recognize why Evolution is the only scientific explanation of choice in Darwins time and the present (except for me ... and many others ). ID has never actually been overthrown by any evidence, Darwin perhaps at most "added" explanations (but at the same time created a barrier that would lead to taking away less acceptable explanations that don't conform to they're own philisophical position), not detered already existing evidence. But scientific authorities, who were against the idea of God or anything that "related" to God, since they were abrupt to get evolution as the only "scientific" explanation possible, they commercialized the idea that anything else but evolution (the way darwin imagined it) is not science,and that any other explanation would be "mystical". So at the same time, scientific practice must follow the Darwinian policy, think of it as if your working for this company, and even though everything they do (policies, rules, practices etc...) seem correct, and even though you may not agree with many of those, you must still abide by them or be ready to get fired. Also, think of it like one of those stubborn bosses, who don't like they're employees changing any rules around (that may even be better), and as stubborn as the boss is, you will never get passed the rules that has already taken into effect, that is, unless something significant happens in order for the boss to change his mind.

[archaeologist]

Teaching that the earth was intelligently designed hurts the cause of Christ? How?

let me quote you something first:

It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life.

you removed God and opened the door for other alternatives. the Bible is very clear that GOD CREATED...

Thus, we can infer design. When low information content is involved, it could have been designed, but the from our understanding of what natural processes can do, probability shifts towards the information having been produced by natural processes

it opens the door to evolutionary action and thinking. God did not use or create evolution, it is not a biblical construct.

In all of this, there have been no mentions of God, religion, or adherence to any religious text but rather we use observations about how intelligent design works in the present to look at aspects of the natural world to see if they are designed

it does not bring glory to or give credit to God for what has been observed. it is using a secular device and strategy to say evolution is false but it does not show beyond a shadow of doubt that God did it. intelligent design is omitting God and His ways from the equation and saying only the secular way is the path to discover God. which it isn't as we can see by the quotes that nothing points to God.

Ok, well just let the Darwinian evolutionists dominate the field then because no one will ever let the Bible be taught in the public schools.

God never commanded us to teach the Bible in public schools. show me a verse that even remotely points to such a or similar command.

It's a separation between Church and State and I happen to agree with it.

constitutional people have been all over this and most say that that phrase isn't meaning that religion can't be taught in the schools. i would have to look up some studies but...

But ID is generic

GOD ISN"T.

, it only implies a creator

GOD DOESN'T. it is His work and only He gets the glory.

Please read your Bible.. The Bible teaches that the flood wiped out all of mankind leaving Noah and his family remaining

i do. where do you think noah and his family came from?

Where did I ever say that science is owned by the secularists? I said that is was owned by both Christian and non-Christians

it is owned by God, He doesn't share ownership.

There is nothing to predict, nothing to hypothesize

there isn't, the results of creation have been doing the same thing for about 10,000 years and if the Lord tarries, it will do the same for another 10,000. this is not a science issue, it is a theological one. science, especially that which practices secular ways, plays a very minor role here.

[archaeologist]

sorry i forgot to post where i got my information:

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... php/id/832

[godslanguage]

Archeologist, I think you are missing the point here. Evolutionists don't want kids at public schools to even remotely consider the possibility of God, or that the "bible" even exists and can be read (free of charge ). In this case, it is more likely that kids will completely dismiss or overlook the clear evidence that God has put forth in front of our eyes (which you are right in this aspect because generally, God has brought about enough evidence, even without practicing secular science.... and... even without reading or knowing about the Bible, its that spiritual thirst many seek but never get). The reason they never get it is because they are taught to overlook it, one way to do this would be by teaching evolution in its current form by subjecting to the rejection of anything else, and ofcourse there are many other ways to do it, evolution is only one thing to consider.

If we expand on that term design, you would notice this term, along with intelligence is very vague in the general sense. For design to work, it must also have a creative process, to initiate design process there is an artistic and formulative aspect to consider. If you read the first verse in the bible, the word create essentially must correspond to some sort of design principle. This actually brings me to suggest, for the public school system to introduce ONLY the first verse in the bible, imagine how much thought that would stir up