Ancientwanker

Reply to Science Lesson From a Creationist in Pure Technology JoeUser Forums

To be clearer, its kind of a "god of the gaps" philosophy which some consider poor theology. They say, "well, they don't know this, that's evidence of god". Then they find a reason for it and god gets paved over. So then they find another gap in knowledge and say, "well, god is over here", but it's like crying wolf, eventually people grow tired of finding god in the gaps and seeing him get pushed out again. Science does have a very good track record of finding things out so pointing t

Reply to Science Lesson From a Creationist in Pure Technology JoeUser Forums

No, I'm not an OEC or a YEC. I believe Collins finds them dangerous to christianity because when you make assertions that are proven to be wrong by further study (for instance, we will never find x, or x can't happen) then christians can come to doubt their core faith when and if those discoveries come to pass. Having taken someone's word on the science of creationism, and finding it later wrong, can lead to their questioning other claims about the bible, or the bible itself. <

Reply to Science Lesson From a Creationist in Pure Technology JoeUser Forums

I just thought I would point out that the OP has the definition of creationism a bit skewed toward one view. There are many forms of creationism but the two largest might be Old Earth and Young Earth. YEC creationism is pushed heavily by sites like AIG or ICR while OEC is pushed by Reasons to Believe iirc. Leaving aside the various ID beliefs or the exact age of the earth (6k, 10k, 100k) among YEC creationsts. Sometimes the OEC and YEC can be quite nasty toward each other. The only

Reply to On Intelligent Design Part 2 in Pure Technology JoeUser Forums

Well, believe what you like. As long as you are honest that the bible is your primary source and that learning the evidence is less important. You just can't teach stuff like that in public schools. Even the D institute has given up on it according to Johnson. At least for the forseeable future. EDIT: Also, nobody needs to "shake you of it". It's up to you to spend the time to learn the evidence. If it doesnt interest you then you won't. Only you know how much time youve spent learni

Reply to On Intelligent Design Part 2 in Pure Technology JoeUser Forums

[quote]Genetic links convinced him evolution was correct and he now supports evolution and common descent but believes that all of the initial varables were set by a creator. Is this theistic evolution? [/quote] Yeah, that's a form of theistic evolution. Theistic evolution might also say that a god intervened later in the process to ensure it developed down a certain path or other variations of that sort of thing.

Reply to On Intelligent Design Part 2 in Pure Technology JoeUser Forums

That the initial conditions are set up just right for everything else to unfold is called the Fine Tuning Argument. Michael Denton, who was once a creationist of sorts, and then joined the ID movement eventually came to espouse this view. Genetic links convinced him evolution was correct and he now supports evolution and common descent but believes that all of the initial varables were set by a creator.

Reply to On Intelligent Design Part 2 in Pure Technology JoeUser Forums

One problem with ID though is that it is not currently a science. Even the founder of the movement, Philip Johnson, agrees with that. He is hopeful that they will eventually make it one but agrees that it can't compete as a complete product at the moment. Another problem is that many people who now use the term ID are really just YEC creationists who are using the term to get themselves another hearing. They know the term "creationist" is a liability so they take advantage of the new n

Reply to On Intelligent Design Part 2 in Pure Technology JoeUser Forums

The theory of evolution is very established but it says nothing about ultimate origins. It just deals with the evidence that life changes over time. There are people of all faiths who support evolution and even the previous Pope admitted the evidence was very strong and that catholicism had no trouble with it as long as you allow for a divine creation of the soul.

Reply to On Intelligent Design Part 2 in Pure Technology JoeUser Forums

Yeah, the broken genes that are broken in an identical way in some related species is strong evidence. The head of the Human Genome Project is a born-again, evangelical, miracle believing christian who finds those broken genes to be great evidence for evolution. He has no time for creationism or ID. If you are curious about what he has to say look up Francis Collins.

Reply to On Intelligent Design Part 2 in Pure Technology JoeUser Forums

[quote]What precisely is that common ancestry if not Adam and Eve in the case of humankind? I know we are all part of nature and share the planet earth...[/quote] Common ancestry goes behind people though, that's kind of the meaning of the phrase. And you really couldnt have common descent from just two individuals in just 6k years, or less with the flood as there are more known allele variants spread over our population than two people could possibly store. Those all

Reply to On Intelligent Design Part 2 in Pure Technology JoeUser Forums

Intelligent Design doesnt have a theory yet. I mean, even the founder and purported intellectual leader of the movement, Philip Johnson, says as much. "I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scie