‘Intelligent design’ faces first big court test

Didasko said:
I didn't notice anyone saying that you believe in macro evolution as the 'be all end all' DV. Where did I miss that?
Click to expand...

It's been implied in more than one thread, as well as a lack of distinction between micro and macro evolution.

As for macro evolution being more scientific than creationism...gotta disagree with you there. After decades of searching...there is no evidence for macro. So being that there is no more scientific evidence for macro than creationism...how can it be more scientific? I remember you saying at some time in the past that believing in something that there is no evidence for takes faith.
Click to expand...

Science doesn't pretend to be able to answer all the questions RIGHT NOW. How long did it take us to discover Pluto? You ask how it can be scientific when I have already given you the answer. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You don't believe in macro evolution because there is a LACK OF EVIDENCE to support it. Macro evolution has been tested by the scientific method and has been found wanting. The difference is that it IS testable and verifiable. Creationism is neither. THAT is the difference. You use science to disprove evolution, but support a theory that can't be tested by science.

I agree that creationism should not be taught in the science class. It should be in ancient history:)
Click to expand...

I agree! Alongside all the other myths that humanity has grown out of.

There are people searching archeological digs to find evidence that what the Bible says is true. That is as scientific as searching layers and strata for evidence of macro evolution.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't hold your breath. If archaeology supports a city that was mentioned in the bible, does that mean the ENTIRE bible is true? NOPE. Now when archaeology discovers the Noah's ark, The Garden of Eden or something equally significant, then we can talk.

I have nothing against science guys. I love science and used to teach it. But trying to force the teaching of a theory with no scientific evidence supporting it into public education science curriculum from K-12 is suspect at best.
Click to expand...

AGREED! That goes for ID, Creationism AND Macro evolution.
 
Didasko said:
DV to say that questioning the scientific process makes us hypocrits is a fallacy. You question our faith and tell us we shouldn't question science? How better to question scientific theories than to point out their scientific problems?
Click to expand...

How is it a fallacy?

I don't question your faith, I question the BASIS of your faith. I question the belief in something without evidence and reason.

I have no problems whatsoever with theists questioning scientific problems using the scientific method. What I have a problem with is theists drawing a line and claiming that faith cannot be verified using the same method.

It is not hypocritical in the least for us to question the scientific process used in the theory of evolution. We freely admit that God cannot be scientifically tested so how can that be hypocritical?
Click to expand...

I believe I've answered that several times. That's like saying the rules apply to everyone other than yourselves.
 
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." - Hebrews 11:1-3

We don't need the scientific method, D.V. The basis of our faith is simple... God's word.
 
Dark Virtue said:
Why don't you believe that evolution is a science?

Is it not testable and verifiable?

What would you think of me if I said, "God doesn't exist" and then walked out? Exactly how did I come to that view and how would I support it? Those who know me here know exactly why I don't say things like that, because you CAN'T support it.

Likewise, I will not accept your statement that "evolution is a philosophy" and let you walk away.

Evolution is SCIENCE. Since you have factually stated the opposite, I would like you to support that viewpoint with evidence.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, hit and runs are fun!

Can you provide any proven, objective, and observable (KEYWORD) evidence that disproves evolution as a philosphy or silly theory and moves into the realm of respectability, like say the Theory of the Atom?
 
IceBladePOD said:
Oh come on, hit and runs are fun!

Can you provide any proven, objective, and observable (KEYWORD) evidence that disproves evolution as a philosphy or silly theory and moves into the realm of respectability, like say the Theory of the Atom?
Click to expand...

Misdirection.

Can you not answer the questions I posed to you?

Or are you in the habit of making biased, unproveable claims?

If you would like me to answer your questions, I suggest you answer the questions that were posed to you first.
 
Dark Virtue said:
How is it a fallacy?

I don't question your faith, I question the BASIS of your faith. I question the belief in something without evidence and reason.

I have no problems whatsoever with theists questioning scientific problems using the scientific method. What I have a problem with is theists drawing a line and claiming that faith cannot be verified using the same method.



I believe I've answered that several times. That's like saying the rules apply to everyone other than yourselves.
Click to expand...

The reason it is a fallacy is this:

You don't use the scientific method to argue a philosophy.
You don't use philosophy to argue a scientific theory.
You don't use faith to argue science.
You don't use the scientific method to argue faith.

It doesn't make since to do any of those things. We use the scientific method when talking science and faith when talking Christianity. It is definitely not hypocritical to use the logical method for the given criteria.

I choose not to believe in macro evolution for several reasons.

There is no evidence for it scientifically.
It goes against my Christian beliefs.
I choose not to believe it on faith alone.

I choose to believe what the Bible teaches.

God has made himself known to me.
The Bible makes sense.
The universe and everything in it points to the Creator.
I have faith in Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior.

Nothing hypocritical there at all when looked at objectively.
 
Last edited:
Dark Virtue said:
Misdirection.

Can you not answer the questions I posed to you?

Or are you in the habit of making biased, unproveable claims?

If you would like me to answer your questions, I suggest you answer the questions that were posed to you first.
Click to expand...

No, utilizing misdirection involves focusing the argument on something not immediately related to the subject at hand.

I can just as easily accuse you of making biased unproveable claims. Why not humor me? If it was so easy to prove evolution as credible, what are you waiting for?

I'm aware of the fact that you can easily spin that around my way, so here we go.

You made a statement that discredited Creation before I brought up evolution's lack of evidence.

Now, please, provide reasons why this is so.
 
Didasko said:
The reason it is a fallacy is this:

You don't use the scientific method to argue a philosophy.
You don't use philosophy to argue a scientific theory.
You don't use faith to argue science.
You don't use the scientific method to argue faith.

It doesn't make since to do any of those things. We use the scientific method when talking science and faith when talking Christianity. It is definitely not hypocritical to use the logical method for the given criteria.
Click to expand...


Ever hear of a little thing called LOGIC? Logic is the SCIENCE that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning. That pretty much shoots a hole in your "reasoning".

I choose not to believe in macro evolution for several reasons.

There is no evidence for it scientifically.
Click to expand...

I agree.

It goes against my Christian beliefs.
Click to expand...

There was a point in time when it went against Christian beliefs to think the world was anything but flat.

I choose not to believe it on faith alone.
Click to expand...

I choose not to believe in gravity based on faith alone.

Sounds rediculous doesn't it?

How about this one...I choose not to believe in God based on faith alone.

I choose to believe what the Bible teaches.
Click to expand...

Hey, the Bible has some nice things in it. Let's not forget this little verse though: 1 Thessalonians 5:21

God has made himself known to me.
Click to expand...

And Allah has made himself known to Muslims.

Buddah has made himself known to Buddhists.

Vishnu has made himself known to Hindus.

Neither of those gods have made themselves known to me.

The Bible makes sense.
Click to expand...

YOUR interpretation of YOUR translation makes sense to YOU.

The universe and everything in it points to the Creator.
Click to expand...

If it were THAT cut and dry, why isn't everone a Christian?

I have faith in Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior.
Click to expand...

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Nothing hypocritical there at all when looked at objectively.
Click to expand...

If you say so.
 
Dark Virtue said:
Ever hear of a little thing called LOGIC? Logic is the SCIENCE that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning. That pretty much shoots a hole in your "reasoning".



I agree.



There was a point in time when it went against Christian beliefs to think the world was anything but flat.



I choose not to believe in gravity based on faith alone.

Sounds rediculous doesn't it?

How about this one...I choose not to believe in God based on faith alone.



Hey, the Bible has some nice things in it. Let's not forget this little verse though: 1 Thessalonians 5:21



And Allah has made himself known to Muslims.

Buddah has made himself known to Buddhists.

Vishnu has made himself known to Hindus.

Neither of those gods have made themselves known to me.



YOUR interpretation of YOUR translation makes sense to YOU.



If it were THAT cut and dry, why isn't everone a Christian?



Whatever helps you sleep at night.



If you say so.
Click to expand...

1 Thessalonians 5:21 in context supports my argument DV:)

Try again!
 
I would disagree with the "logic is a science" bit. Logic isn't a science, because logic is supposed to determine science. Logic is a set of rules we are all born knowing. To me, the existence of logic and morals are two strikes in the favor of the existence of God.
 
If your so interested in these kind of topics Perhaps you might check out a site called "Reasons to Believe". I challenge you to do so.
 
Master~Plan said:
back to your old out of context ways I see
Click to expand...

Ouch?

How is that taken out of context?

Why are Christians the only ones able to use stories in the Bible to fit every facet of their life?
 
kraniac said:
I would disagree with the "logic is a science" bit. Logic isn't a science, because logic is supposed to determine science. Logic is a set of rules we are all born knowing. To me, the existence of logic and morals are two strikes in the favor of the existence of God.
Click to expand...

You disagree because your definitions are incorrect.

Logic IS a science. Look at any major university that offers that course and see how they define it.
 
Jeshurun said:
If your so interested in these kind of topics Perhaps you might check out a site called "Reasons to Believe". I challenge you to do so.
Click to expand...

Been there, done that.

I started a thread on that, by the way, where I answered Christian challenges/questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top