Intelligent Design is not creationism. This is a red herring, why would I expect more from you all.... :-( Sad, very sad...

Creationism is a 6 day scenario. Pick up most any rock and that can be disproved.

Intelligent Design knows the universe is almost 14 billion years old and the earth almost 5 billion.

You have failed to do the reading or you are intentionally misleading...

Surely you must have seen my link in Message 1527254 which proves that this title "Intelligent Design" was a substitute for Creationism.

and if that link is good enough for you then just google "cdesign of panda's and men". cdesign by itself brings up several companies that use that name as well.

I posted one very similar once upon a time in another thread Winterknight :) as I think did you! :) I know this isn't being addressed to me, but until such time as ID manages to get back to you, I hope you don't mind me having a bit of a natter in the meantime? :)

As I see it: creationism -> neo-creationism -> intelligent design... rapid evolutionary process of terminology, triggered amongst creationists when they suddenly found they were in an unexpectedly hostile environment.

Requiring prompt adaptive change (find and replace :)) - in order to sidestep fallout from legal action in 1987, they inadvertently spawned a mutant offspring which inventively grew scientific eyes and ears (previously unnecessary in their unevolved state when the age of the earth and evolution were just plain "wrong") and began to exploit this niche environment.

The founders remained in the unevolved state however :/ Their new DNA was always junk, and their scientific eyes and ears were always just camouflage. They tolerate the mutant for it's efforts at subverting science, because its primary objective is also theirs. And that I think is what frustrates ID so much... when we pop him into the psuedo-design group :/

I think genuine believers now probably do exist (ID says he is one after all :) and they say they believe that "intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural." Okay around 99% seem to come from a Christian background but that I read somewhere, is not at all relevant :) and some do try their hand at a bit of sciencey stuff - but most just wait in the wings ready to use their big feet to stamp out any potential damaging fires to their unreviewed paperwork.

So to look at the definition once more: "intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural."

Can you spot the primary objective? :) It's built into every intelligent design question and study. :( It leaves a whiff of creationism behind it wherever it goes and I'm so sorry ID, but for me, that is what undermines its science :/ and might also be why we keep flinging red herrings all over the place...

The Scientist and Scientific Minded, at The End of The Day/Night, is Racked with Fears. Fears, The Most Hardened Rational Mind cannot Escape.

This gives Lesser Minds, Minds Not Able to Advance, to Wall Off Reptillian Urges, A Place. A Place in This World Speeding By So Quickly, where A Lesser Mind cannot Hope to Compete. Getting Out of The Way is No Option.

We of The Lesser Kingdom will Fight Against the Greater Minds. We Have To. Intelligent Design may not consume One Iota of Time and Thought for Most of The Advanced Ones, but, it is An Irritant. And Irritation, is A Great Comfort to Our Inabiltities Against You of the Brilliance.

We Will Not Assimilate. Will Not Comport. We Will Batter Against The Odds. Losers Always Gamble for Any Win.

Millinea to Come, We Will still be A Bed Bug Biting Away. Making Irritable Marks upon All Who are More than Us. When Dark Episodes Shutter Light and Fear Pricks at Composure and Rationalities, We Of The Itching Bite will continue to feed our Hunger. Weak Minds Need Nurishment too.

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

To quote someone far better qualified for this thread than I:

Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact.
Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it. ... Only
atheists could accept this Satanic theory.
- Rev. Jimmy Swaggart, "The Pre-Adamic Creation and Evolution"


As quoted there, that certainly ain't Science!


Outside of Science, you're welcome to believe whatever fantasy you like. [Edit] So long as you do not try reinventing/claiming that which we understand to be Science. For fantasy/religion is not Science...[/edit]

Ain't that a fact?


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

A fact doesn't always involve Science imho

[edit] I don't agree on that quote either

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

I have never believed in Creationism. Never not once. I have known since I was 13 that there isn't enough water on earth to cover all the land. All the mountains and valleys would either have to be brought down or filled up. And even then the waters would only be a foot or two deep. Father Lewis was a very unhappy man when I took issue with this in his Creation Class.

Back then I had no idea what the age of the universe came up to. Divide 14 billion by 6. That is how long a day is for the Causal Agent. So it would seem.

The Causal Agent is the maker of time. Ergo, the Causal Agent does not live within our time line, but stands outside of our time.

I bring this up because there is no way to know who or what the Designer is. We cannot stand outside of our own timeline. There is no way to test what is outside of our timeline. We can only test what is, not what is out of our timeline.

We can only test what we see, feel, and taste. We test it for design.

We are manipulators of the world around us. We make nothing at all but thought. Thought is the only thing was create. We use thought to make things but the things we make are just a manipulation of what we have been given in nature. Music, art, numbers and such are about the only things we create.

It is written that we have been created by a thought from our Designer. As all creation stories go, all of them. The grain of truth...

Creationism take the Book/creation stories literally. I break the creation story down and add real science to it. 6 days, the Book does not define the length of a day, it just says, day. The time line of the Book is a little off with some things out of whack. But as a general rule of thumb it follows what happened...

You have no proof that one species has changed into another. You say this has happened over time by genetic drift. I have pointed out that this millions of years it takes for one species to change into another can be seen in much less time, look to the prolific bacteria. If we use bacteria the timeline has been greatly reduced and we should see the bacteria move up the Darwinian chain into a new species. Over the timeline that we have been studying with bacteria, billions upon billions of generations have been cultivated. Not once, ever, have we seen bacteria change and move up the tree of life into another species.

I cannot and never will deny what I see with my own eyes, hear with my own ears and understand with my given intellect.

I will never let the narrative fit the science. The science leads me to the ends. This is NOT true for Neo-Darwinism. Gears have been found in a insect. This predates mans gears. Everything about the finding of gears in a insect points to a design. A design we thought we had created all ourselves. Yet, we find them in a insect long before man walked upright on two legs. Manipulation, copy, fabricate, is the best we can do. But, in the end we have made nothing that hasn't already been here long before us.

I find that you people who deny design in everything we see as utterly insane. You call me insane for the belief in a Designer. I can't see it any other way. And it's not because I have not tried to look at it your way. I was one of them at the ripe age of 13 who said---"No such thing as God." But, the more I looked the more design I seen. I came to the point where I reached the unmoved mover and could do no more then those before me; I applied the logic of the ancients. And logic IS the very first science known to man and is applicable and indeed a real science.

I do not hate Creationism, or Neo-Darwinism for that matter. I do not accept either as the true and full story. I do accept the fact that man will never know the real reasons for some things. We will never be on par with the Designer, ever. That does not mean we should stop looking for them answers, but on the other hand I know we will never have them answers.

Everything around us has been finely tuned for us, human life. I believe in exceptionalism. It isn't arrogance, least that is not how I feel about it. We have a place in this universe, we have been placed in our timeline with the right tools to do----something. I don't believe we have the right to use our resources incorrectly. I believe in being the good steward. It's the something I'm real clear about, we have been placed here at the right time and on the right rock to leave, to move out into space. This curiosity is natural born within us, some more then others but natural for a reason, designed in us. And it points us up and out into space.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

I have never believed in Creationism. Never not once. I have known since I was 13 that there isn't enough water on earth to cover all the land. All the mountains and valleys would either have to be brought down or filled up. And even then the waters would only be a foot or two deep. Father Lewis was a very unhappy man when I took issue with this in his Creation Class.

Back then I had no idea what the age of the universe came up to. Divide 14 billion by 6. That is how long a day is for the Causal Agent. So it would seem.

The Causal Agent is the maker of time. Ergo, the Causal Agent does not live within our time line, but stands outside of our time.

I bring this up because there is no way to know who or what the Designer is. We cannot stand outside of our own timeline. There is no way to test what is outside of our timeline. We can only test what is, not what is out of our timeline.

We can only test what we see, feel, and taste. We test it for design.

They used to think that the giants causeway in Ireland was designed. It turns out they were wrong too. Still, it made a nice story.

We are manipulators of the world around us. We make nothing at all but thought. Thought is the only thing was create. We use thought to make things but the things we make are just a manipulation of what we have been given in nature. Music, art, numbers and such are about the only things we create.

We create based on the natural patterns we see around us. I am not sure what that has to do with a designer.

It is written that we have been created by a thought from our Designer. As all creation stories go, all of them.

^ This does not imply this

The grain of truth...

Creationism take the Book/creation stories literally. I break the creation story down

good for you

and add real science to it.

no you don't

6 days, the Book does not define the length of a day, it just says, day. The time line of the Book is a little off with some things out of whack. But as a general rule of thumb it follows what happened...

Here and there, but not really.

You have no proof that one species has changed into another.

Yes we do.

You say this has happened over time by genetic drift. I have pointed out that this millions of years it takes for one species to change into another can be seen in much less time, look to the prolific bacteria. If we use bacteria the timeline has been greatly reduced and we should see the bacteria move up the Darwinian chain into a new species.

What is this "up" you speak about? They evolve and change to adapt to their environment. Where is your "up" in this? I've not come across this.

Over the timeline that we have been studying with bacteria, billions upon billions of generations have been cultivated. Not once, ever, have we seen bacteria change and move up the tree of life into another species.

Are you suggesting that because bacteria don't change into monkeys then evolution must be wrong???

I cannot and never will deny what I see with my own eyes, hear with my own ears and understand with my given intellect.

Well. People do see and heat things that aren't there. Also, its not what you are seeing that seems to be the problem here. Its how you are interpreting what you see.

I will never let the narrative fit the science. The science leads me to the ends. This is NOT true for Neo-Darwinism.

Neo-Darwinism is something you made up. So its not relevant really is it?

Gears have been found in a insect. This predates mans gears.

So what? Motors have been found too. Capacitors too. If something works because of science then it will work whether come across by trial and error or conscious design.

Everything about the finding of gears in a insect points to a design.

No it doesn't. It points to successful trial and error over millions of generations.

A design we thought we had created all ourselves. Yet, we find them in a insect long before man walked upright on two legs. Manipulation, copy, fabricate, is the best we can do. But, in the end we have made nothing that hasn't already been here long before us.

This doesn't prove design. It proves things that work survive to be passed on to successive generations.

I find that you people who deny design in everything we see as utterly insane.

I know the feeling.

You call me insane for the belief in a Designer.

More deluded than insane.

I can't see it any other way.

That is because the human mind has evolved to see patterns where there are none because it gives an evolutionary advantage that outweighs any disadvantage given by seeing things as intended when they are not.

And it's not because I have not tried to look at it your way. I was one of them at the ripe age of 13 who said---"No such thing as God." But, the more I looked the more design I seen. I came to the point where I reached the unmoved mover and could do no more then those before me; I applied the logic of the ancients.

Well you did it wrong to be honest.

And logic IS the very first science known to man and is applicable and indeed a real science.

This is true.

I do not hate Creationism,

Yet you are Neo-Creationist yourself.

or Neo-Darwinism for that matter.

No such thing.

I do not accept either as the true and full story. I do accept the fact that man will never know the real reasons for some things.

This is true, but we will find out more and more as time goes on.

We will never be on par with the Designer, ever. That does not mean we should stop looking for them answers, but on the other hand I know we will never have them answers.

I really don't think you are going to find a designer. There is no evidence for one as yet.

Everything around us has been finely tuned for us, human life.

You have it backwards. Human life has been finally tuned for everything around us. This is how adaptation works.

I believe in exceptionalism. It isn't arrogance, least that is not how I feel about it.

Your feelings aren't science.

We have a place in this universe, we have been placed in our timeline with the right tools to do----something. I don't believe we have the right to use our resources incorrectly. I believe in being the good steward. It's the something I'm real clear about, we have been placed here at the right time and on the right rock to leave, to move out into space. This curiosity is natural born within us, some more then others but natural for a reason, designed in us. And it points us up and out into space.

That's nice dear.

---

Reality Internet Personality

ID, thanks for sharing your beliefs. Now we all know.

---

Father Lewis was a very unhappy man when I took issue with this in his Creation Class.

Are you saying Catholic schools such as Notre Dame teache creationism?

---

Father Lewis was a very unhappy man when I took issue with this in his Creation Class.

Are you saying Catholic schools such as Notre Dame teache creationism?

Ummmm, did I say that?

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

According to the laws of physics a planet the shape of a donut could actually exist...

...but there is no such thing. Perhaps you have a point I missed?

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

According to the laws of physics a planet the shape of a donut could actually exist...

...but there is no such thing. Perhaps you have a point I missed?

Evidence?

I have never believed in Creationism.

Maybe, but creationism and Intelligent Design are the same thing.

Creation Biology was a book co-authored by Dean H. Kenyon. This was the book that was re-titled Of Panda's and People. I have given the link to this twice in this thread and you have ignored it. But to summarise it is where creation is replaced with design in most of the book except they made a mistake and it is written cdesign.
This was the book that was taken to court in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trail.

Dean H. Kenyon is a Fellow of the discovery Institute.

You know, it doesn't matter how many times you say that, it wont make it true.

Creationism is a 6 day event in the Book of Genesis, as taken literally.

Intelligent Design believes in a universe that is something less then 14 billion years old.

I wont address this political ploy of yours again.

The mistake isn't mine.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

No evidence for a donut shaped planet either. Physics says that is could exist. Perhaps you missed my well placed point?

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

According to the laws of physics a planet the shape of a donut could actually exist...

...but there is no such thing. Perhaps you have a point I missed?

They haven't found any such thing. It is theoretically possible for planets smaller than the Earth. I am not sure how we would find one if it is that small.

However, it is theoretically possible, but not considered something that actually is, because there is no evidence for it.

It is theoretically possible for all the air molecules to simultaneously move to one corner of a room. There is as far as I am aware no evidence that this has actually happened to anyone.

---

Reality Internet Personality

No evidence for a donut shaped planet either.

Or a designer, only the argument it is too complicated for us to understand therefore somthing else must have done it.

---

Father Lewis was a very unhappy man when I took issue with this in his Creation Class.

Are you saying Catholic schools such as Notre Dame teache creationism?

Ummmm, did I say that?

I quoted you

Father Lewis was a very unhappy man when I took issue with this in his Creation Class.

I assume Father Lewis was a preast teaching science in a Catholic school.

---

You know, it doesn't matter how many times you say that, it wont make it true.

Creationism is a 6 day event in the Book of Genesis, as taken literally.

Intelligent Design believes in a universe that is something less then 14 billion years old.

I wont address this political ploy of yours again.

The mistake isn't mine.

Do you deny that the title Intelligent Design only exists because the creationists couldn't get creationism into school science and therefore came up with a new name to try and fool some school boards.

Don't you realise that it is just a ploy to fool people into thinking there is a designer or God controlling life.

Don't you realise that it is just a ploy to fool people into thinking there is a designer or God controlling life.

Don't you realize As Much Science as The Kiddies Can Bear can been taught Right Alongside a Course in I.D., say, part of A Humanities Class.

No One Need Fool or Get Fooled. Straight Arrow. Best of All Available Info at the time of Teaching.

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

ID, thanks for outlining your thoughts. I'd like to turn around one of your statements and ask you to address it. Instead of saying "You have no proof that one species has changed into another.", I would say "You have no proof that one species was designed". You interpet the complexity of biological design as requiring intelligent design, but you have not come up with any evidence that they were actually designed. Your argument is stuck at the hypothesis stage, and needs experimental proof. Who and where is the designer? And why have we not seen the spontaneous creation of a new species by the designer during recorded history (last 5000 years) or evidence in the recent fossil record (100,000 years or so) of the creation of a new species?

---