It’s closer to evolution saying that it appears as though the ceiling was painted through a series of small, gradual brushstrokes that added up to a complex image, whereas ID says that all of the paint plopped onto the ceiling instantly.

justfinethanks on February 5, 2009 at 2:36 AM

Yeah, not so much…wait a second. Did you just say that evolutionary theory can be interpreted as implying that there was someone holding the brush, and painting deliberately?

Yes faith, but faith and reason – Fides et Ratio

Mike OMalley on February 4, 2009 at 10:42 PM

Whats the reason part in that equation?
I’m guessing it would be the honest scientists position of “we don’t know”?

This is the same as the ID holders position of “Lets look at it”, and that seems reasonable to me. But if people on either side start to claim “Thats bull” while pointing their fingers at the opposing side, neither are exhibiting reason.

The only accurate position, imo,..when the question is the origins of the universe..is to be agnostic.
Evolution is another topic.

There is a name for that argument tactic, probably Latin for Scheisskopf.

Pelayo on February 4, 2009 at 7:46 PM

in your case its german for dumbkoff…

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Now what do you think it means when it says “on the seventh day God ended his work”, do you think that on the seventh day he finished? Then he rested…or did the interpreters make a mistake? and mean on the sixth day he finished?

uh its pretty obvious, He rested on the seventh day, didn’t do any work…other than of course uphold the universe by the Word of His power…but you seem to have some fanciful interpretation…it means what it means….whats so hard???

and to think that God couldn’t do it in 6 days…and somehow lied or was powerless….is really confusing and strange…I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here…

apologize??? for what? considering your use of the bible to justify evolution? or doubting God could wrap things up in 6 days??? I’m really puzzled about this whole conversation…..

he finished on the seventh day…but it doesn’t matter to the intent that he rested on the seventh day

uh yeah He was done on the seventh day…so? you think He still did work…again you seem to be alone in this interpretation….which should tell you something…

Class is out, be sure and do your reading and if you have any question, I will answer them tomorrow.

you are arrogant and condescending…like the good ‘christian’ you are….nice.

yeah you’re a legend in your own mind…

It’s closer to evolution saying that it appears as though the ceiling was painted through a series of small, gradual brushstrokes that added up to a complex image, whereas ID says that all of the paint plopped onto the ceiling instantly.

justfinethanks on February 5, 2009 at 2:36 AM

.

JFT, you are either making a strawman argument or you have confused ID with literalist Creationism. Because, if this is what you think ID says then you don’t know what you are talking about. I’d suggest you do some homework. Stop reading the critics of ID and start reading Michael Behe.

Atheism says, “There is no God, and I’ll fight Him yank the chain of His believers till I die.”

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on February 5, 2009 at 2:37 AM

Simply replacing the word “God” with “Designer” changes nothing and fools no one.

ronsfi on February 4, 2009 at 11:46 PM

Rather like replacing “Global Warming” with “Climate Change”. Pretty much the same modus operandi.

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on February 5, 2009 at 2:37 AM

Actually, that’s funny. :)

Evolution is fiction.

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on February 5, 2009 at 1:59 AM

Religion is fantasy.

OldEnglish on February 5, 2009 at 2:10 AM

Atheism says, “There is no God, and I’ll fight Him till I die.”

The position of creationism/ID is that the Sistine Chapel obviously didn’t paint itself. Therefore, someone must have painted it.

The position of Darwinian atheism is that we don’t know who painted the Sistine Chapel. Therefore, it MUST have painted itself!

It’s closer to evolution saying that it appears as though the ceiling was painted through a series of small, gradual brushstrokes that added up to a complex image, whereas ID says that all of the paint plopped onto the ceiling instantly.

The position of creationism/ID is that the Sistine Chapel obviously didn’t paint itself. Therefore, someone must have painted it.

The position of Darwinian atheism is that we don’t know who painted the Sistine Chapel. Therefore, it MUST have painted itself!

At least, that’s the impression I’ve always gotten. Who’s not thinking?

Evolution is fiction.

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on February 5, 2009 at 1:59 AM

Religion is fantasy.

Mike OMalley on February 4, 2009 at 10:57 PM

Thank you for the update. Science is galloping along faster than this old man can keep up.

Now if I post that a few dozen more times, I will have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is a made-up story.

Just borrowing ronsfi’s technique….

Mike OMalley on February 4, 2009 at 11:00 PM

.
Simply replacing the word “God” with “Designer” changes nothing and fools no one. ID is merely Creation Science re-branded and tweaked specifically to skirt the issues that caused it to be shot down in the courts during the 1980s.

starflyer on February 4, 2009 at 10:43 PM

Just be sure you distinguish between literalist Creationism and the intellectual wealth of ID. ID is no show stopper.

Since we require structure and radiation in order to observe and analyze, we can go no further back than the moment when radiation began. This only occurred after the Big bang, when atomic structure began to form.

Prior to that, we can only theorize that matter was in the form of energy (whatever that is), subject to gravity. At some point, the heat built up by compression would have overcome gravity, hence the Big bang.

This theory would only work in a Cyclic Universe, and that is hotly contested by many.

OldEnglish on February 4, 2009 at 9:24 PM

No much much earlier, before matter and energy emerged. We may not be able to observe and emperically test anything before the emergence of either quantum gravity or the Strong Force from the initial unity of the gauge symmetries and quantum gravity (See TOE = theory of everything) This probably occurred around Planck Time.

Itchee Dryback on February 4, 2009 at 9:27 PM

Yes faith, but faith and reason – Fides et Ratio

Mike OMalley on February 4, 2009 at 9:22 PM

I agree, and that is the point of my claim that “science” has no more valid an explanation than “creationism” does for….well..”creation”, both would fall into the arena of faith, if one were to be honest.

Evolution is another topic.

Itchee Dryback on February 4, 2009 at 9:10 PM

Since we require structure and radiation in order to observe and analyze, we can go no further back than the moment when radiation began. This only occurred after the Big bang, when atomic structure began to form.

Prior to that, we can only theorize that matter was in the form of energy (whatever that is), subject to gravity. At some point, the heat built up by compression would have overcome gravity, hence the Big bang.

This theory would only work in a Cyclic Universe, and that is hotly contested by many.

No I mean the origin of the matter and forces that made the big bang possible…..where did that stuff come from, and in what environment did it exist prior to the bang?

Itchee Dryback on February 4, 2009 at 9:10 PM

One could consult Stephen Hawking and Aquinas. Otherwise, modern science is unable to answer your question Mr. Dryback. Our best empirical science can’t go back further than Planck Time

No I mean the origin of the matter and forces that made the big bang possible…..where did that stuff come from, and in what environment did it exist prior to the bang?

Itchee Dryback on February 4, 2009 at 9:10 PM

One could consult Stephen Hawking and Aquinas. Otherwise, modern science is unable to answer your question Mr. Dryback. Our best empirical science can’t go back further than Planck Time