Creationism vs Intelligent Design?

[rdean]

Can you believe this nonsense gets hundreds of post and real science get like 4 people to read about revolutionizing energy collection?

 

[THE LIGHT]

Can you believe this nonsense gets hundreds of post and real science get like 4 people to read about revolutionizing energy collection?

Maybe because people are sick of governement projects.

 

[Father Time]

ID is a religion by definition. They posit a superhuman being outside of the universe to create all things.

No, the fact that the earth had a beginning has been scientifically proven.

ID just says in the beginning "something created..." while you say, in the beginning "nothing exploded to create..."

ID says someone not something and once again evolution and atheism both say nothing about the origins of the universe.

 

[Foxfyre]

ID is a religion by definition. They posit a superhuman being outside of the universe to create all things.

No, the fact that the earth had a beginning has been scientifically proven.

ID just says in the beginning "something created..." while you say, in the beginning "nothing exploded to create..."

ID says someone not something and once again evolution and atheism both say nothing about the origins of the universe.

ID CAN say someone and not something, but it does not necessary infer someone as already posted previously re the views of Plato, Aristotle, Einstein, some Buddhist sects, and others, all of which proposed a concept of ID but none of whom embraced any idea of a 'someone'.

 

[Dr Grump]

ID says someone not something and once again evolution and atheism both say nothing about the origins of the universe.

Religion doesn't say anything about the origins of the universe either - well, nothing believable....

 

[☭proletarian☭]

you say, in the beginning "nothing exploded to create..."

Do link to where I said that.

Let me guess, you think TBB was an explosion


Once again, your ignorance is showing.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

ID is a religion by definition. They posit a superhuman being outside of the universe to create all things.

You are mistake proletarian.

ID claims we dont know who, what, or how exactly some things evolved and those who persue it are looking for some inherant "design" in how life evolved.

 

[manifold]

ID is a religion by definition. They posit a superhuman being outside of the universe to create all things.

You are mistake proletarian.

ID claims we dont know who, what, or how exactly some things evolved and those who persue it are looking for some inherant "design" in how life evolved.

You're obviously confusing your own view of what ID should really mean with what the authors of the official "theory" have actually stated.

But that's understandable... I made the same mistake myself once.

It's been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy who wrote the doctrine of Intelligent Design basically copy/pasted the doctrine of Creationism and then did a mass find/replace to remove the term Creationism and insert Intelligent Design.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

ID is a religion by definition. They posit a superhuman being outside of the universe to create all things.

You are mistake proletarian.

ID claims we dont know who, what, or how exactly some things evolved and those who persue it are looking for some inherant "design" in how life evolved.

You're obviously confusing your own view of what ID should really mean with what the authors of the official "theory" have actually stated.

But that's understandable... I made the same mistake myself once.

It's been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy who wrote the doctrine of Intelligent Design basically copy/pasted the doctrine of Creationism and then did a mass find/replace to remove the term Creationism and insert Intelligent Design.

let me have my fun dammit

Oh wait this is your thread , nevermind

 

[manifold]

You are mistake proletarian.

ID claims we dont know who, what, or how exactly some things evolved and those who persue it are looking for some inherant "design" in how life evolved.

You're obviously confusing your own view of what ID should really mean with what the authors of the official "theory" have actually stated.

But that's understandable... I made the same mistake myself once.

It's been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy who wrote the doctrine of Intelligent Design basically copy/pasted the doctrine of Creationism and then did a mass find/replace to remove the term Creationism and insert Intelligent Design.

let me have my fun dammit

Oh wait this is your thread , nevermind

My bad. Far be it from me to infringe on another's pursuit of happiness


But on a pseudo-serious note, I was really disappointed when I learned that ID was merely repackaged Creationism because IMO, it could be so much more.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You're obviously confusing your own view of what ID should really mean with what the authors of the official "theory" have actually stated.

But that's understandable... I made the same mistake myself once.

It's been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy who wrote the doctrine of Intelligent Design basically copy/pasted the doctrine of Creationism and then did a mass find/replace to remove the term Creationism and insert Intelligent Design.

let me have my fun dammit

Oh wait this is your thread , nevermind

My bad. Far be it from me to infringe on another's pursuit of happiness


But on a pseudo-serious note, I was really disappointed when I learned that ID was merely repackaged Creationism because IMO, it could be so much more.

"You're obviously confusing your own view of what ID should really mean with what the authors of the official "theory" have actually stated"

You know I do the above quote all the time. I alwasy project my sanity onto other peoples insanity. I like my description better

 

[☭proletarian☭]

ID is a religion by definition. They posit a superhuman being outside of the universe to create all things.

You are mistake proletarian.

ID claims we dont know who, what, or how exactly some things evolved and those who persue it are looking for some inherant "design" in how life evolved.

Fail.

ID says they were designed by a designer. That is a positive claim made with zero evidence. It's faith and religion grounded in an appeal to ignorance (like all religion).

 

[Foxfyre]

ID is a religion by definition. They posit a superhuman being outside of the universe to create all things.

You are mistake proletarian.

ID claims we dont know who, what, or how exactly some things evolved and those who persue it are looking for some inherant "design" in how life evolved.

Fail.

ID says they were designed by a designer. That is a positive claim made with zero evidence. It's faith and religion grounded in an appeal to ignorance (like all religion).

What designer was implied by Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Einstein, and today by certain Buddhist sects? Take your time. We have all day for you to come up with an answer for that one.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

To say something is designed means, by definition, that it was designed by something.

Else it's not designed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Proletarian, computers design things. "Waldos" create "waldos" concept. The IDers are no more inane in their faith belief than are the atheists in their faith belief. Both rely on first principles that are untestable.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Computers don't design things.

People design things using computers.

Computers 'follow code'- that is, their is a series of electrical impulses in the system which are the result of the initial state and the laws which govern the way that state changes (the paths between processor, ram, etc). They are not conscious and they take no purposeful action of their own. Given sufficient information regarding the initial state and the ways in which the electrons interact with their environment and other electrons, one could, at least in theory, calculate the outcome without needing to run the program.

The universe is only slightly more complicated because
A)It's phecking huge
B)It's distinctly non-linear
C)Some aspects of the universe's working appear, given our current understanding, to be pseudo-random

 

[JakeStarkey]

Computers don't design things.

People design things using computers.

Computers 'follow code'- that is, their is a series of electrical impulses in the system which are the result of the initial state and the laws which govern the way that state changes (the paths between processor, ram, etc). They are not conscious and they take no purposeful action of their own. Given sufficient information regarding the initial state and the ways in which the electrons interact with their environment and other electrons, one could, at least in theory, calculate the outcome without needing to run the program.

The universe is only slightly more complicated because
A)It's phecking huge
B)It's distinctly non-linear
C)Some aspects of the universe's working appear, given our current understanding, to be pseudo-random

Atheists are faith mongers, just as IDers, because both posit first principles, then defend them. Those first principles are untestable.

 

[manifold]

Computers don't design things.

People design things using computers.

Computers 'follow code'- that is, their is a series of electrical impulses in the system which are the result of the initial state and the laws which govern the way that state changes (the paths between processor, ram, etc). They are not conscious and they take no purposeful action of their own. Given sufficient information regarding the initial state and the ways in which the electrons interact with their environment and other electrons, one could, at least in theory, calculate the outcome without needing to run the program.

The universe is only slightly more complicated because
A)It's phecking huge
B)It's distinctly non-linear
C)Some aspects of the universe's working appear, given our current understanding, to be pseudo-random

Atheists are faith mongers, just as IDers, because both posit first principles, then defend them. Those first principles are untestable.

You need to first go learn what the the term "theism" means.

And then go learn what the prefix "A" means.

I'd educate myself, but as it were, I'm Apathetic to your ignorance.

 

[Foxfyre]

To say something is designed means, by definition, that it was designed by something.

Else it's not designed.

Yes, but a 'something' is not necessarily a 'someone'.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Atheists are faith mongers, just as IDers

You're an idiot who needs to look up:
faith
religion
atheism (gnostic and agnostic)
logical positivism