A myth about Creation: Intelligent Design Is Creationism. It's not.
gabriel
Although some evolutionists claim that the Intelligent Design
Movement (IDM) is a sort of Trojan horse for creationism to get
into schools, those in the IDM are not necessarily even
Christian, let alone creationists.
Creationism begins with the belief that the Bible is God�s
infallible Word to us. The Bible provides the framework by which
we understand the world. Because the Bible teaches that there is
a Creator and that the earth is young, creationists base all our
research on this foundation.
Conversely, the IDM holds that certain aspects of living things
and the universe can best be explained by being the work of an
intelligent designer. The identity of this creator and whether or
not the Bible is true are non-factors. While creationists may
agree with some aspects of intelligent design theory, those who
do conflate IDM with creationism likely do not understand either.
Draccus
> www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#pag...
No matter the name you try and call Bullshit it still stinks like shit
the same goes for ID and Creationism it is the same shit with a shinny
new package. It is not science and has place in a science class.
Bible Studies with Satan
> www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#paginateTop
>
> Although some evolutionists
What's an evolutionist?
> claim that the Intelligent Design
> Movement (IDM) is a sort of Trojan horse for creationism to get
> into schools,
Of course it is. Deception is my game, and the dominionists are my church.
> those in the IDM are not necessarily even
> Christian, let alone creationists.
>
> Creationism begins with the belief that the Bible is God�s
> infallible Word to us. The Bible provides the framework by which
> we understand the world. Because the Bible teaches that there is
> a Creator and that the earth is young, creationists base all our
> research on this foundation.
>
> Conversely, the IDM holds that certain aspects of living things
> and the universe can best be explained by being the work of an
> intelligent designer. The identity of this creator and whether or
> not the Bible is true are non-factors. While creationists may
> agree with some aspects of intelligent design theory, those who
> do conflate IDM with creationism likely do not understand either.
--
God did not need to work miracles to convince atheists but to convert heathens.
-- Sir Francis Bacon
RichTravsky
>
> www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#paginateTop
>
> Although some evolutionists claim that the Intelligent Design
> Movement (IDM) is a sort of Trojan horse for creationism to get
> into schools, those in the IDM are not necessarily even
> Christian, let alone creationists.
>
> Creationism begins with the belief that the Bible is God�s
> infallible Word to us. The Bible provides the framework by which
> we understand the world. Because the Bible teaches that there is
> a Creator and that the earth is young, creationists base all our
> research on this foundation.
>
> Conversely, the IDM holds that certain aspects of living things
> and the universe can best be explained by being the work of an
> intelligent designer. The identity of this creator and whether or
Space aliens? HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH
> not the Bible is true are non-factors. While creationists may
> agree with some aspects of intelligent design theory, those who
> do conflate IDM with creationism likely do not understand either.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8042
23 September 2005
A landmark legal trial begins on Monday that could determine how the theory of
evolution - one of the basic tenets of modern science - is taught in US schools.
...
"There is so much evidence that this is just the latest incarnation of
creationism," says Walczak. He points to early drafts of Of Pandas and People,
written before 1987. "It's identical except for where it says creationism it now
says intelligent design."
This view is shared by the mainstream science community. Alan Leshner, CEO of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science based in Washington DC and
publisher of the journal Science, says: "ID was an effort to correct the legal
problems of creation science."
It will be up to the defence to prove that ID is in fact a scientific concept that
has a primarily secular purpose and a secular effect on students.
...
One expert witness for the defence will be Michael Behe, a scientist at Lehigh
University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and an outspoken ID proponent.
...
How did Behe do? HAHHAHAHAH
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178
19 October 2005
Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the
same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design
to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard
on Tuesday.
Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at
Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition
of theory was so broad it would also include astrology.
Behe was called to the stand on Monday by the defence, and testified
that ID was a scientific theory, and was not committed to religion.
His cross examination by the plaintiffs attorney, Eric Rothschild of
the Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton, began on Tuesday afternoon.
Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences
supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory:
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect
of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and
tested hypotheses.
Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science
organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed
journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not
be included in the NAS definition. I cant point to an external
community that would agree that this was well substantiated, he said. .
Behe said he had come up with his own broader definition of a theory,
claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are
actually used by scientists. The word is used a lot more loosely than
the NAS defined it, he says.
Rothschild suggested that Behes definition was so loose that astrology
would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that
Behes definition of theory was almost identical to the NASs definition
of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.
The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with
local members of the public and the school board.
...
RT
gabriel
<dracc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Never said Creation by God was science. The fact is, the fish to
man version of evolution is also not science: one can only
believe in it. It, too, does not belong in a science class.
Populations of [flies] evolving, over generations, in rare cases
a slightly different species of [flies]? Yes. Populations of
[flies] evolving, over generations, into animals that are clearly
no longer [flies] at all? Not science - one can only believe in
it - the fish to man version of evolution.
gabriel
<chu...@state.org> wrote:
: gabriel wrote:
:
: > www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#paginateTop
: >
: > Although some evolutionists
:
: What's an evolutionist?
A person who believes in the fish to man version of evolution.
:
: > claim that the Intelligent Design
: > Movement (IDM) is a sort of Trojan horse for creationism to get
: > into schools,
:
: Of course it is. Deception is my game, and the dominionists are my church.
No - intelligent design is a theory proposed by some scientists
who do not believe in God. So perhaps they instead believe aliens
from another planet designed life here on Earth - who knows.
But nevertheless, it's logically undeniable we were designed and
created. It would be foolish for a person to look at a computer
and computer program (instructions, and the ability for those
instructions to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon) and make
the claim "Once the building blocks were in place (some wires, a
power source), after hundreds of millions of years we would then
have computers and computer programs." Only a foolish person
would deny that a computer and computer program are proof of
intelligent design.
In like manner, DNA, and the ability for those instructions to be
meaningfully decoded and acted upon to miraculously build organic
machines are proof of intelligent design as well. The only faith
part: was it the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Or aliens? The
faith part is easy.
Psalms 46:10 KJV
10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among
the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
:
: > those in the IDM are not necessarily even
gabriel
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
They have proven it. They don't believe God did it - they only
point to the logically undeniable fact that we were designed and
created, as proven by DNA alone: instructions that are
meaningfully decoded and acted upon to miraculously build organic
machines.
[..]
Sid9
"gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:auh3h5pcnkfb809fu...@4ax.com...
.
.
Hallelujah!
A miracle!
Let us all prey!
Sid9
.
No scientists propose "creationism"
Only charlatans who claim they are "scientists"
Sid9
Amen!
Hallelujah!
Lettuce Prey!
Bob LeChevalier
>Never said Creation by God was science. The fact is, the fish to
>man version of evolution is also not science
The fact is: you are WRONG.
It is science, because many many credentialed scientists in peer
reviewed journals call it "science". QED
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier
>No - intelligent design is a theory proposed by some scientists
>who do not believe in God. So perhaps they instead believe aliens
>from another planet designed life here on Earth - who knows.
Intelligent design is not a theory at all. It is a hypothesis lacking
any evidence whatsoever of any sort of intelligent designer.
>But nevertheless, it's logically undeniable we were designed and
>created.
Logic does not enter into the matter. It is quite deniable.
>It would be foolish for
... an idiot who is clueless about science to keep posting the same
old nonsense. But you still do it.
>Only a foolish person
>would deny that a computer and computer program are proof of
>intelligent design.
They are proof of no such thing. The only *proof* of intelligent
design is to show an intelligent designer doing that design.
>In like manner, DNA, and the ability for those instructions to be
>meaningfully decoded and acted upon to miraculously build organic
>machines are proof of intelligent design as well.
They are proof of no such thing,
RichTravsky
No they have not. Cite ->
Hint - if Behe couldn't do it...
> point to the logically undeniable fact that we were designed and
> created, as proven by DNA alone: instructions that are
> meaningfully decoded and acted upon to miraculously build organic
> machines.
And DNA developed naturally. Amino acids are found in space, the building
blocks.
RichTravsky
One can look at the progression of fossil remains. QED
One can only believe in space aliens creating life; it isn't science
RichTravsky
>
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:36:43 GMT, Bible Studies with Satan
> <chu...@state.org> wrote:
>
> : gabriel wrote:
> :
> : > www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#paginateTop
> : >
> : > Although some evolutionists
> :
> : What's an evolutionist?
>
> A person who believes in the fish to man version of evolution.
Very good. You're one step up out of the morass of supersition and ignorance.
> : > claim that the Intelligent Design
> : > Movement (IDM) is a sort of Trojan horse for creationism to get
> : > into schools,
> :
> : Of course it is. Deception is my game, and the dominionists are my church.
>
> No - intelligent design is a theory proposed by some scientists
> who do not believe in God. So perhaps they instead believe aliens
> from another planet designed life here on Earth - who knows.
>
> But nevertheless, it's logically undeniable we were designed and
> created. It would be foolish for a person to look at a computer
It's logicall undeniable that over millions of years simpler organisms
became more complex.
> and computer program (instructions, and the ability for those
> instructions to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon) and make
> the claim "Once the building blocks were in place (some wires, a
> power source), after hundreds of millions of years we would then
> have computers and computer programs." Only a foolish person
> would deny that a computer and computer program are proof of
> intelligent design.
>
> In like manner, DNA, and the ability for those instructions to be
> meaningfully decoded and acted upon to miraculously build organic
> machines are proof of intelligent design as well. The only faith
> part: was it the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Or aliens? The
> faith part is easy.
>
> Psalms 46:10 KJV
> 10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among
> the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
How amusing. Quoting to bible to show ID isn't religious based.
gabriel
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:34:38 -0800 (PST), Draccus
Notice many will still try to call it science because others call
it science, when the fact remains their version of evolution is
not observable, not testable, not verifiable. Not science.
The fish to man version of evolution (evolutionism for short -
the belief that populations of fish produced, over generations,
hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings) is not science.
Intelligent design is also not science. Neither is any other
origins theory. Why? Because none of them are observable or
testable/verifiable.
Evolutionists will make claims about the fossil record supporting
evolution. No, it's only their BELIEFS of what those fossils and
dead bones means to them (and what they want it to mean to
everyone else) that "supports" evolution. The beliefs themselves
remain unobservable and un-testable/un-verifiable!
Evolutionists will claim that their beliefs lead to predictions
as proof it's science. So using that new definition of science
(that any prediction made by a belief automatically qualifies
said belief as science), creation by God qualifies as science as
it leads to more accurate predictions as seen in homology, DNA
similarity, the Cambrian Explosion, DNA being meaningfully
encoded information and the ability for it to be meaningfully
decoded and acted upon, and more. But of course evolutionists
will then return to the actual truth of what science really is
and refute that notion with "Show a single observation or
test/verification of God creating anything." Bingo.
The observable, testable and verifiable truth that populations of
[flies] only ever produce, over generations, more [flies] even if
they are in rare cases a slightly different species of [flies]
(but still [flies]!), which we call Speciation, remains intact
and is a far cry from what evolutionists believe: that
populations of [flies] will produce, over generations, animals
that are clearly no longer [flies] at all! (Same holds true no
matter what animal you replace with [flies] in the previous
sentence). Much like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings
are clearly no longer fish at all, even though they believe all
of those things and most everything else evolved from populations
of fish and worse over generations once upon a time.
But in the end, although no origin scientific claim really can
qualify as science (and it's either ignorance or outright
dishonesty to claim it is), it's logically undeniable we were
created. Just like a building is proof of a builder, more so if
it's a building that's so advanced in its design it can adapt to
its environment, remove dirt particles on a continuous basis, and
even produce more buildings just like itself over time. Not to
mention computer and computer programs are proof of a designer -
just like DNA, which is encoded instructions and the ability for
those instructions to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon in
near miraculous ways. The only faith part: was it the God of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the heavenly Father of our Lord and
Savior, Jesus Christ? Or was it aliens? From a faith standpoint
on either choice, the choice is obvious.
gabriel
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
: gabriel wrote:
: >
: > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:09:22 -0700, RichTravsky
As illogical as claiming computers and computer programs develop
naturally. As saying "wires" are found in space, the building
blocks of computers, as if they will just assemble into complex
computers and programs that are meaningfully decoded and acted
upon.
No, DNA and the ability for it to be meaningfully decoded and
acted upon to perform the miraculous process of building organic
machines makes a computer and computer program look like a
solitary Lego block by comparison, and is undeniable proof we
were designed and created. Proof of God? No, that's the faith
part. Others might want to instead believe aliens from a
civilization thousands of years more advanced than us did it. But
the truth of us being designed and created is undeniable
nonetheless.
RichTravsky
No answer.
> : Hint - if Behe couldn't do it...
> :
> : > point to the logically undeniable fact that we were designed and
> : > created, as proven by DNA alone: instructions that are
> : > meaningfully decoded and acted upon to miraculously build organic
> : > machines.
> :
> : And DNA developed naturally. Amino acids are found in space, the building
> : blocks.
>
> As illogical as claiming computers and computer programs develop
> naturally. As saying "wires" are found in space, the building
Whosaid there are wires in space?
> blocks of computers, as if they will just assemble into complex
> computers and programs that are meaningfully decoded and acted
> upon.
Snowflakes are to complex to develop on their own.
> No, DNA and the ability for it to be meaningfully decoded and
> acted upon to perform the miraculous process of building organic
> machines makes a computer and computer program look like a
> solitary Lego block by comparison, and is undeniable proof we
> were designed and created. Proof of God? No, that's the faith
> part. Others might want to instead believe aliens from a
> civilization thousands of years more advanced than us did it. But
> the truth of us being designed and created is undeniable
> nonetheless.
Who made the aliens? Other aliens? LOL
Bob LeChevalier
>: : No matter the name you try and call Bullshit it still stinks like shit
>: : the same goes for ID and Creationism it is the same shit with a shinny
>: : new package. It is not science and has place in a science class.
>:
>: Never said Creation by God was science. The fact is, the fish to
>: man version of evolution is also not science: one can only
>: believe in it. It, too, does not belong in a science class.
>: Populations of [flies] evolving, over generations, in rare cases
>: a slightly different species of [flies]? Yes. Populations of
>: [flies] evolving, over generations, into animals that are clearly
>: no longer [flies] at all? Not science - one can only believe in
>: it - the fish to man version of evolution.
>
>Notice many will still try to call it science because
they are *scientists*, and it IS science.
>when the fact remains their version of evolution is
>not observable, not testable, not verifiable.
It is all of the above, but you don't know what the words mean.
>Not science.
You aren't qualified to have an intelligent opinion.
>The fish to man version of evolution (evolutionism for short -
>the belief that populations of fish produced, over generations,
>hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings) is not science.
>Intelligent design is also not science. Neither is any other
>origins theory. Why? Because none of them are observable or
>testable/verifiable.
They are, liar.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:06:07 -0700, RichTravsky
><traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>: > point to the logically undeniable fact that we were designed and
>: > created, as proven by DNA alone: instructions that are
>: > meaningfully decoded and acted upon to miraculously build organic
>: > machines.
>:
>: And DNA developed naturally. Amino acids are found in space, the building
>: blocks.
>
>
>As illogical as claiming computers and computer programs develop
>naturally. As saying "wires" are found in space, the building
>blocks of computers, as if they will just assemble into complex
>computers and programs that are meaningfully decoded and acted
>upon.
DNA is MUCH simpler than the simplest computer component. It's "code"
is MUCH simpler than the simplest computer language.
Almost as simple as your simple-mindedness (which makes any computer
seem hyperintelligent).