On the evolution of ID seduction:

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I think any theory of science will introduce paradoxes like the one you mentioned. Perhaps we just need to accept that science, at its core, is not purely rational.

If by 'rational' you mean' logical' or 'intiutively', then I agree. Science, or better put, universe is not logical or intuitive. There are many counter intuitive phenomena there, there are many illlogical phenomena there. But what is wrong?, Universe or our brains?

I say that our thinking, or our brains, should adapt to the universe, not the other way around.

For 100 years ago, today's science would be concidered crazy. As we would concider the science 100 years inot the future crazy. The science evolve, but the laws of universe never change. (Or evolves much slower anyway.)

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you tell me why creationists continually attack the school systems attempting to force creation to be taught in science classes along side evolution? Why can't they just be satisfied with teaching it in classes devoted to religion?

Why do gays attack school systems trying to get their point of view
about their life style accepted in the public? Having said that, I'm not
sure where you get creationists are continually attacking anything,
because ID and creation are not the same thing, since ID can mean
anything or one could be the reason for design, while creation, at least
the Christian version has God creating the universe and all that is in it.
You cannot teach Creation in a science class, you cannot test for God!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why do gays attack school systems trying to get their point of view
about their life style accepted in the public? Having said that, I'm not
sure where you get creationists are continually attacking anything,
because ID and creation are not the same thing, since ID can mean
anything or one could be the reason for design, while creation, at least
the Ch ...[text shortened]... l that is in it.
You cannot teach Creation in a science class, you cannot test for God!
Kelly

In what homophobic place do you live in? They do no such things over here. Christian does, but are hindered, thanks god.

"You cannot teach Creation in a science class"
No, becaues creationism and ID are not science, it's religion.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
In what homophobic place do you live in? They do no such things over here. Christian does, but are hindered, thanks god.

"You cannot teach Creation in a science class"
No, becaues creationism and ID are not science, it's religion.

As I have said before, Creation is a subject of faith, ID may or may
not be, because design does not mean God, since mankind designs,
things, so do birds, bees, ants, foxes all can by design build things.
You maintaining all design is some how God driven simply just isn't
true.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I have said before, Creation is a subject of faith, ID may or may
not be, because design does not mean God, since mankind designs,
things, so do birds, bees, ants, foxes all can by design build things.
You maintaining all design is some how God driven simply just isn't
true.
Kelly

And here we go again...

Now you say that god didn't design the creation? Then you are completely right. ID is a matter of religion. And yet you insist to debate ID in the Science Forum. Shame on you! 😠

Originally posted by FabianFnas
And here we go again...

Now you say that god didn't design the creation? Then you are completely right. ID is a matter of religion. And yet you insist to debate ID in the Science Forum. Shame on you! 😠

I'm saying the word 'design' does not with its use automatically mean
God did something, it means it was done with intent! I am a creationist
I believe God did create the Universe and all that is in it, with a plan,
and purpose known to Him. You automatically make the leap that
when the word design is used, it must mean God did it, I'm saying
that isn't the case. If I start talking about ant hills we can assume the
ants did it, or bird nests we can assume the birds did it, but saying
hills and nests do not automatically mean ants and birds.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm saying the word 'design' does not with its use automatically mean
God did something, it means it was done with intent! I am a creationist
I believe God did create the Universe and all that is in it, with a plan,
and purpose known to Him. You automatically make the leap that
when the word design is used, it must mean God did it, I'm saying
that isn' ...[text shortened]... birds did it, but saying
hills and nests do not automatically mean ants and birds.
Kelly

….I'm saying the word 'design' does not with its use automatically mean
God did something, it means it was done with intent!
..…

With the standard meaning of the word -yes.

….I am a creationist
I believe God did create the Universe and all that is in it, with a plan,
and purpose known to Him.
..…

Yes -we all know that that is what you believe.

….You automatically make the leap that
when the word design is used, it must mean God did it, I'm saying
that isn't the case.
.…

But that IS what you mean by the word “design” when you speak of the anatomy of living things -do you deny this?

-If you DO deny this, then why do you insist on the absurd hypothesis that there is intent behind the anatomy of living things if not to try to desperately give some kind of logical justification to your desire to believe there is a “god” behind it? -I mean, if you say that the anatomy of living things has intent behind it but not necessarily that of a “god” then would you say that, for example, a mere mortal could have intentionally made that anatomy of living things? (if not, then, logically, in this context you DO imply “god” by the word “design&rdquo😉

-If you do NOT deny this, then, to you, in the context of living things, the word “design” DOES mean a “god” is behind it! 😛

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm saying the word 'design' does not with its use automatically mean
God did something, it means it was done with intent! I am a creationist
I believe God did create the Universe and all that is in it, with a plan,
and purpose known to Him. You automatically make the leap that
when the word design is used, it must mean God did it, I'm saying
that isn' ...[text shortened]... birds did it, but saying
hills and nests do not automatically mean ants and birds.
Kelly

"I'm saying the word 'design' does not with its use automatically mean
God did something, it means it was done with intent!"

Intent by whom? Some other entity than some spiritual being?
You are a creations in it's wildest form, do you have any other idea who this non-god designer is?

Or are you starting a healthy doubt that the idea of creationism isn't so sound idea after all?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If by 'rational' you mean' logical' or 'intiutively', then I agree. Science, or better put, universe is not logical or intuitive. There are many counter intuitive phenomena there, there are many illlogical phenomena there. But what is wrong?, Universe or our brains?

I say that our thinking, or our brains, should adapt to the universe, not the other way ...[text shortened]... e science evolve, but the laws of universe never change. (Or evolves much slower anyway.)

Well, the problem is that people can only gather a finite amount of knowledge, and you need an infinite amount to make rational, objective conclusions about your data. So while most of the ideas in science, especially the old ones, are very reasonable, they cannot be logically derived from measurements.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
"I'm saying the word 'design' does not with its use automatically mean
God did something, it means it was done with intent!"

Intent by whom? Some other entity than some spiritual being?
You are a creations in it's wildest form, do you have any other idea who this non-god designer is?

Or are you starting a healthy doubt that the idea of creationism isn't so sound idea after all?

When discussing what I believe, I use the word creation and I'm very
specific who did it. Any discussion on a process that appears to be one
designed, the process is the topic, the designer isn't known and since
that is true I don't worry about it. You on the other hand appear to
want to claim the process in play 'evolution' is one without any need
of a designer, it can just happen. That to me leads us back to the
process again, could it just happen without a designer? Saying yes it
can is a statment of faith on your part, not one of science!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You cannot teach Creation in a science class, you cannot test for God!
Kelly

Are you saying that even if ID did manage to stand up to scientific scrutiny it would never be able to find any evidence that pointed towards God? Is there nothing unique about what God does? Is that intentional on Gods part, or just a guess on yours?

Originally posted by KellyJay
That to me leads us back to the process again, could it just happen without a designer? Saying yes it can is a statment of faith on your part, not one of science!

And I say yes, on scientific grounds. It's enough to show one counterproof to falsify your proposal - that "in every process there must be a designer".

The fully organized six fold symmetry of a snow chrystal doesn't need a designer, it happens spontaneously, and again and again. It's beauty doesn't have to be designed. If you show me an ever more seven fold symmetry snow chrystal, then I change my mind, because, then it has to have a designer in order to break the laws of nature.

Your recent comments shows, however, that you have begun thinking for yourself, outside the box, denying the abolute 'Truths' of your preachers. Now, this is a first step to embrace science, but you have a long road ahead of you. Anyway - well done!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you saying that even if ID did manage to stand up to scientific scrutiny it would never be able to find any evidence that pointed towards God? Is there nothing unique about what God does? Is that intentional on Gods part, or just a guess on yours?

The only way you'd ever find God is when God reveals Himself to you,
correct! The only ones that will ever find God are those that seak Him
in truth, but your stearing this away from ID and back into the
Spiritual, and as always when this happens here, I'm the one that
gets blamed for it.
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
And I say yes, on scientific grounds. It's enough to show one counterproof to falsify your proposal - that "in every process there must be a designer".

The fully organized six fold symmetry of a snow chrystal doesn't need a designer, it happens spontaneously, and again and again. It's beauty doesn't have to be designed. If you show me an ever more sev ...[text shortened]... irst step to embrace science, but you have a long road ahead of you. Anyway - well done!

I'm saying where ever anything that was done with intent, there is
a designer, and those things that can only be done with intent,
show us a designer was involved. You are pushing a point that is
saying that the process in question 'evolution' is one that does not
require a designer, that what is being done by it does not require
anyone acting with intent to make all the things within life to occur.
I'm asking for you to show me something that is coded to do as many
things that life does where no actions done to were done with the
intent on making it occur. I can for my part show you code that was
written by someone or something that was done with intent to help
back up my position, please show me something that backs up
yours.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm saying where ever anything that was done with intent, there is
a designer, and those things that can only be done with intent,
show us a designer was involved.

And that designer of yours is your god. Or do you perhaps mean some other god, some spirit entity, designing every snowflake to be six folded symmetry, and never seven? 😀 This supernatural being is your religion, and since religion and science never mix, this is a topic for the Spiritual Forum.