Just Accidental?

[Jose Fly]

See, this is such a common attitude...."nobody of any repute believes what you believe, so you can't be right because so many intelligent people can't be wrong". What a foolish assumption.

I'll ask again (and you'll probably ignore it again)....given your extreme bias on this subject, why do you think you get to be the one who decides what is and isn't scientifically valid?

I mean, look at what just happened here. I pointed out the obvious pattern you've been following and what do you do? You immediately repeat that pattern. Let's compare what I described to what you posted....

1) You start off by stating your belief that evolutionary theory is not scientifically valid and then challenge the science advocates to present evidence showing otherwise.

You: "looking at the so called "evidence" that science itself presents for its conclusions. Upon scrutiny, it is clearly seen as a house of cards, built on a very flimsy foundation. It looks and sounds impressive but all that "overwhelming" evidence is found to be based entirely on supposition about what "might have" happened though it is presented as if it "must have"."​

2) You then declare that no amount of science that anyone posts will ever convince you that evolutionary theory is valid.

You did that at the start of this thread: "No one will ever convince me that the billions of amazing lifeforms on this planet evolved from a single organism that somehow sprang to life in some primordial soup billions of years ago."​

3) Later you admit that you can never, ever compromise on your position because doing so would ruin your life and strip it of all meaning.

You: "Science has no reason for our being...On the other hand, the Creator tells us that there is a reason for our existence"​

4) As people take up your challenge and post reams of scientific information, you make up ridiculous excuses to wave it away (e.g., how you thought the use of the word "likely" in a Wiki page somehow negated the formanifera fossil record) and unilaterally declare the evidence to be invalid.

You: "So you see a dilemma that science had to overcome. How did they do this? By "reconstructing" a believed scenario....and from that unprovable scenario...."It seems that the orchids need the bees more than the bees need the flowers" There is that word again....."seems". That is not the language of fact, but of supposition. Things aren't always as they "seem" though."​

5) Then you taunt science advocates by saying that since no one has posted any evidence that's convincing to you, there is no evidence and evolutionary biology is nothing more than a hoax, fraud, and/or Satanic plot.

You: "Science has nothing to prove that what they want to believe is even remotely true....but that doesn't stop them from raising conjecture to the level of fact on nothing but their say so. That isn't true science.....is it metis?...we had better make sure that what we believe is based on the truth, and not a clever bit of satanically inspired deception."​

6) As a result of your taunts, items 4 and 5 are repeated ad nauseum.​

Sometimes it pays to be different.

I suppose "different" is one generic way to put it. I'd use a different term....one that more accurately reflects the spectacle of someone who, after having their pattern of behavior pointed out to them, immediately repeats that pattern almost exactly.

And that makes me wonder something else Deeje....do you truly think your approach to debating this subject in this forum is effective?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well, he's right. You guys cant prove macro-evolution, you just make all sorts of assumptions.

Proof is not our standard for belief. Evidence is. The evidence supporting the theory is robust, and not just limited to the physical evidence such as the paleontology and genetic, but the fact that that the theory works, and that it hasn't been falsified. That is also evidence that the theory is correct.

Proof is not your standard of belief, either. If it is, prove that "macroevolution" didn't occur or that an intelligent designer created what we see around us. Those are things you believe, correct?

Then explain why the evidence that supports the theory exists if it is incorrect, and what other hypothesis accounts for it. If you're going too posit an intelligent designer, you'll have to give a plausible explanation for why this intelligent designer would seed the earth with evidence of unguided evolution.

And then finally, please explain how that could be the god of the Christian Bible, who we told wants to be known, loved, believed, and worshiped?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Based on the fossil record and the genome testing, there simply is not one reason to assume that "micro-" miraculously stopped before "macro-", and this is the overwhelming conclusion of not only almost all who specialize in these areas of science, but also most Christian and Jewish theologians.

The Catholic Church, for example, has stated in its "Catechism..." that the basic ToE is entirely possible to accept as long as it's understood that God was and is behind it all. Most Protestant denominations and Jewish branches say much the same.

Apparently, it's not just the scientists conspiring to foist this demonic theory on the world allegedly based on nothing but supposition, but most of the Christian church as well. This conspiracy is huge.:

CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS ACCEPTING EVOLUTION

[1] Baylor University, the largest Baptist University in the world has stated: "Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science's statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously."

[2] The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html ; Pope John Paul Paul II said, "new scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis."

[3] The United Methodist Church : "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the General Conference of the United Methodist Church go on record as opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of our public schools." United Methodist Church: Evolution and Intelligent Design

[4] The Church of England, 2009:"Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends."

[5] In the main atrium in Notre Dame's new Jordan Hall of Science, there is a plaque that reads: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

[6] The 214th General Assembly (2002) of the Presbyterian Church, "Reaffirms that there is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator."

[7] Here are more Christians rejecting ID as pseudoscience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Reaction_from_other_creationist_groups​

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As I have shown on this thread many times metis, science's own articles have been assessed and found wanting. Our conclusions are not only based on our own blind faith in Earth's Creator, but looking at the so called "evidence" that science itself presents for its conclusions.

Once you stated that no evidence could ever convince you of the truth of evolutionary theory, you disqualified your assessment of the evidence. The reason and evidence based thinker is not interested in faith based beliefs that are refractory to evidence.

Incidentally, the position you described for yourself is the very definition of closed-mindedness, which is the unwillingness to consider evidence impartially and the ability and willingness to recognize a compelling evidence and have his position conform to the conclusions that the evidence suggests. Your position is the same as Ken Ham's, who has also announced that his mind is closed to evidence. The moderator in the debate between science educator Bill Nye and Ham on creationism as a viable scientific field of study asked, "What would change your minds?" Nye answered, "Evidence." Ham answered, "Nothing. I'm a Christian." Elsewhere, Ham stated, 'By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

Isn't that your position as well?

And why would anybody have any interest in opinions generated in this manner?

You do realise what is at stake in this question when people accept what "might have" taken place according to science's theory, compared with what "might have" taken place if we are a product of an Intelligent Designer?

Not much. If an intelligent designer is out there somewhere, it obviously wants to be left alone and doesn't care if we know about it. Why else would it be so difficult to discern its existence? You can't find it, which is why you can only support a belief in such a thing with faith.

Science has no reason for our being....to them, life is just a fluke that popped into existence one day and somehow morphed itself into all we see on Earth today

No reason is needed. Science offers an explanation for how it happened. And if no further information were discovered in the matter, that would be fine as well.

it gives us no future to look forward to

Science doesn't exist to console existential angst. If the future includes no afterlife, so be it.

All we can expect is more unanswered questions

No. we can expect a lot more answers, although some questions may remain unanswered and unanswerable. Christianity only offers useless guesses, which I would hardly call answers.

the Creator tells us that there is a reason for our existence

He'll have to tell me himself. As you've pointed out, we should not listen to the unsupported claims of men, including those that tell us that a god once told them whatever. You have no proof that your Bible is what you claim it is. Isn't that what you require of evolutionary theory to believe it?

 

[DavidFirth]

Proof is not our standard for belief. Evidence is. The evidence supporting the theory is robust, and not just limited to the physical evidence such as the paleontology and genetic, but the fact that that the theory works, and that it hasn't been falsified. That is also evidence that the theory is correct.

Proof is not your standard of belief, either. If it is, prove that "macroevolution" didn't occur or that an intelligent designer created what we see around us. Those are things you believe, correct?

Then explain why the evidence that supports the theory exists if it is incorrect, and what other hypothesis accounts for it. If you're going too posit an intelligent designer, you'll have to give a plausible explanation for why this intelligent designer would seed the earth with evidence of unguided evolution.

And then finally, please explain how that could be the god of the Christian Bible, who we told wants to be known, loved, believed, and worshiped?

Opinions noted.

 

[DavidFirth]

According to who? A couple of Christian creationists who've directly stated that they will never, ever believe otherwise and run away from every serious discussion of the data?

Deflection attempt unseccessful.

 

[Deeje]

Therefore, I can assume your answer is "no" to the question I posed.

You seem to assume many things, metis. Since JW's always enjoy well written scientific articles, what would be the point of having a biology professor come to our Kingdom Hall? You do realise that we have qualified biologists in our ranks who can tell us all we need to know about real science, but not the kind of science that promotes pure supposition as if it was a fact. We can actually make a distinction.

We don't need a biologist to convince us that what he thinks "might have" happened millions of years ago, actually did.....unless of course, he can prove it. There has been enough presented on this thread to demonstrate the fact that science has no facts when it comes to macro-evolution. Are you insisting that it has?

Therefore, your position is one of hypocrisy.

Why? Because I remain unconvinced by attempts to present "overwhelming evidence" that proves to be anything but? Can you produce real evidence metis? You know, the kind that doesn't depend on belief or faith.....? Which is what we have.

You claim public classrooms should also teach about creationism, and yet you obviously would not want a scientist into your Kingdom Hall to show your young and your adults what the evidence is for the ToE.

I didn't say that. You are shooting down a straw man, metis.

I wouldn't teach creationism in a science classroom or any other classroom, for that matter. I would teach science to a science class, but I would make the distinction between real provable science and the flimsy stuff that evolution is built on.
I would show science students that adaptation is clearly a fact, because it has been proven in a lab. I would make sure that students knew that adaptation has never been observed outside of a single taxonomic family. And I would not teach macro-evolution as anything but an unproven theory.

Intelligent Design would be taught in religious studies.....totally separate classrooms.

Doesn't surprise me one iota, because your JW's would rather brainwash your young rather than to actually have them hear both sides and make their own judgment.

But science teachers don't brainwash their High School students with unprovable theories....whilst rubbishing any mention of a Creator? Can you seriously say that they don't?

We have kids in High School too you know. They are as exposed to biology and other science fields as any other student. We just give them both sides of the story.....unlike most of the other students who leave High School completely convinced that science can't possibly be wrong.

It is very admirable and very rare for any evolutionary scientist to even expose their students to 'the other side'.....so kudos for that. But creationism is as fanciful as macro-evolution. Neither deserve to be taught to gullible children.
As for the rest of your post......totally untrue. Your assumptions are wrong.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

we have qualified biologists in our ranks who can tell us all we need to know about real science

Yet here you are, still insisting without offering a mechanism that evolution could not have progressed from unicellular life to that which we see today, thinking that theories can or need to be proven to be considered validated, misunderstanding what observation and reproducibility mean in science such as when you demand to observe the past or the formation of higher taxonomic groups occur over a few hundred years or less, and demeaning words like "infer" and "likely" as if they invalidate what follows them.

This kind of thing is commonly seen from creationists on these threads.

And it's clear why: They have never been taught better, and have no interest in learning on their own.

what would be the point of having a biology professor come to our Kingdom Hall?

None.

It would be pointless just as having science explained to creationists is useless here.

The point of the exercise was to demonstrate that the creationists, who would readily insert their religious beliefs into public school curricula if offered the chance, feel the need to shelter their young and themselves from a scientific education.

We don't need a biologist to convince us that what he thinks "might have" happened millions of years ago

No, you have clergy for that.

I wouldn't teach creationism in a science classroom or any other classroom, for that matter...
Intelligent Design would be taught in religious studies.....totally separate classrooms.

Unless you mean totally different schools as well, you just contradicted yourself.

I would have no objection to having public school students learn what the ID people are claiming and what their evidence for an intelligent designer is, just as long as it was in the secular, academic tradition of presenting evidence and arguments as well as the conclusions they suggest without asking students to believe anything - just come to their own conclusions. Religious apologetics and indoctrination are not welcome in such a setting, but the presentation of facts is.

So how much time do you think is needed to present need intelligent design given that it's a claim with no supporting evidence (pretty pictures are not evidence of an intelligent designer), offers no mechanism to teach, makes no testable predictions, and has no research results to teach? How much of the school year does one need to present this idea? Ten minutes? An hour?

But science teachers don't brainwash their High School students

No, they do not. The only indoctrination going on in public schools are loyalty pledges. Indoctrination is for advertisers, Sunday schools, and unprincipled political ideologues, where deceit, repetition, and loyalty are valued more than the teaching of fact and critical thinking skills.

 

[Jose Fly]

Deflection attempt unseccessful.

Deflection of what?

 

[Deeje]

And only one is useful.

You conceded this battle long ago when you were unable to give an answer to why we should throw out a scientific theory that can unify data from multiple sources (fossil, genetic, biogeographical, etc), provides a mechanism for evolution, makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in living things past and present that have never been falsified, and has practical technological applications that have improved the human condition, for a faith based hypothesis that explains nothing, predicts nothing, offers no mechanism, has no supporting evidence (pretty pictures notwithstanding), and has no practical value even if correct?

Wow! That is certainly an impressive set of credentials you believe that science has there. But let me ask you about con artists and fake credentials. If a really good con man were to fabricate his credentials and masquerade as the genuine article, (in whatever role he was impersonating) he will have done his homework. Right? No point in being a con artist unless you are damn good at it.

He will present himself with confidence building trust with people in that field (be it the high flyers in the celebrity world or in science, medicine or even aviation.....they made a movie about that one) because he knows that his ruse is useless without collaborators (albeit unwittingly) His minions are what give him credibility.
There have been some amazingly good conmen throughout history who would never have gotten away with their masquerade if it wasn't for "who they knew" rather than who they actually were.

What if the seed of evolutionary thinking was actually implanted by a master con artist? What if he could convince intelligent minds that because of this line of thinking, humans could shed the shackles of restrictive, unscientific religion? It wasn't going to happen right away, but eventually, (knowing human nature as he does,) he would use his minions to spread his godless thinking. Intelligence could be used to add credibility to his proposed scenario. Egos, for the most part, drive the scientific world as we have seen clearly demonstrated on this thread, so they were ripe for the pickings in this monumental con.

Right from the beginning, according to scripture, humans have been prone to want to 'do their own thing'. They are always seeking to better themselves, often at the expense of others, and regardless of the consequences.

Since it has been demonstrated many times on this thread, that in spite of all the derision and accusations aimed at ID proponents, providing "proof" for macro-evolution is impossible with what current scientific knowledge is available. The speculative nature of the language of evolutionary science creates an illusion in the minds of people who don't know how propaganda works. The whole commercial world operates on the premise that people will believe anything that is presented to them by people of repute. And it matters little if some product is actually beneficial, because it will be 'suggested' that no one should be without it.....only fools would choose the opposition's inferior (or even dangerous) product. The power of suggestion is what sells everything. People want to put their faith somewhere and it will go to the one who is most convincing, rather than the one who has the better product. Humans have no idea how easy it is to manipulate their thinking and manage their perceptions.

I simply believe in ID because it makes way more sense to me to have a designer of things that are clearly and cleverly designed that I see with my own eyes. Nature itself tells me that it was planned...and ingeniously so. I do not need a science degree to understand that basic bit of common sense. It is innate in humans to worship....we are the only creatures with a need to express appreciation for a deity, and with a spiritual side to our nature that needs satisfying. Its symbiotic.....we need what God provides and he provides what we need. Its not rocket science and it doesn't have to be. Science wants it to be all so complicated, but it isn't....it is beautifully simple.

What science "provides" is an alternative explanation for the way things are on planet Earth......but don't kid yourself about the actual evidence it has to substantiate what it "believes". When you read science's own explanations, you begin to understand that its just good advertising, not that it has a better product. Celebrity endorsements?......by the truckload. But if there is no proof for any of it, what is all that worth? Zilch, as far as I can see. The Emperor is still parading around in front of you all, but no one has the gumption to call out the obvious....."the Emperor has no clothes!" He just imagines that he is splendidly regaled, but its the children who tell the awful and embarrassing truth.

If you can't provide a good answer for why anybody should do that, it is probably because you have none.

Actually I have more evidence for my Creator than you have for the blind forces of chance producing this imaginary mechanism that takes adaptation way past its testable limits......you believe that life spontaneously popped into existence one day, out of the blue, for no apparent reason, and then morphed itself, undirected, into all the life forms we see on Earth today.

If science knows its own well established, proven tenet, that 'life must come from pre-existing life'...then it has ignored that fact by taking away the pre-existing life that put us here. Abiogenesis is an uncomfortable subject for evolutionary scientists because they are always quick to point out that it has nothing to do with evolution.....I wonder why? If you can't address how life began...then what is the point of arguing how it might have changed throughout time? The Bible gives us clear explanations about all those questions.

Until you can do that, there is no reason to consider creationism again.

For the umpteenth time, I do not endorse "creationism"....I believe in an Intelligent Designer who is the great 'first cause' of everything on this planet. I do not accept that the Earth and everything on it was created in 7 literal "days" because Genesis does not necessarily say that. I can believe true science AND the Bible when both are presented in an intelligent and factual manner. I do not have to sacrifice one for the other because I am acquainted with both....and accept both.

It seems that the evolutionists among us who were former 'believers' have a problem admitting that they may have been misled by a clever con man, rather than a clever theory. If you don't believe that God's adversary is powerful and that he was foretold to be extremely successful in his endeavors to lead mankind away from God, then what is left to say? The Bible indicates that no human will go down at the judgment who has not received his warning and failed to act on it.

I believe that there will be no 'unbelief' at that time.....but it will not do the majority any good. Now is the time for decisions that will affect the rest of human life on this planet. This is what I believe....you are free to believe whatever you wish.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I do not accept that the Earth and everything on it was created in 7 literal "days" because Genesis does not necessarily say that.

Of course it does. The Bible is clear that those were literal days: "The twilight and the dawn were day one."

And true to form, you have evaded this question yet again:

"Why should we throw out a scientific theory that can unify data from multiple sources (fossil, genetic, biogeographical, etc), provides a mechanism for evolution, makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in living things past and present that have never been falsified, and has practical technological applications that have improved the human condition, for a faith based hypothesis that explains nothing, predicts nothing, offers no mechanism, has no supporting evidence (pretty pictures notwithstanding), and has no practical value even if correct?"​

Why, Deeje? Why would anybody do that? Why would we throw out what works for a useless idea?

Your repeated evasion and deflection is your answer: You have none. If you would simply admit the fact that there is no reason to eject evolutionary theory for a religious idea that offers nothing, there would be no point in continuing to repost the question.

 

[Deeje]

Let me clear up some more misconceptions here IANS....

And it's clear why: They have never been taught better, and have no interest in learning on their own.

That is not true of Jehovah's Witnesses.....because we are constantly out and about speaking to people about our faith and telling people about the benefits of knowing God and why they need to heed the Bible's warning about the outcome of today's troubled times. If we are going to put ourselves "out there", then we had better know why we believe what we do. We are instructed well.....believe me. It often involves delving into real science and highlighting the wonderful things that nature can teach us....but it also allows us to draw a line that evolutionists prefer not to see. That is the line between a fact and an assumption. Between what is 'supported' by real evidence and what is 'implied' by a lack of it.

That doesn't mean that JW's are any different to any other group of humans. Some have a leaning towards study but for some its a chore. It is no chore for me because I love to learn. We are taught to be students, not just gullible spoon fed robots....which is what a lot of High School students have been taught to become in their science classes. The line between fact and fiction is never brought to their attention, so they are led to believe that they are one and the same thing. Add the word "scientific" and magically, its all gospel truth. (pardon the pun)

It would be pointless just as having science explained to creationists is useless here.

It isn't pointless having science explained to creationists if it highlights the many flaws in the pet theory....like the fact that science admits that it has no facts in connection with evolution, but that in no way should hinder people's faith in it. Really? Does that sound right....or even "scientific" to you?

I love the the fact that this thread has been going for over a year now and still the interest in the subject matter hasn't waned. All those other threads have died a natural death, but somehow this one persists.....why? Perhaps because the scientists are not comfortable about the information that is revealed on this one....?

If you are all so confident about your beliefs, why are you still here arguing? If what I post is no threat to your own beliefs, then why be so personally disparaging in your comments?

Is it something I said...?

LOL

The point of the exercise was to demonstrate that the creationists, who would readily insert their religious beliefs into public school curricula if offered the chance, feel the need to shelter their young and themselves from a scientific education.

To me science belongs in a science class and religion belongs at home. If people want their children exposed to religion, then its up to them to take them to places of worship for that education. Unfortunately, so many who claim to be "Christians" never set foot in any of those places, and so their own lack of conviction and laziness in that area has led to the inevitable lack of faith so evident in today's world. The reason why religion is dying is because of decay from within. It was foretold to do exactly that. Does that surprise you?

No, you have clergy for that.

We actually have no clergy....certainly none of our brothers who are teachers or elders in our congregations are paid for their services. JW's are volunteers....all of them. We are all "ministers", so we have no need of clergy.....we just have shepherds....and these men have to have personal qualifications as outlined in the Bible to fulfill that role.

Unless you mean totally different schools as well, you just contradicted yourself.

No contradiction. Some schools are funded as religious institutions, but if they teach evolution, then they have sold out to pseudo-science and have no business teaching about a God they cannot defend.

I would have no objection to having public school students learn what the ID people are claiming and what their evidence for an intelligent designer is, just as long as it was in the secular, academic tradition of presenting evidence and arguments as well as the conclusions they suggest without asking students to believe anything - just come to their own conclusions.

I'm sorry, but that is just funny. Since when are school students left to come to their own conclusions without having suggestions leading them to those conclusions. You don't see that science has its own indoctrination process. And since most evolutionists with a public profile disparage the idea of a Creator, what are students supposed to think? If they have no one to present a balanced view of both science and the Bible, they are left to swallow down everything that is taught to them.

And if those indoctrinated with religion have no basis for their belief except..."because the Bible says so"...how easily are their doctrines shot down by a system that claims to have all this 'overwhelming evidence' that no scientists here want to post....?

Religious apologetics and indoctrination are not welcome in such a setting, but the presentation of facts is.

What an unfortunate term..."apologetics"....it seems to infer that we who place our faith in an intelligent Creator have something to apologize for.

Science has a hard time presenting "facts" when they don't claim to have any....

So how much time do you think is needed to present need intelligent design given that it's a claim with no supporting evidence (pretty pictures are not evidence of an intelligent designer), offers no mechanism to teach, makes no testable predictions, and has no research results to teach? How much of the school year does one need to present this idea? Ten minutes? An hour?

Once you know how little science has in these areas to support its theory, I guess equal time would be good.
A picture is worth a thousand words...remember?

The only indoctrination going on in public schools are loyalty pledges. Indoctrination is for advertisers, Sunday schools, and unprincipled political ideologues, where deceit, repetition, and loyalty are valued more than the teaching of fact and critical thinking skills.

I have to agree on those points. Loyalty should only be given to those who earn your trust.....God has earned mine....science has fallen way short.

 

[Deeje]

Of course it does. The Bible is clear that those were literal days: "The twilight and the dawn were day one."

I'm afraid it isn't. The Hebrew word for "day" is "yohm" and it can mean an undetermined period of time...not just a 24 hour day. The Bible's opening statement is...."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". One single act of creation that science supports. There is no timeframe between Genesis 1:1 and the succeeding verses. The first verse is about creation of the material universe and the following verses are about preparing a "formless and waste" planet into something that would support life. There could well be millions of years involved in these verses. Each creative "day" could well have been thousands or even millions of years long. Genesis does not argue with that.

Just because the "days" had a beginning and an end doesn't make them a 24 hour days.
Do we not say..."the dawn of a new era"? or "in my Grandfather's day"....are we speaking about a literal "day"?

Genesis 2:4 speaks about the whole of creation as happening in a "day".

And true to form, you have evaded this question yet again:

"Why should we throw out a scientific theory that can unify data from multiple sources (fossil, genetic, biogeographical, etc), provides a mechanism for evolution, makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in living things past and present that have never been falsified, and has practical technological applications that have improved the human condition, for a faith based hypothesis that explains nothing, predicts nothing, offers no mechanism, has no supporting evidence (pretty pictures notwithstanding), and has no practical value even if correct?"​

Why, Deeje? Why would anybody do that? Why would we throw out what works for a useless idea?

WHY?.......because Intelligent Design is what makes logical sense to a spiritually minded person looking at creation and knowing that blind chance could not have produced even a minute part of it.....and because our suggestions fit the data just as well as science's suggestions do.....and because it isn't useless....it give us a reason for our being and something to pin our faith and hopes on.

I can't see that science "works" at all when it comes to macro-evolution....unless you want it to.

The pretty pictures and videos are to allow the readers here to see something that scientific rhetoric can't provide. What we see visually with our eyes and can test with our senses in real time, touches our heart. Science tries to override those things with cold, empty speech and it tries to satisfy the need for visuals by supplying its own nice pictures. They are not real however, because no one was around to take any pictures all those millions of years ago. They have to 'guess' what they 'think' 'might have' taken place....but none of it can be proven. You have less reason to believe science than I have to believe in the reality of my Creator, yet we are both convinced that we are right. Time will tell I guess.

Your repeated evasion and deflection is your answer: You have none. If you would simply admit the fact that there is no reason to eject evolutionary theory for a religious idea that offers nothing, there would be no point in continuing to repost the question.

On the contrary, I have answered the challenges posted by evolutionists many times on this thread, using their own links, (which have proven to be worthless BTW.) The reason to reject your godless scientific theory is that ID has a guaranteed promise of something better to come. That promise wasn't made by a politician running for office or even by any human.....it was made by the one who created this entire universe and who has the will to carry out what he purposed at the beginning. The Bible is not a religious idea...it is the Creator's communication with humankind, and by it he judges our worthiness for the life he is offering. You don't have to believe that, but I do.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If what I post is no threat to your own beliefs, then why be so personally disparaging in your comments?

I am not personally disparaging.

We actually have no clergy

Then I guess you are spared church each Sunday.

Since when are school students left to come to their own conclusions

Since before I was one.

And if those indoctrinated with religion have no basis for their belief except..."because the Bible says so"...how easily are their doctrines shot down by a system that claims to have all this 'overwhelming evidence'

Sorry about that.

 

[Sapiens]

...
Once you know how little science has in these areas to support its theory, I guess equal time would be good.

Equal time for equal value, something you have failed to demonstrate.

WHY?.......because Intelligent Design is what makes logical sense to a spiritually minded person looking at creation and knowing that blind chance could not have produced even a minute part of it.....and because our suggestions fit the data just as well as science's suggestions do.....and because it isn't useless....it give us a reason for our being and something to pin our faith and hopes on.

I can't see that science "works" at all when it comes to macro-evolution....unless you want it to.

But its predictive value is nil, in the final analysis the high predictive value of the ToE and science and the negligible predictive value ID and religion says it all.

 

[Deeje]

I am not personally disparaging.

Yes, I did notice that you don't engage in the same manner as others on this thread. Thank you for that at least.
Though I do discern your frustration at times....especially when it appears that you want to believe but can't. Only God can open a heart, so......

Then I guess you are spared church each Sunday.

We don't have "church". Nor do we have Sunday worship specifically. The Sabbath is for Jews and it was observed on what we call Saturday. God never told anyone to change the day of the Sabbath....but then he never told anyone but the Jews to observe it.

Our meetings, (held on days that are convenient for congregations who share a Hall,) are for Bible study....not the dry, boring sort but in a way that encourages personal study as well as sharing what we have learned with our fellow students. In our brotherhood, everyone is a student...even the teachers. Our meetings are very interactive and quite stimulating and the use of iPads and tablets is encouraged. We have a website (JW.ORG) that provides our study material for the week so that all of Jehovah's Witnesses, no matter where they live, study the same material, in their own language, each week. We are one global brotherhood, united in every way. Perfect? no. Human? yes. Trying our best? always.

We also train for our door to door preaching work. This was an important part of what Jesus did also. He taught his disciples to preach about the Kingdom.....so that is what we do too. It was a command...not an option.

Since before I was one.

School aged children do not have the mental maturity to distinguish between what is stated as fact and what is suggested as such, especially when it comes from a teacher who should know what they are talking about. But if the teachers are indoctrinated, then they will pass on the same party line to their students. By the time they reach college age, most students are fully convinced that evolution must be true....yet they are rarely exposed to any other viewpoint unless it is done in a mocking kind of way. They are told of this "overwhelming evidence" for their theory, and yet when it is examined, we find it is nothing of the sort. They are not taught to examine it but just to accept every word as truth. Scientists accuse us of doing what they do themselves.

 

[ArtieE]

We don't need a biologist to convince us that what he thinks "might have" happened millions of years ago, actually did.....unless of course, he can prove it.

And I don't need a JW to convince me a Designer exists or that evolution didn't happen unless she can prove it.

Intelligent Design would be taught in religious studies.....totally separate classrooms.

And why would you do that when Intelligent Design is supposed to be a scientific theory and a scientific research program? Intelligent Design

 

[ArtieE]

The difference between the two 'belief systems' IMO is in the outcome for those who choose one camp over the other....and for the reasons that they do so.

We can't believe in the existence of a god just because we think if this god exists we might have a better future. The future is up to us.

 

[ArtieE]

Wow! That is certainly an impressive set of credentials you believe that science has there. But let me ask you about con artists and fake credentials. If a really good con man were to fabricate his credentials and masquerade as the genuine article, (in whatever role he was impersonating) he will have done his homework. Right? No point in being a con artist unless you are damn good at it.

He will present himself with confidence building trust with people in that field (be it the high flyers in the celebrity world or in science, medicine or even aviation.....they made a movie about that one) because he knows that his ruse is useless without collaborators (albeit unwittingly) His minions are what give him credibility.
There have been some amazingly good conmen throughout history who would never have gotten away with their masquerade if it wasn't for "who they knew" rather than who they actually were.

What if the seed of evolutionary thinking was actually implanted by a master con artist?

What if the seeds of religions and beliefs in deities were implanted by master con artists? You really took the bait didn't you...

 

[ArtieE]

What science "provides" is an alternative explanation for the way things are on planet Earth

It's your explanation that is the alternative explanation. Seismology is not an alternative explanation for "Poseidon creates earthquakes" either.

Abiogenesis is an uncomfortable subject for evolutionary scientists because they are always quick to point out that it has nothing to do with evolution.....I wonder why?

Because it has nothing to do with evolution. For all evolutionists care the first cell could have been genetically engineered by aliens. They are only concerned with how it evolved. And I invite everybody reading this to check how many times this has been explained to Deeje earlier.