Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

[linwood]

Originally Posted by sonic247

I think when it come to evolution I should study genetics. Not as it relates to evolution, just genetics by itself; the kind they can observe today.

You can't study genetics without studying evolution.
An understanding of one is necessary for inquiry into the other.

If you`re studying genetics, you are studying evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

It's true. Genetics even at it's most basic demonstrates evolution. The way traits are passed from generation to generation by genetic inheritance .... even without a single fossil, would still be enough evidence to show evolution.

wa:do

 

[themadhair]

Two names spring to mind - Norman Nevin and Geogina Purdoe. Will Sonic247 join that list?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Two names spring to mind - Norman Nevin and Geogina Purdoe. Will Sonic247 join that list?

Woof.

I just Googled those two up, and I wish I hadn't. How can people that are that educated intentionally try to undermine the education of others? Especially the youth of a nation?

Make that a double "Woof".

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Woof.

I just Googled those two up, and I wish I hadn't. How can people that are that educated intentionally try to undermine the education of others? Especially the youth of a nation?

Make that a double "Woof".

I dunno.

It seems to me like it could happen in every field. I mean, there are biblical scholars from Oxford, Cambridge, and Harvard at very conservative Southern Baptist Seminaries that believe the same crap that this guy does.

I'm wondering how the heck did these people get in to these top notch schools being intellectually dishonest, and much more importantly - how did they get out? :thud:

 

[themadhair]

I'm wondering how the heck did these people get in to these top notch schools being intellectually dishonest, and much more importantly - how did they get out?

In Geogina’s case she passed the exams and did the bare minimum of apprenticeship before going to AiG so I can understand that to an extent.

Norman, however, baffles me.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

It is really quite simple. You guys just don't "get it" when it come to religious "faith."

God said it.
I believe it.
That settles it.

And they MEAN that. NOTHING ever can conflict with their religious teachings. And when it does?

"When the consensus of scholarship says one thing and the Word of God another, the
consensus of scholarship can go plumb to hell for all I care."
-- Billy Sunday, Revival Meeting, 1912

That's Christianity folks.

 

[themadhair]

Carrying on in the same theme as the precious poster:

The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis

By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Chapter 1: What Is Science? - Answers in Genesis

What, then, should Christians think of science? Science has been hijacked by those with a materialistic worldview and exalted as the ultimate means of obtaining knowledge about the world. Proverbs tells us that the fear of God, not science, is the beginning of knowledge. In a biblical worldview, scientific observations are interpreted in light of the truth that is found in the Bible. If conclusions contradict the truth revealed in Scripture, the conclusions are rejected. The same thing happens in naturalistic science. Any conclusion that does not have a naturalistic explanation is rejected.

If you can’t tell what is wrong with the above two quotes they you may not have paid enough attention in your school science classes.

 

[themadhair]

I nearly forgot my favourite one:

Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)

However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.

 

[RomCat]

I refer all to the book "The Case For A Creator" by Lee Strobel.
Lee was once an athiest who started out seeking to "debunk"
the idea of a creator or creationism. Thru his scientific research
he completely reversed his position and now believes in God,
in creationism and, of course, intelligent design.
The book is outstanding and compelling.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I refer all to the book "The Case For A Creator" by Lee Strobel.
Lee was once an athiest who started out seeking to "debunk"
the idea of a creator or creationism. Thru his scientific research
he completely reversed his position and now believes in God,
in creationism and, of course, intelligent design.
The book is outstanding and compelling.

Strobel is a nut, but he is smart enough to make a profit selling such rubbish to the flock.

Personally, I seriously doubt that he was ever an atheist, but maybe that's just me.

The book "The Case for a Creator" is only outstanding and compelling if you are already a zealot that is looking for someone to comfort your beliefs.

 

[Tristesse]

Strobel is a nut, but he is smart enough to make a profit selling such rubbish to the flock.

Personally, I seriously doubt that he was ever an atheist, but maybe that's just me.

The book "The Case for a Creator" is only outstanding and compelling if you are already a zealot that is looking for someone to comfort your beliefs.

I doubt he was an atheist too. In his book he asks these really soft ball questions, and what convinces him that there is a god, is nothing a skeptic would ever take seriously.

 

[linwood]

I doubt he was an atheist too. In his book he asks these really soft ball questions, and what convinces him that there is a god, is nothing a skeptic would ever take seriously.

Personally, I seriously doubt that he was ever an atheist, but maybe that's just me.

Don`t y`all start with the no true atheist claims.


I`m willing to bet Strobel IS STILL an atheist and always was.

 

[themadhair]

I read Strobel’s ”Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary” and, given that Strobel really seems to think atheism is a religion, I echo the calls of scepticism over his supposed atheism.

”The Case for a Creator” is simply painful. I seem to remember Michael Behe, William Lane Craig, Jonathan Wells, Robin Collins and Stephan Meyer being among the interviewees. Meyer is a funny addition given that he wouldn’t defend his ideas in court and did a runner from Dover. Behe even moreso since he is honest enough to have admitted common descent in his latest book (while I disagree with Behe on a lot of stuff he does have his moments where he shows he is a proper scientist). Craig was interviewed to find the cold hard facts of cosmology and mathematics – small problem being he isn’t a cosmologist or a mathematician, most of the interview regurgitating the old first cause argument.

The biggest reason why ”The Case for a Creator” is painful is because Stobel claims to be performing the role of the skeptic reading all sides of each subject. Given his interview list it is clear he was telling porkies here. Worse than trying to resurrect fine-tuning, worse than mistaking Demski’s ideas about information for credible mathematics and worse than non-sequitering NDE’s to the status of evidence for divinity – much worse is the whole sneering pretence of objectivity by an evidence-ignoring-gnat who wouldn’t know objective scientific evidence if it bit his face off.

</rant>

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I refer all to the book &quot;The Case For A Creator&quot; by Lee Strobel.
Thru his scientific research
he completely reversed his position and now believes in God,
in creationism and, of course, intelligent design.

Of course he has not done so through his "scientific research". Had he done so then he would not believe in intelligent design as it is no science, nor is creationism. Science doesn't lead you to God nor to any unscientific stuff. That archieved only by being "faithfull".

The book is outstanding and compelling.

I guess we do have different criteria on what constitutes something "outstanding".

 

[Im an Atheist]

They come up with any yet?

There's got to be something by now, right?

Intelligent design is just a relabelling of creationism. so, not it doesn't IAA

 

[Jesus Smasher]

The Case for Christ was a bunch of crap, at the beginning of every chapter the interviewee would usually say something to the effect of "while the evidence I have here doesn't CONFIRM the existence of God, it sure re-affirms my faith." Which is the most bogus way to start trying to get your point (YOUR CASE) across. I'd love to be in a courtroom where the prosecutions witness takes the stand and says "while I didn't actually see anything, I really strongly believe that that guy is the killer because this note I found saying he was the killer did a really good job at describing the victims front yard."

That's all that book said. It could be summed up like this:
Because the Bible gives an accurate depiction of what the ancient middle east would have looked like all the supernatural stuff must have been true too.

love the logic.

 

[Jesus Smasher]

O ya! and.. OF COURSE the writers of the bible would give an accurate depiction of ancient middle east!

for
1) It was their front yard, ITS NOT HARD TO DESCRIBE WHERE YOU LIVE
2) If they'd lied about the setting not one person would have believed their tale.

 

[Ghostaka]

I read Strobel&#8217;s &#8221;Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary&#8221; and, given that Strobel really seems to think atheism is a religion, I echo the calls of scepticism over his supposed atheism.

Don't you see the limitless skepticism you have yourself though? If "I am an Atheist" or anyone else you knew to be a "devout" atheist suddenly became a person of faith... you'd say he was never a real Atheist.

This brings up God's instillation of faith into people that you do not agree to however...:ninja:

Peace be upon you.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Don't you see the limitless skepticism you have yourself though? If "I am an Atheist" or anyone else you knew to be a "devout" atheist suddenly became a person of faith... you'd say he was never a real Atheist.

This brings up God's instillation of faith into people that you do not agree to however...:ninja:

Fascinating. I am sure we are all newly enlightened.

Now do YOU have any evidence for ID? Perhaps a recently published paper? A recent discovery at the Creation Institute? The results of an experiment conducted by the Answers-in Genesis staff of distinguished scientists?

Anything like that? Anything at all?

Inquiring minds want to know.