VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Tuesday, April 29, 11:42:05pmLogin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1234[5]678910 ]
Subject: I don't think that


Author:
Ben
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 07/15/04 12:57am
In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "They sure are." on 07/14/04 5:24pm

>True, but ID doesn't look nearly as implausible to me
>as an orange instantly turning into an ape.

Obviously not, but it is not the _most likely_ explanation of the data.

>>As we've gone over and over on this
>>board, our common ancestry with apes is supported by
>>various branches of science, and is by far the best
>>interpretation of the evidence as a whole.
>
>That's a bit open to debate. Note, for instance, the
>apparently dismal track record regarding fossils and
>human evolution.

I haven't heard any dismal scientists in this regard. Apart from Chick Tracts, where are you getting your information?

>>So you can think that an invisible creator created all
>>these things with the _appearance_ of being related to
>>each other when they actually aren't
>
>And you can think that nature using invisible and
>unknown processes created life with the _appearance_
>of being designed when they actually aren't.

Slow down, there. I thought we were talking about human evolution and the common ancestry of humans and apes. I said nothing about how life began, and that is still not the topic under discussion. Basically, you can simply look at apes and humans and see that there is very likely relatedness. Then you can take DNA tests and discover that we are more related to apes, according to DNA, than we are to any other creature on earth. Coincidence? Again, if we are not related to apes, then someone or something has gone to great lengths to make us think that we are. If this is the case, perhaps instead of "Intelligent Design," it should be called "Deceptive Design."

>You see, I can play the same game too. Who
>said the creator was invisible anyway?

Christians generally do. Do you assert that the creator in which you believe is _not_ invisible?

> Modern ID
>theory does not make any claims about the designer.
>We can tell if something is designed even if we don't
>know by whom.

Oh, can we? So if you happened to look at the quantum world, full of uncertainty, would you assert the opposite... that we can tell when something _isn't_ designed?

Ben

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
Subject Author Date
Okay.Wade A. Tisthammer07/15/04 10:11pm


Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.