[__ Science __ ] A Hill to Die On

[Barbarian]

So if that's true, if someone concludes that the universe, and the earth and its life did not all come into being in 6 days less than 10,000 years ago, are they justified in rejecting Christianity?

No. YE is only a belief of a minority of Christians, but most of them realize that it's a matter of disagreement within the body of believers.

 

[Barbarian]

Well, maybe people didn't think it was important to build anything before a few thousand years ago.

I don't see how they could have built anything 4,000 years before they existed. If Jericho is 10,000 years old that pretty much rules out the Earth being 6,000 years old.

 

[hawkman]

The story of Adam is of a man created in Gods' image.

Yes . That is what we are told here . After our "likeness" is also mentioned I might add .

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Not a physical image, because as Jesus says God is a spirit. And Jesus said that a spirit has no body.

Man could have been formed in a likeness of a manifested image of our Creator . Physical not necessary .

Moses did see the hind parts of God .

 

[Uncle J]

No. YE is only a belief of a minority of Christians, but most of them realize that it's a matter of disagreement within the body of believers.

Right, I have a good idea of how you see it. I'm curious to see what miamited says.

 

[Barbarian]

Right, I have a good idea of how you see it. I'm curious to see what miamited says.

We disagree on the interpretation of Genesis 1-3, but he's a reasonable person, and I doubt very much if he thinks that those Christians who disagree with him are not good Christians.

 

[Barbarian]

Yes . That is what we are told here . After our "likeness" is also mentioned I might add .

The likeness is in our minds and spirits. God doesn't have nostrils or fingernails. What would He have them for?

Man could have been formed in a likeness of a manifested image of our Creator .

It makes sense that God, if He manifested himself to man, might take on man's appearance. Angels often do, for example. And angels are also spirits, without physical bodies.

 

[miamited]

HI Barbarian

Ok, Uncle J here's my answer to Barbarian

YE is only a belief of a minority of Christians, but most of them realize that it's a matter of disagreement within the body of believers.

Yes, and I always consider what Jesus said in reference to those who will be saved. He said that not everyone who said to him Lord, Lord would be saved. Only those who do the will of the Father. Then he gave a short explanation of what those who thought they were on the right track, but wind up in the end, not being, would be saying to him. He said, they would be crying out to him, "But Lord, we did great things in your name. Things like driving out demons in your name. Prophesying great prophecies in your name. Doing many miracles in your name".

Now, I don't know about you and how much you've studied other faiths and, of course, the practice of atheism, but in my life, I've never seen anyone claiming to do things in the name of Jesus that didn't think of themselves as being followers of Jesus. Saved by the blood. I've never seen a Muslim claim to be doing such things as Jesus listed, in the name of Jesus. I've certainly never heard of an atheist doing things in the name of Jesus. I've never heard a Buddhist or Hindi doing such things as prophesying or working miracles in Jesus name. Honestly, the only people I've ever heard doing such things in Jesus name...are christians.

So let's go back and revisit Jesus' words. He says that 'many' will be the number of these people, who I believe are people who believed as they lived upon the earth that they were born again and saved believers in the Lord Jesus. So, when an issue comes up among believers that seems to be something that a majority of christians believe, I'm always cautious in just accepting such a teaching just because it's what 'many' christians believe. Because I don't want to be in the 'many' that Jesus was speaking of. I want to confirm such teachings with the word of God.

Now, I can confirm what I believe about the creation event through the very testimony of God. I can confirm that the creation of all the stars in the universe and all that is upon the earth was, in fact, explained to us in God's word that it took God 6 days. I can confirm, through the genealogical record, that Adam likely lived about 6,000 years ago. I can open up God's word and show you where God has told us these things.

My question is 'why' you don't seem to want to believe the plain teaching of God's word in this matter? Is it because the wisdom of man has told you that it just isn't possible?

You see, I believe in a God who can create stars and plants and people with just a command. He does it, as we use the word 'ex nihilo'...out of nothing. But your understanding is that no, God created some dust to swirl around in the universe that over billions of years became stars and planets and other heavenly bodies. Do you believe that the earth was the first created form in all of the universe? That is what God's word says.

Now, the final issue is whether or not God is going to expect His children to believe what He has told them. And is that part of the 'what we must believe' when God's word says that all unbelievers will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Well again, let's revisit Jesus' words to his disciples. Only those who do the will of the Father who is in heaven will be saved among all of the christians upon the earth that are out and about doing all their miracles and prophecies and great works. What is it, that the many christians who will not be saved, according to Jesus' example, got wrong even though they did such great things in Jesus' name?

What do you think Uncle J?

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi Barbarian

and I doubt very much if he thinks that those Christians who disagree with him are not good Christians.

Well again, I defer to Jesus' own words. "Why do you call me good? There is no one good but our Father who is in heaven". So, as man understands 'good', sure there are a lot of 'good' christians. There are also a lot of 'good' non-christians. But I'm more concerned with what God sees as a 'good' person.

Anyway, I'm interested in your explanation as to 'why' you refuse to believe the simple explanation that God has given you for the 'how' and 'when' the creation event occurred.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi Barbarian

I don't see how they could have built anything 4,000 years before they existed. If Jericho is 10,000 years old that pretty much rules out the Earth being 6,000 years old.

Ok. So let me ask you. Were you there when the first stone of the wall of Jericho was set in place? Do you believe that the flood happened? Do you believe that the flood happened in the time that we are told that it did? If the flood was as catastrophic as the Scriptures seem to allude that it was, how did that wall stand?

You see, once again, you're believing something that man is telling you is the truth that seems fairly contradictory to what God's word tells you is the truth.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Vaccine]

First, that's not a scientific theory in any sense of the word. As I explained before, a scientific theory explains a wide range of observations and phenomena, and has withstood scientific testing. The above is none of that. If you disagree, then perhaps you can name something that ID creationism has explained and point to a scientific test that it's successfully passed.

Second, it's far too vague to be at all useful. What "certain features of the universe...and living things" has ID creationism explained? How do we tell the difference between something that's "designed" and something that's not? What is an "intelligent cause"?

Finally, scientific theories are not negative propositions. The phrase "not an undirected process such as natural selection" is a negative statement and is also vague. What do they mean by "undirected"? Who or what would "direct" it?

You'll find just about every objection you've raised is answered here.
ID theory qualifies as a scientific theory. It explains the coded information found in the cells of every living thing. Meyer points out based on experience, on what we know, codes are the result of intelligence. If you'll refer to your link about SETI, they said SETI is based on experience. So obviously they misunderstood the assignment.

It successfully predicted function in non-coding portions of DNA. :
By contrast, predictions of functionality of “junk DNA” were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).

There is a growing amount of pro-id theory research is being done and new papers are being published. So the point it isn't science is moot.

That makes no sense. The Wedge Strategy literally lays out why ID creationism was created, what its goals are, what the "designer" is, and what ID creationists hope will ultimately happen. It's quite blunt in that ID creationism was created as a legal strategy to advance a social/religious objective (align science with the Christian God), that the "designer" is the Christian God, and that if the strategy is successful, materialism will have been defeated.

There's absolutely nothing scientific about any of that.


Nope. The evidence is right there in black and white. ID creationism was created in response to court rulings against teaching creationism, was intended to advance social and religious objectives, and has absolutely zero scientific content or relevance.


Lazy thinking. "Courts aren't always right, therefore I can wave away the Dover ruling".


If you really think that's so, then name one thing that ID creationism has contributed to science. Heck, if you could show where any ID creationist has established a means to differentiate between "designed" and "undesigned" things, and has applied it to something in the biological world, that would be notable.


What other model is there?


I didn't say it was a good argument; I pointed out how it's advocated by creationists, including ID creationists.


Do you have a good understanding of what that's actually about?


That's a rather bizarre recreation of history. As ID creationists themselves describe, after the SCOTUS ruling the creationists thought their cause was doomed. But then Johnson and a bunch of other creationists got together and came up with "intelligent design" as a legal means to revive their religious, political cause. Again, it's right there in black and white from the pens of creationists themselves.


Incorrect. Creationists get published in scientific journals all the time. They just don't publish about creationism. For example, Behe has published in the PNAS. But he hasn't ever published anything about ID creationism in any scientific journal.


You've never read any of the counter arguments against ID creationism from scientists? Also, advocates merely having degrees doesn't make their ideas science. If that were so, flat-earthism would be a science.

The idea Johnson and the others came up with intelligent design as a legal means is absurd. Johnson had no input on specified-complexity or irreducible complexity. If those weren't viable scientific concepts they would be dead on arrival. But they are viable. Behe's challenge prompted the two studies I cited about which came first the flagellum or the T3SS. Far from being "creationism" irreducible-complexity was verified. ENCODE verified specified-complexity in 2012.
So scientists should decide matters of science, while court cases should decide legal matters. Calling that lazy thinking sounds like projection to me. But a court case is better than nothing.

I shouldn't say nothing since conflation and a nominal fallacy are something. Trump uses it to great affect: crooked-Hillary, sleepy-Joe, ID creationism. But its still a weak form of argument. Unless terms are defined as they're meant to be there's no response to this: "Wedge Strategy literally lays out why ID creationism was created,"
Are you saying Wedge strategy lays out creationism? Or Wedge strategy lays out ID theory? It doesn't matter since it lays out their fundraising strategy. The Wedge strategy literally lays out their fundraising strategy. So saying it literally lays out creationism or ID theory is just nonsense.

Lastly, all the articles I linked to are pro ID theory articles. For example, Behe's first rule of adaptive evolution says evolution proceeds by breaking things. While it sounds innocuous enough, it's a major rewrite of evolution. Darwin's 150 year old model of evolution proceeding from the lowest life forms to the higher life forms has been rejected. In other words, things begin irreducibly-complex then devolve. For example, the flagellum being the predecessor to the T3SS. Behe's article is just one step toward giving credence to ID theory's model of life starting incredibly complex.

 

[Uncle J]

Yes, and I always consider what Jesus said in reference to those who will be saved. He said that not everyone who said to him Lord, Lord would be saved. Only those who do the will of the Father. Then he gave a short explanation of what those who thought they were on the right track, but wind up in the end, not being, would be saying to him. He said, they would be crying out to him, "But Lord, we did great things in your name. Things like driving out demons in your name. Prophesying great prophecies in your name. Doing many miracles in your name".

Now, I don't know about you and how much you've studied other faiths and, of course, the practice of atheism, but in my life, I've never seen anyone claiming to do things in the name of Jesus that didn't think of themselves as being followers of Jesus. Saved by the blood. I've never seen a Muslim claim to be doing such things as Jesus listed, in the name of Jesus. I've certainly never heard of an atheist doing things in the name of Jesus. I've never heard a Buddhist or Hindi doing such things as prophesying or working miracles in Jesus name. Honestly, the only people I've ever heard doing such things in Jesus name...are christians.

So let's go back and revisit Jesus' words. He says that 'many' will be the number of these people, who I believe are people who believed as they lived upon the earth that they were born again and saved believers in the Lord Jesus. So, when an issue comes up among believers that seems to be something that a majority of christians believe, I'm always cautious in just accepting such a teaching just because it's what 'many' christians believe. Because I don't want to be in the 'many' that Jesus was speaking of. I want to confirm such teachings with the word of God.

Now, I can confirm what I believe about the creation event through the very testimony of God. I can confirm that the creation of all the stars in the universe and all that is upon the earth was, in fact, explained to us in God's word that it took God 6 days. I can confirm, through the genealogical record, that Adam likely lived about 6,000 years ago. I can open up God's word and show you where God has told us these things.

I read that as you saying that people who say they are Christians, but don't read the Genesis creation accounts as literal history, are among those who Jesus referred to with "not everyone who said to him Lord, Lord would be saved". Is that right?

My question is 'why' you don't seem to want to believe the plain teaching of God's word in this matter? Is it because the wisdom of man has told you that it just isn't possible?

I know that's a common way for conservative Christians to frame it (science = "works of man"), but for me specifically it's a matter of seeing things with my own eyes, rather than merely trusting "works of man". To keep it simple, I'm fortunate enough to have spent the last 25+ years as a biologist and to have done quite a lot of field studies.

You see, I believe in a God who can create stars and plants and people with just a command. He does it, as we use the word 'ex nihilo'...out of nothing. But your understanding is that no, God created some dust to swirl around in the universe that over billions of years became stars and planets and other heavenly bodies. Do you believe that the earth was the first created form in all of the universe? That is what God's word says.

And again, if I find the evidence that the earth didn't arise first compelling, what then? Am I justified in rejecting Christianity?

Now, the final issue is whether or not God is going to expect His children to believe what He has told them. And is that part of the 'what we must believe' when God's word says that all unbelievers will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Well again, let's revisit Jesus' words to his disciples. Only those who do the will of the Father who is in heaven will be saved among all of the christians upon the earth that are out and about doing all their miracles and prophecies and great works. What is it, that the many christians who will not be saved, according to Jesus' example, got wrong even though they did such great things in Jesus' name?

What do you think Uncle J?

It looks to me like you're trying to say that people who claim to be Christians but don't go with a literal, young-earth reading of Genesis will not be saved.....but without saying it explicitly.

Or have I misread your post?

 

[miamited]

Hi Barbarian

The denial of the creation event, as explained in the Scriptures, is generally not the only miracle of God's working within the realm of His creating that such people don't accept.

Question:

Do you believe that God parted a sea? A deep sea where water stood on both the right hand and the left hand of the Israelites as they walked through the chasm on dry land. And of course, this all happened within a day.

Do you believe that God turned back the sun to cause a shadow cast by the sun to go backwards a distance of 10 steps?

Do you believe that the sun literally stood still in the sky over Israel for nearly an entire day?

God bless,
Ted

 

[Vaccine]

A lot of creationist react that way when they discover the bacterial flagellum isn't irreducibly complex, after all.

Doesn't matter for the question at hand. Behe's claim is falsified. Would you like to discuss how the Type III apparatus evolved?

Well, the two sources I cited explained how it evolved. But since this sounds like its going to be good, let's see how the type III apparatus evolved.

All cells are light-sensitive to some degree. The cells on your skin can detect sunlight and release melanin. A dark spot on a cell makes it more sensitive to light. And so it goes.


Synechocystis, the species of cyanobacteria used in this study, is spherically shaped. As a result, it can focus light to the back side of the cell, so that the region of the cell farthest from the light source is the brightest. The bacteria respond to this brightness, moving away from that side and advancing towards the light. Synechocystis move using pili, hair like strands that coat the surface of the cell and attach to nearby surfaces, dragging the cell along in a jerking motion, in this case towards a light source.

Follow the Light: Bacteria in Motion – Yale Scientific Magazine

www.yalescientific.org

That study is a non sequitur because synechocystis already have photorecptive cells. Again, Behe's challenge was showing the machinery inside photoreceptive cells are irreducibly complex. What Behe said would answer this challenge would be to provide a step by step gradual evolution of the process inside a photoreceptive cell. Citing an article explaining the fascinating ways certain cyanobacteria employ said photoreceptive cells is interesting. But it says nothing on their origin.
Since you mentioned skin cells that sounds like a good place to start:

1. Skin cell. Ion channels that react to heat.
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?
5. Photoreceptor cell. Rhodopsin based structure capable of converting light into electrical signals.

Remember how the steps of an organ evolution were not hypothetical? Those were actual stages found in nature. The same remark holds true for steps 2, 3, and 4. They need to be actual, not hypothetical, stages found in nature. Gene duplication and other inferences might explain the process, but actual examples are required. Perhaps people will realize why Behe's challenge hasn't been met. While the internet is full of winning challenges to IC they haven't published any in the peer reviewed sources.

Yep. The whole point of ID is to show that nature and people are created by God. Which is true. It's just not science and it's dishonest to pretend that ID is not about showing that the "designer" is God.

People who base their opinion of ID theory only on what it's detractors say aren't any different than conspiracy theorists who deny climate change. That the whole point of ID theory is to show people are created by God is on par with believing agenda 21 is meant to depopulate the planet.

If you want to learn the whole point of what ID really is about I suggest you read the books or literature of Behe, Meyer, Dembski, Wells, or the others.

 

[miamited]

Hi Uncle J

I read that as you saying that people who say they are Christians, but don't read the Genesis creation accounts as literal history, are among those who Jesus referred to with "not everyone who said to him Lord, Lord would be saved". Is that right?

I believe that is a very real possibility. And yes, when you start using the term 'literal history', yes, I believe that the explanation that God has given us as the beginning of this realm of His creating a place where mankind could live, is the literal historical account of 'how' mankind and the universe we now live in, came to be. You don't believe that?

I know that's a common way for conservative Christians to frame it (science = "works of man"), but for me specifically it's a matter of seeing things with my own eyes, rather than merely trusting "works of man".

So, you actually saw the start of the universe? It was God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit...and you?

And again, if I find the evidence that the earth didn't arise first compelling, what then? Am I justified in rejecting Christianity?

I'm not sure what you're getting at by saying that if you don't believe that the earth came first, that you are 'justified in rejecting Christianity'. Anyone is capable of rejecting christianity. But christianity isn't what I'm seeking. Being born again is what I desire. Nicodemus was a God fearing Jew. Not only a stout practitioner of the law, but one of the very ruling counsel of Israel. Yet, Jesus infers that he wasn't right with God because he wasn't born again. Based on Nicodemus' response, he didn't even understand what being born again even meant. Yet Jesus said that it was of utmost importance to his life.

It looks to me like you're trying to say that people who claim to be Christians but don't go with a literal, young-earth reading of Genesis will not be saved.....but without saying it explicitly.

I'm not God. All I have to go on is what God has caused to be written to me in His word. God's word says that all the unbelievers will be cast out. You will have to make of that what you will. But I'm just cautioning that this issue of believing the creation event as God has explained it to us may be more important than many think.

I'm sure Nicodemus had lived his life up to that point 'knowing' that he was on the right track.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Uncle J]

You'll find just about every objection you've raised is answered here.
ID theory qualifies as a scientific theory.

Again, you're merely repeating your assertions. I suppose I could reply with "No it doesn't", but I was hoping for a more intellectual exchange than that.

It explains the coded information found in the cells of every living thing. Meyer points out based on experience, on what we know, codes are the result of intelligence.

What is the explanation? If you're saying it's "intelligence", that's not an explanation. "Intelligence" is a trait, not a mechanism. That's like saying the explanation for my house is bipedalism.

If you'll refer to your link about SETI, they said SETI is based on experience. So obviously they misunderstood the assignment.

So you're expecting me to go with your say-so over the explanation from the people who actually worked at SETI? Really?

It successfully predicted function in non-coding portions of DNA. :
By contrast, predictions of functionality of “junk DNA” were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).

Um, geneticists were identifying functions for non-coding DNA waaaaay before any of those. If you're interested I can show you some papers from the early 1970's, but basically it's not a "prediction" if it's something that's already known.

There is a growing amount of pro-id theory research is being done and new papers are being published.

Where?

The idea Johnson and the others came up with intelligent design as a legal means is absurd.

So the ID creationists who described the history of its creation lied? The ID creationists who wrote the Wedge Strategy were lying?

Johnson had no input on specified-complexity or irreducible complexity.

Do you understand the difference between coming up with a framework legal strategy and the development of specific arguments to support that framework?

If those weren't viable scientific concepts they would be dead on arrival. But they are viable. Behe's challenge prompted the two studies I cited about which came first the flagellum or the T3SS. Far from being "creationism" irreducible-complexity was verified. ENCODE verified specified-complexity in 2012.

Those are significant claims. Can you verify them?

So scientists should decide matters of science, while court cases should decide legal matters. Calling that lazy thinking sounds like projection to me. But a court case is better than nothing.

Oh, well if that's your view (scientists should decide matters of science), then it's settled. ID is a form of creationism and is not science at all.

List of Scientific Bodies Explicitly Rejecting Intelligent Design

Note how many of those also point out that ID is a form of creationism.

Unless terms are defined as they're meant to be there's no response to this: "Wedge Strategy literally lays out why ID creationism was created,"
Are you saying Wedge strategy lays out creationism? Or Wedge strategy lays out ID theory? It doesn't matter since it lays out their fundraising strategy. The Wedge strategy literally lays out their fundraising strategy. So saying it literally lays out creationism or ID theory is just nonsense.

The Wedge Strategy, as well as the other material from ID creationists themselves, describe what ID creationism is (an effort to make science theistic), why it was created (in response to court rulings banning creationism), what its objectives are (make science align with Christianity), and what it's main goal is (defeat materialism).

You keep trying to wave it all away, but it's all there in black and white.

Lastly, all the articles I linked to are pro ID theory articles.

And not one constitutes a pro-ID creationism argument in a scientific journal. They're all either books, popular press articles, or articles published in creationist journals.

For example, Behe's first rule of adaptive evolution says evolution proceeds by breaking things. While it sounds innocuous enough, it's a major rewrite of evolution. Darwin's 150 year old model of evolution proceeding from the lowest life forms to the higher life forms has been rejected. In other words, things begin irreducibly-complex then devolve.

Can you cite any material from a science journal that says that?

For example, the flagellum being the predecessor to the T3SS. Behe's article is just one step toward giving credence to ID theory's model of life starting incredibly complex.

Sorry, that makes no sense. The point of the flagellum-T3SS material is that the T3SS is functional even though it doesn't have all the parts present in the flagellum Behe pointed to. Thus, the flagellum can't be "irreducibly complex" (a structure with a subset of its parts is functional).

Plus, as I pointed out to you earlier "needs all its parts to function" is an outdated definition of IC. Now it's all about the "number of unselected steps", which renders the concept meaningless.

So again I have to ask....why hitch your wagon to a dead horse? If you're a Christian creationist because you believe the Bible, why not just say that and leave it there?

 

[miamited]

Hi again Uncle J

but for me specifically it's a matter of seeing things with my own eyes,

Yet Jesus said that blessed are those who believe and have not seen. So, I'd caution care in only believing things that you can see with your own eyes.

BTW do you believe that it is a scientific truth that water always seeks to level itself?

God bless,
Ted

 

[Uncle J]

That the whole point of ID theory is to show people are created by God is on par with believing agenda 21 is meant to depopulate the planet.

Sorry to butt in, but this is just too easy. The very first sentence of The Wedge Strategy: "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built."

You keep trying to get us to ignore what ID creationists have themselves said, but I don't that's going to happen.

 

[Vaccine]

I found it. The statement, "the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God" comes from the following exchange from Behe's testimony (Day 11)...

Plaintiffs' attorney Rothschild to Behe: ​

"And you write here, "What if the existence of God is in dispute or is denied? So far I have assumed the existence of God. But what if the existence of God is denied at the outset, or is in dispute? Is the plausibility of the argument to design affected? As a matter of my own experience the answer is clearly yes, the argument is less plausible to those for whom God s existence is in question, and is much less plausible for those who deny God's existence."​

​

It s a God friendly theory, isn t it, Professor Behe?​

​

Behe: ​

​

Let me respond in a couple of ways to that. First, let me clarify for context that this is a journal called Biology and Philosophy. So not only am I speaking about scientific matters here, but I m also talking about nonscientific matters here in an academic forum. Academics embraces more than just science. This is an academic forum which also embraces philosophy, and so I addressed philosophical issues as well. And again, my statement as written is certainly correct.​

So Behe wrote an article in Biology and Philosophy where he said that the plausibility of ID creationism is dependent on one's belief in gods. He was asked about that statement at the trial and he confirmed it. The "(P-718 at 705)" is a reference to Behe's article and how its labelled in the court's records.

This is such a bad faith argument as well as quote mining. Behe did not make the case "the plausibility of ID creationism is dependent on one's belief in gods." Here's the rest of Behe's testimony:
"...people make decisions even about a scientific theory, based not only on the science itself, but what they perceive as other ramifications of the theory. But I argue, I've argued a number of places, that it s the proper role of a scientist to leave aside those other considerations as much as possible and focus simply on the scientific data."
https://ncse.ngo/kitzmiller-trial-transcripts

Behe actually argues to leave aside considerations such as belief in God or gods. Which is backed up by his testimony from previous days:
Q. So is it accurate for people to claim or to
represent that intelligent design holds that the
designer was God?
A. No, that is completely inaccurate.
********************************************
Q. Is intelligent design based on any religious beliefs or convictions?
A. No, it isn't.
Q. What is it based on?
A. It is based entirely on observable, empirical, physical evidence from nature plus logical inferences.

This sounds just like stuff we see from people on the right. I thought people on the left didn't fall for such obvious bad faith arguments.

 

[Uncle J]

I believe that is a very real possibility. And yes, when you start using the term 'literal history', yes, I believe that the explanation that God has given us as the beginning of this realm of His creating a place where mankind could live, is the literal historical account of 'how' mankind and the universe we now live in, came to be. You don't believe that?

Thanks for explaining, and no I don't believe the Bible's account.

So, you actually saw the start of the universe? It was God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit...and you?

LOL, no. I've seen things in the field that made it quite obvious that the earth is much older than 6,000 years.

I'm not sure what you're getting at by saying that if you don't believe that the earth came first, that you are 'justified in rejecting Christianity'.

I mean that if you told someone that one of the criteria for being a Christian is accepting a literal reading of the Genesis creation accounts, which includes "the earth coming first", someone who doesn't believe that would be justified in deciding to not being a Christian, right?

I'm not God. All I have to go on is what God has caused to be written to me in His word. God's word says that all the unbelievers will be cast out. You will have to make of that what you will. But I'm just cautioning that this issue of believing the creation event as God has explained it to us may be more important than many think.

I'm sure Nicodemus had lived his life up to that point 'knowing' that he was on the right track.

Fair enough.

Yet Jesus said that blessed are those who believe and have not seen. So, I'd caution care in only believing things that you can see with your own eyes.

Um, sorry, but someone telling me that I can't believe what I've seen myself is a major red flag for me. IMO, that's cultish.

BTW do you believe that it is a scientific truth that water always seeks to level itself?

It's not something I've put much time into, but in general, sure.

 

[Uncle J]

This is such a bad faith argument as well as quote mining. Behe did not make the case "the plausibility of ID creationism is dependent on one's belief in gods." Here's the rest of Behe's testimony:
"...people make decisions even about a scientific theory, based not only on the science itself, but what they perceive as other ramifications of the theory. But I argue, I've argued a number of places, that it s the proper role of a scientist to leave aside those other considerations as much as possible and focus simply on the scientific data."
https://ncse.ngo/kitzmiller-trial-transcripts

Behe actually argues to leave aside considerations such as belief in God or gods. Which is backed up by his testimony from previous days:
Q. So is it accurate for people to claim or to
represent that intelligent design holds that the
designer was God?
A. No, that is completely inaccurate.
********************************************
Q. Is intelligent design based on any religious beliefs or convictions?
A. No, it isn't.
Q. What is it based on?
A. It is based entirely on observable, empirical, physical evidence from nature plus logical inferences.

This sounds just like stuff we see from people on the right. I thought people on the left didn't fall for such obvious bad faith arguments.

I don't know what to tell ya....he literally said that the plausibility of ID creationism is affected by one's belief in God. That he later contradicted that is irrelevant to the fact that he said it.