Discussion»Questions»Religion and Spirituality» Bible story writers were inspired to relate the story of creation; who did God inspire to develop concept of Intelligent Design?
I think Intelligent Design was inspired by the Wedge Document Change the link to http: protocol instead of https: It is a .pdf file It too came from the Discovery Institute and gives a 5 year plan for how evidence based Science should be overthrown by faith based religion (specifically Their branch of Christianity)
This post was edited by JakobA the unAmerican. at March 4, 2018 6:37 AM MST
Yes.. so some of the Creationist people evolved into Intelligent Design people because a change was necessary to adapt for the purpose of overthrowing Darwinian evolution.
I get a regular newsletter from Discovery Institute and they always seem to feel so confident that they have evolution totally discredited. And some knowledgeable people reveal the evidence that it is often by means of Intellectual Dishonesty. They are always asking for donations to help support the cause too.
This post was edited by Kittigate at March 4, 2018 11:47 AM MST
Since evolutionary theory not only sits at the foundation of all the biological sciences, it is fully reinforced by them at every example, it is fair to say the Intelligent Design hacks have only inspiration to lead their arguments.
When we look deep enough, we can see that the Clerical inspiration to maintain status/influence over the masses has propelled the engines of faith since the first verse of scripture was put to papyrus. There has been no evil too unsavory to divert these ambitions.
Hello all. Curious, do y'all believe everything descended from a common ancestor like Darwin or that different kinds of life descended from several kinds of life like the Bible says or something in between?
https://www.darwinwasright.org/common_descent.html In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. There is strong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.
(Genesis 1:24) Then God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, domestic animals and creeping animals and wild animals of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so.
In terms of what I believe, it remains consistent with the best evidence at hand.
Whether every form of life descended from a single ancestor is still undetermined, though many theories abound. It is possible that life may have initiated separately in different places given the myriad favorable environments of the earth. This would preclude a single ancestor, but not that all species evolved from more primitive forms- the crux of Natural Selection.
As far as Gen 1:24- There sure is a lot of wiggle room in “bring forth”. Intellectual cop-out that explains nothing.
I suppose my question didn't make clear the point of citing the verse and I should have perhaps underlined living creatures according to their kinds. I also feel that what I believe is consistent with the best evidence at hand. It seems more scientist are coming around to no longer believing a single ancestor but more in line with 'according to their kinds' although likely believing that everything could have come from far less kinds than I believe. Many seem to make the opposite objection when Noah's ark comes in to the question.
Do give examples of what I believe (perhaps called micro-evolution?), I think it likely that all dogs, wolves, coyotes etc could have come from a single pair of canines but that horses would not (EDIT: Horses would not come from dogs). I don't think that the ant, platypus and blue whale all have a common ancestor.
I found this interesting as well: [...A similar picture exists for plants. Found in the rocks are fossil leaves of many trees and shrubs that show very little difference from the leaves of such plants today: oak, walnut, hickory, grape, magnolia, palm and many others. Animal kinds follow the same pattern. The ancestors of those alive today appear in the fossil record suddenly and were much like their living counterparts. There are many variations, but all are easily identified as the same “kind.” Discover magazine notes one such example: “The horseshoe crab . . . has existed on earth virtually unchanged for 200 million years.”29 Those that became extinct also followed the same pattern. Dinosaurs, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record, with no links to any ancestors before them. They multiplied greatly, then became extinct....]
I forget their names but over time their have been claimed missing links even giving them names. It seems now that some say that no missing link is necessary to prove their theories, according to some atheist I have had conversations with anyway. What do you think of all of the missing link hoaxes like the one about the transition from bird to dinosaur in 1999? https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/04/0425_featherdino_2.html "Feathered" Fossil Bolsters Changing Image of Dinosaurs
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_raptor.html Dino Hoax Was Mainly Made of Ancient Bird, Study Says
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-pervert-paleontology-excerpt/ How Fake Fossils Pervert Paleontology [Excerpt]
(To a get those links you will need to copy and paste in to your browser and remove the 's' from 'https' and then hit enter.)
This post was edited by texasescimo at March 4, 2018 12:16 PM MST
Evolution is not a foundation of anything. It is not a theory. It is, as the bible puts it, "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." If it were a theory, people would offer testable proofs for it. But if you inquire about proofs you only get told that there are some, that nobody goes looking for proofs any more, and after that it degenerates into personal insults and possible ejection from the room. That is not the scientific method. All evidence so far has eventually been found to be either a hoax or a misinterpreted observation.
That's what i've been afraid of; when Jesus returns he will destroy all the evolutionary research that has ever been done and speak in a loud voice "IT'S ALL CREATION YOU RETARDS!" .
Flu strains is your proof of macro-evolution? If you say it better than scientist or others that have researched and quoted scientist, please tell me how dinosaurs got here and their proven family tree from the bone record, perhaps starting as a flu strain or whatever.
For the record, not trying to impress anyone with my super duper extraordinary intelligence and understanding of anything as I am just a common man. But I can read and have read what I have read and can't unlearn what I have learned.
EDIT: Referring to me as a zealot comes off a bit insulting. Perhaps you could be referred to as a zealot with all of your assaults on the Bible and Christians?
Quote: [PS- “copy and paste“ is not indicative of personal understanding.] I actually prefer quotes from something well researched by another than a bit of rewording. If you have a scientist that has proof of evolution, I would think he would be able to make his point better than you rewording it. Same thing with the Bible, I prefer a quote rather than a summary.
This post was edited by texasescimo at March 6, 2018 6:12 AM MST
You mean you’d rather plagiarize other people’s words than think for yourself.
Zealot is used as intended. Fanatical partisan of religion. Is this NOT you?
The more correct description of me in regard to dogmatism is Critic, or Skeptic. I am critical of what I see as backward, evil preachments that have strangled human progress and freethought for centuries. I am skeptical that anything in man’s cobbled together holy books is either true or beneficial. Nothing you (or ill-informed Jewels Vern) have presented thus far is even remotely persuasive.
"You mean you’d rather plagiarize other people’s words than think for yourself. "
Boy, your zealotry is coming in clear with your intentional slanted smear.
plagiarize - take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own.
I always try to be clear that when I copy and paste from the Bible or an article that it is a copy and paste. I know that there have likely been a few times where I forgot the brackets but anyone that knows me knows that is not intentional and that I don't have an elegant style of writing so as to confuse those words as my own. I am more concerned with people finding truth than somehow glorifying myself as you appear to be concerned with.
EDIT: Aren't you the one trying to come off as evolution and such are your own thoughts?
Nonsense, Jewels, absolute nonsense. Are you, in this day and age, truly so misinformed as this appears?
Evolution is indeed a theory, a theory being the highest level of scientific consensus. Do you NOT know what a scientific theory is? The evidence that supports evolution is just enormous, and within reach of anyone with internet or a library card. Far more evidence exists for biological evolution than for ANY assertion you could name from the Book of Sacred Bronze Age Fables. Any.
I can only imagine where you have been conducting your research (btw- maybe you get that the Bible isn’t a science book?), but if this is honestly your position, it is apparent you are hilariously underqualified to speak intelligently on science matters.
This post was edited by Don Barzini at March 5, 2018 6:29 PM MST
Science is not consensus. Science is proof. Every time the evolutionists have tried to "prove" something they have sh!t all over themselves. They have embarrassed themselves so thoroughly that they tried to get laws passed to force people to believe, and when even that failed, they bribed universities to create chairs of "evolutionary biology", which gave them control over funding sources so that anybody who refuses to pretend to believe can be denied support.
So yes, consensus is all that exists. Not science. Only consensus.
Intelligent Design is a psuedoscientific study of various facets of nature that are perceived as having “irreducible complexity”, that is, no path from earlier forms that leads to their current state by way of evolution.
The general problem with ID theory is that it is founded on an unproven precept that an intelligent designer exists, and ID research is little more than a form of confirmation bias. This method is not purely scientific, and has done far more to discredit ID purveyors than it does Darwin.
This does, however, dovetail nicely into the shabby folk fables of Genesis, which have held so much sway over ignorant ancients and been the basis of scientific impediment for over two millennia. So it is quite a small step for the pious to embrace the concept of ID as an intelligent sounding reiteration of their factually unsupportable Creation fantasy.
This post was edited by Don Barzini at March 5, 2018 4:22 PM MST
You expose your ignor... Uh, I mean you have not adequately researched your opinion. You present your argument by insulting anybody who happens to hold a different opinion.
It might interest you to know that what you call "shabby folk tales" were in fact eye witness reports, carved into rocks all over the world and repeated unchanged in verbal traditions for hundreds of generations in hundreds of tribes. It has taken a very long time to interpret these records because they don't describe anything we have seen. For example the legend of the dragon is carved into rocks all over the world, but it is only recently that anybody has noticed a natural effect that fits that description. This is a long book because it tries to cover everything completely. https://www.saturniancosmology.org/
JakobA the unAmerican. 