Ok, you guys brought up ID, not me. Now, it seems to me that you are the one who needs to differentiate between what aspects of ID you seem to agree with, with those aspects you now say they are wrong on, their “unsupported beliefs” to quote you. HMMM...
Secondly, you mentioned “His fingerprints in Nature’s designs.” Let’s examine that for a moment.
By fingerprints, of course, you would have to specify, but let’s take a couple examples that popular creationit models use, shall we?
How about the Phasmid leaf insects? (SEE http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Ctenomorpha_chronus02.jpg)
many articles in YEC literature make much of the fact that God’s design can be seen clearly in the Phasmids, because they are camoflaged and can more easily prey or hide on other species, or other predators.
They forgot that that they have a doctrine called ‘the Fall’ that precludes predation BEFORE the Fall, so that God’s design for the purposes of predation becomes a moot point, there was no predation before the Fall, hence no need for camoflage, or predatory advantages.
How about Black Holes, or galaxies colliding together? Were they part of God’s original universe, or are they warped objects, warped by the Fall and the 2nd Law? Or huge meteors hitting planets? God’s design? destructive volcanoes? hurricanes? I could go on and on.
When you begin to put critical thought to your assertions, their sense begins to well....not make much sense.
Is galaxies colliding together and black holes crushing and sucking everything in their reach.....very good?
No death before the Fall. That’s a clear biblical tradition.
Creationists of all the popular models either have to convieniently forget that huge doctrine, or they have to change it to admit death before the Fall?
Now, where do you stand on death before the Fall? And when you say ‘fingerprints’ are you saying the universe did not Fall significantly at the Fall of man, to the point where the original creation, His direct handiwork, is not tainted by the effects of sin, and if so, whcih parts are not tainted, and still show His ‘fingerprints’ and which ones aren’t?
I’m not being fecetious. This is a major point of my theory, and is a major aspect of the Hypothetical Question which asks the question, ‘What would a universe without sin actually look like?’ “Is it possible in this age to make differentiations, if not experimentally, at least in thought experiment to begin with?’
THAT question is a smart one. That question can provide a basis for a REAL methodology in creationist work.
What are your thoughts?
[[Ok, you guys brought up ID, not me. Now, it seems to me that you are the one who needs to differentiate between what aspects of ID you seem to agree with, with those aspects you now say they are wrong on, their “unsupported beliefs” to quote you. HMMM...]]
It’s nopt very difficult Sonny- I spelled out how to differentiate quite clearly in my previous posts.
[[many articles in YEC literature make much of the fact that God’s design can be seen clearly in the Phasmids, because they are camoflaged and can more easily prey or hide on other species, or other predators.]]
Stick to hte science, ok? I don’t care what people THINK- I’m only itnerested i nthe science- Camoflauge, while certainly is a design of God in my PERSONAL OPINION, is NO indicator of His fingerprint. As you know, MICROevolution accounts for such minor changes in species. MICROEvolution (Which incidently is an established, scinetifically demonstratable FACT) isn’t evidence of design, it is simply a result of design- there is a KEY difference here inthat results of design follow the Natural laws- charactewristics of a design are NOT the design itself. DEsign in nature is Irreducibly complex and does indeed show hte need for an intelligence because the structures of the design could NOT have come about via a natural stepwise process such as MACROEvolution- in other words, a Designer is needed- an intelligence- and this would be evidence for a designer- NOT the results of design parameters such as MICROEvolution produce.
[[Or huge meteors hitting planets? God’s design? destructive volcanoes? hurricanes? I could go on and on]]
Results of Evil? Now you want answers to theoretical issues? I personally BELIEVE that WE invited evil- We invited dissasters when WE sinned against God, and now we suffer the righteous soveriegn judgements for our actions. But let’s get back to the science eh?
[[When you begin to put critical thought to your assertions, their sense begins to well....not make much sense.]]
You mean their sense clashes with your a priori BELIEFS? Hmmm- they make plenty of sense- it’s just that you’re not willing to dig deep for answers and to accept the true answers you receive because they conflict with your desire to bow before the alter of Darwin.
[[Is galaxies colliding together and black holes crushing and sucking everything in their reach.....very good?]]
Mind telling me where in the bible it states that everythign has to be ‘very good’ for us? Infact, I’ll point you to the biblical passages that make it crystal clear that everythign in the beginning was indeed very good, but that WE chose to throw all that away because WE valued PRIDE more than we valued God’s love and protection in paradise. But again- enough with hte philisophical ponderings- let’s just stick with the science here.
[[Creationists of all the popular models either have to convieniently forget that huge doctrine, or they have to change it to admit death before the Fall?]]
Well I see you’re goign to indulge in Christian hate soem more, so let’s address this and dispell it quick like a bunny here- when you can point out that all the negatives existed before creation, difinitively, and not just with more of your assumption laden OPINIONS, then we’ll accomodate your apparent need to see CHristians eat crow- until then, you’ve NO evidence to difinitively state any such thing- only your OPINION about past events.
[[Now, where do you stand on death before the Fall?]]
See above remark for my answer to this.
[[And when you say ‘fingerprints’ are you saying the universe did not Fall significantly at the Fall of man, to the point where the original creation, His direct handiwork, is not tainted by the effects of sin, and if so, whcih parts are not tainted, and still show His ‘fingerprints’ and which ones aren’t?]]
When I speak of Fingerprint of God, I refere to IC- any forensic scientist can tell you that when they discover somethign like 1000 complex objects, Say something like 1000 complex (but primitive) batteries that were discovered, or some such complex items, that in a sense, they can determine a ‘fingerprint’ of the designers- an element or multiple elements (fingerprints) that indicates a designer was needed.
Now, while the world and everythign in it were indeed tainted, there are degrees of taint, and this does NOT mean that His fignerprint, defining characteristics of a designer, would have been automatically and completely erased. We can and DO still find evidnece of His characteristic designs all through creation even though everythign has been taint4d.
Which ones show the fingerprints? Easy- IC, and to a lesser extent much in biology shows designed features which despite extensive scientific testing and investigations, simply have NOT been shown to have been capable of purely naturalistic assemblies or Macroevolution. The deeper science digs, the worse it gets for Macroevolution (If there is such a thing as worse than impossible). The deeper we go in microbiology, them ore evident that massive amounts of intelligence was needed in order to structure the myriad complexities at even the ‘simplest’ stages of organisms and systems. The more we discover this, the more apparent it becomes that Macroevolution simply could not have produced what some claim it could.
[[‘What would a universe without sin actually look like?’]]
Stick around, you’ll find out when the new Heaven and the new earth are created for those of us who were too stupid to hold onto the first perfect sinless creation.
[[THAT question is a smart one. That question can provide a basis for a REAL methodology in creationist work.]]
The only hting it can provide for is more assumptions- you’re asking that we drop science and isntead focus on speculating about past unknowns? If you want my personal opinions, fine- that’s for another thread though, but I beleive there is enough evidence to support ID and ID, and that our strongest case is made through the sciences, and under a judge who will try the case WITHOUT Admitted Bias as Judge Jones admitted to and which was blatantly obvious in the trial manuscripts. Even evolution scientists acknowledged that Judge Jones ruling was moronic inthat he clealry based his descision on bias and nothign else. Judge Jones was an activist judge whos ruling will be overturned. Macroevolution is a religious hypothesis based on nothing but assumpotions about past events that can’t be tested and worse can’t be demonstrated. The judge gave more wieght to Miller’s rediculous DECONSTRUCTION of ALREADY ESTABLISHED IC. Anyone can take apart an intelligent Design, but Miller could NOT explain how the Intelligent design came to be fully functional in the first place, nor could he produce ANY evidence to show his stepwise deconstruction of the design and nor could he show that the species of ecoli could have even survived- ALL he did was to show that some non critical parts were evident in lesser species- thaT’S IT! His argument was NOTHING but pure speculation- yet hte judge allowed it as fact while dismissing hte ACTUAL FACTS presented by ID.
I need to make my following point more clear:
“Stick to hte science, ok? I don’t care what people THINK- I’m only itnerested i nthe science- Camoflauge, while certainly is a design of God in my PERSONAL OPINION, is NO indicator of His fingerprint.”
Camoflauge on it’s own is not a fignerprint of God- However, IF the camaflouge is a result of IC compnents, and could NOT have been produced any other way, then yes, it would be a fignerprint of a desinger or itnellgience. IF there are systems, both macroe and micro in a species that are IC, and if the species can’t survive without hte complete assembly of those systems, then you have a case for a fignerprint. Now let’s be clear here- Camoflauge itself isn’t the case for the fignerprint, and a species certainly doesn’t necessarily have to perish if they don’t have the camoflauge, as millions of brightly coloured insects can testify to, ... Natural Selection can and does affect aspects like Camoflauge, and MICROEvolution follows set laws, and thus isn’t a case for fignerprint. However, suppose that several IC systems are invovled i nthe camoflauge, and the species could not move if several of them ceased to function. Then you have the case for a fignerprint.
You have to be careful the evidence you tackle Sonny,- there is copious amounts of less educated OPINIONS out htere, and it isn’t fair to characterize the whole of ID based on some less educated OPINIONS. Even some more sophisticated and educated sites can make soem hairbrained OPINION oriented statements- BUT that in no way discounts what sound science they might conduct or present. That’s why I keep stating that I am NOT itnerested in opinions when making my case. That is not to say that I won’t concider and think about someone’s opinions, but this would be outside of the science that is being discussed, and would be a personal opinion of my own, which as you know, opinions are allowed, but they should not take precedence when discussing issues like we’re discussing. AIG has some very good science, BUT they also have soem very opinionated articles, some of which I even dissagree with, but it wouldn’t be fair to label them as ignorant or telling of lies simply because they indulge in opinions fro mtime to time- it is their science that should be evaluated, objectively, and without bias. If it is sound, it will stand, if not, it will fall- but some that fall do not negate the science that stands on it’s own truth.
