The primary flaw in intelligent design

[Mr. Clandestine]

Evolution doesn't state this.

But evolutionists commonly do. Evolutionists are quick to tell a creationist to look up to the sky, and observe that microwave radiation is and has been permeating the open space of the universe since the beginning of time. But, my main objection to this theory is this: how can they predetermine when "time" actually began? They simply can't. They can claim that solar systems, planets, life, etc., were the result of millions upon billions of years of accumulation of matter by gravitational forces, as well as other mystifying phenomena, but the proof isn't as evident to me as it is to them. As for evolutionist theory regarding the evolution of species, it's common for someone to refer to biological evolution as infallible logic, because biological evolution can be observed in laboratories. But, even after all of their theories have been propagated, and they seem pretty conclusive in the fact that humans share commonalities with chimpanzees in terms of DNA structure, they rarely are open to admit that human DNA also shares a lot of commonalities with mushrooms! (There's a fungus among us.)

There are two problems with this line of thinking, you're assuming that the only two options are creation and randomness, the randomness is the strawman.

Unfortunately for creationists, we generally limit ourselves to these two sets of existential circumstances. Being unwilling to deviate from this belief is what is keeping most creationists in the dark. I'm willing to believe that evolution is possible (if not probable) because I see that certain organisms do, in fact, evolve. Other creationists may disregard this concept completely so as to adhere to their own personal beliefs, or just to be stubborn. But, even with all the so-called "evidence" pointing towards the sky claiming that the universe created itself, or simply always existed, I still find it hard to believe that these extraordinary circumstances just fell into place on their own, and without at least some assistance from the God that I believe to be true. I simply cannot wipe God from my mind simply because I am having difficulty proving that He's real, and especially when no one can logically prove that he isn't real.

It may very well be the words of Jesus himself, and they may have much meaning to you, but in no way to they constitute as proof. Even if it's the man's writing, there has to be a way to validate the claims that Jesus makes, most importantly, that he is the son of God.

Actually, in these particular texts, Jesus makes few claims that He is the Son of God. The only way to validate these claims would be to ask the Man, Himself. And because that's not really an option for sane individuals, we'll just have to rely on our faith.

I've heard it (many times), but I've never been pointed to an actual study that shows that carbons degrade in a way that differs from what scientists already know.

It's a little crude, but interesting to read nonetheless: CHAPTER 7 - DATING METHODS Part 1

There are others, but some are obviously written by creationists. I try to only keep relevant and seemingly non-biased reports bookmarked, so let me know if you're interested in seeing more. Though most of them only point out the same arguments you've probably already heard dozens of times.

Just because things are possible, that doesn't give us an excuse to believe in them as if they were true.

Well, it does actually...because of the inherent possibility of truth. You're right that one would not be backing their beliefs with fact, but that doesn't always mean that it's impossible for it to be factual. It just means that scientific studies haven't been able to prove it yet. Keyword: "yet".

The principles of math predate humanity. If this were not true, we could state that the sides of a right angled triangle are added up as... A squared + B squared = C cubed. This is false, the laws of math make it false. Math is a language that cannot be changed arbitrarily like we can with our languages. We can not say that humanity has created mathematics, math is something that humanity has discovered.

I could just go on to say that I wasn't referring to mathematical equations in the same sense that I was referring to principles of language in general. You made that correlation, but I was just trying to correlate the interpretation of coded language to the discoveries that mankind has made.

Which again, invalidates the claim that all languages are created, unless you can prove that something created math.

I don't necessarily attribute mathematics to being a form of language as I do to it being "the science or branch of knowledge dealing with measurements, numbers and quantities." Does that make either of us wrong? No. It just means we have varying opinions on the definition/origin of mathematic principles.

I, personally, want to live in reality. If I have a belief to myself that isn't logical, I want people to point that out. I don't hide my beliefs because I'm not afraid for them being wrong. If someone doens't feel the need to live in reality, then they are living in ignorance.

Ignorance can be a dangerous thing, you're right. But I only consider blind faith in religion (believing only because you were told to do so) ignorant, not believing because you honestly have faith in what is being taught. My faith revolves around many things...my belief in intelligent design, my own findings in scriptures (even the heretical ones denied by the granddaddy of all orthodox Christian churches), the faith that I witness in others, and so on. I'm not ignorant for adhering to my faith...maybe a bit stubborn...but no less educated than you are. I've probably heard many of the theories that you hold near and dear to your beliefs, and disregard them for the same reasons that you disregard mine. But I would never consider you ignorant for staying true to these beliefs.

The only reason I'm asking for your beliefs is because, from what I've read in the thread, you don't have a full understanding of what logic actually means. I'm not doing it to show you that I'm better somehow, or that you're a bad person. That's not my intention at all.

Simply stated, my opinion of logic differs from yours. In many respects, they're probably identical...but in terms of logical relevancy concerning religion, faith, or the lack thereof...I simply disagree with you on many levels.

Unfortunately, this might come off as preachy. You don't have to spill your guts, that's your choice, but what purpose does serve to keep your thoughts to yourself, and not offer them to be scrutinized?

Again, I do often share my views with others. Even with those that are only going to rip them apart and try to impart their views on me. The only discrepancy that I have now is that I've done it so many times, I don't feel that I'm going to get anything useful out of it. I mean no offense to you, because I enjoy the intellectual conversations I'm able to have with you...but still, I highly doubt you'd be able to point out terribly many things that I haven't already heard, and considered to great lengths in my own mind. Regardless, ask me for specific opinions, and I'll be glad to give them to you. I simply can't generalize them all because, like you, I have tons of opinions.

Mr. Clandestine Reviewed by Mr. Clandestine on 11-09-2007. The primary flaw in intelligent design This is what I've been saying all along, but I've yet to have a creationist even counter me on the issue. Creation "science" is entirely based on a false-dilema, with no actual empiracle evidence to back up these claims of an "intelligent designer". I encourage every person, creationist or otherwise, to watch this video and actually, seriously, consider the logic. This, right here, is why I get frustrated by people arguing that creationism and evolution are on equal grounds, as valid as the Rating: 5