The primary flaw in intelligent design

[Hardcore Newbie]

But evolutionists commonly do.

Evolutionist isn't a real "belief" system.

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.

I've never heard of anyone claim to know when time begins. Maybe time "as we know it", or the universe "as we know it". To lump anyone who recognizes evolution with people making claims about the universe, which evolution doesn't even deal with, it just doens't make sense to me.

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.)

We share lots of DNA with lots of different things. Keep going back and you'll keep seeing similarities.

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.

The reason that (some) creationists have to do this is because they believe so much in their Bible, that if any one part of it is wrong, or if any part of it is a story, then there can be no defining line between what is real in the Bible, and what isn't. The Bible never tells you "this is just a moral story (or fable)". That's why they draw the line at "100% Real"

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.

No one can logically prove that he isn't real, correct, but that just puts god on par with Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Invisible Magic Creation Dust. Just because someone can't prove that these things aren't real, that doesn't substantiate them, at all.

If someone couldn't conceive of a world without Creation Dust playing some part in making it, that doens't make their belief logical.

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.

Actually, asking the Man wouldn't prove anything, either. And some people do claim to speak with God, quite a few people.

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.

I've been pretty busy the past little while, hence the giant gap of time between our last posts, but I'll try to get around to reading it.

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".

Again, lots of things are possible. Creation Dust just hasn't proven to be true.... yet.

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.

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.

In this case we'd just be arguing semantics, which does nothing for the claim that "all attributes of intelligent codes and according to the Shannon's Theory of Communication all codes are versions of languages". Math is at the very least an "intelligent" code, but regardless, it's still semantics at this point.

It'd be like me saying that all birds can fly, and someone inevitably says "what about an ostrich?", to which I reply "An ostrich isn't a bird, it can't fly". This is obviously a very simplified version of semantics, but it illustrates the problem with "what is a language".

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.

My beliefs all lay with facts. My suppositions, however, are just that. I love to think of how the world came to be, or the effects of time travel, or the power of a mind that is 100% in tune with its surroundings, or even what God might be like.... but they are all "what ifs" Things that are fun to think about, but when it comes down to it, there are no proofs for these suppositions, so at most they are day dreams with no basis in the real world, and I recognize them as that.

As well, finding meaning in scriptures is totally different than saying "These words are 100% true". If you're not saying this, then I apologize, but at the same time, you'd be saying that the words you believe in are not 100% true.

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.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean in your first sentence... are you saying
"my opinion which is based on logic differs..." or are you saying
"my opinion on what logic means differs...". It's a very important distinction and I don't want to assume which one you mean.

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.

I don't think i have to ask for any specific ones, we're talking about a lot of them here (as well as my own) so we needn't tack on any more for now. But no offence taken