• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

your views on creationism please

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

I'd like to think I am open to at least considering anything. I found the video interesting about scientists being blacklisted for even mentioning intelligent design - although I am unsympathetic when they stress the difference between intelligent design and creationism in the religious sense - when they must know that 'intelligent design' is pretty much accepted by the majority of people (I think) as being interchangeable with creationism. Perhaps new terminology to remove all religious connotations would be sensible.

I have problems with the lack of decent theory covering the ultimate origin of life but I still think that intelligent design is ignoring the elephant in the room and that is 'who designed the designer?'
 
And I'm glad we are having this discussion without people being banned from the forum, I hope we are enlightened enough not to penalise people for thinking.
 
Goggs Mackay said:
I'd like to think I am open to at least considering anything. I found the video interesting about scientists being blacklisted for even mentioning intelligent design - although I am unsympathetic when they stress the difference between intelligent design and creationism in the religious sense - when they must know that 'intelligent design' is pretty much accepted by the majority of people (I think) as being interchangeable with creationism. Perhaps new terminology to remove all religious connotations would be sensible.

I have problems with the lack of decent theory covering the ultimate origin of life but I still think that intelligent design is ignoring the elephant in the room and that is 'who designed the designer?'
Click to expand...

And of course, as much of a quandary as the above emboldened is, it's nonetheless a personification to ask such a question. I agree with you. I/We, don't know. In fact, what your question ultimately underlines Goggs, *IS* the false notion of what Darwinian evolutionists call their supported notions of spontaneous generation. It's a complete paradox provided we stick to Occam's shaving device. That's why I choose an external agent as a motive. To explain the short of it, maybe something like this.

In nature biology must beget biology. The opposite with respect to origins is Spontaneous Generation. You can imagine it, but you won't find it happening anywhere within the physical Universe in an observable sense. Yet, we base Darwinian Evolution on just such a cartoon image.
 
Would the confirmation of life elsewhere in the universe give more weight to spontaneous generation or would it reinforce I.D as just more examples of 'helped' biology?

What is the intelligent design way of looking at life elsewhere? (And I don't mean to imply all people who consider I.D as one amorphous group of thinkers)
 
"clear scientific information exists that indicates the Darwinian evolution model does not hold up any better than Billy Meier does as a contactee."
VS
"If you are looking for Empirically accepted data or publications you will not find any".

I just want to say we are all free to believe what we want, I would not like it any other way.

"why in the name of logic would you be at all interested in the anomalous if all you will accept is Empirically validated evidence? Or, are we being choosy in the case of Darwinism?"

I am interested in the "anomalous" for many, many reasons but mostly cos its anomalous ;)

seriously though: I am not "wise enough in the ways of science*" to argue about the minutia of the "theory" of evolution, but I can not accept "ID/Intervention/creationism" as it reeks of venality.

One thing that has been on my mind a lot recently, is how much we as people control what we believe? in other words: some times you can lead a horse to water and force it to drink, only for it to spit out the water when your back is turned!

P.S. thank you for your thoughts and time Jeff even though we don't agree.
Best wishes Harry


*
 
I was just watching a show that said that the bones in our ears were evolved from the jawbones of the Dimetrodon which went extinct 40 million years before dinosaurs. So how exactly does an extinct species the size of a small dinosaur evolve down into a little furry rodent like creature 100 million years later? This seems to defy logic. In order for a species to evolve, it can't go extinct. It has to survive and undergo the process of speciation. Although it seems reasonable to accept evolution in general, there are times when certain evolutionists tend to stretch their credibility beyond reason.
 
I'm not religious in any way - although I WANT there to be something, so I guess I could call myself a reluctant atheist.

As for Creationism, well, yes, it's yet another religion, and yes, it's absurd - but no more absurd than any other religion out there, I suppose *shrugs*
 
My thought on creationism is that it's obviously crap. But I don't see why everyone who is asking the question if blind chance and suvival of the fittest is the be all end all of evolution theory, should be called a creationist. Especially when it comes to consciosness and human evolution.

You can tell yourself, well, we are under 1% different DNA-wise from chimpanzees, so basically we are only bald apes, reacting to our environment like very complex biological machines.

Or you can ask yourself "WTF, 1%? What's all the difference then? Does the fact I can ask myself that while the chimp probably can't have to do with this? Is it only that our brains are a little more complex?"

But of course, even askig that makes you suspect of the crime of creationist thinking.
 
Polterwurst said:
My thought on creationism is that it's obviously crap. But I don't see why everyone who is asking the question if blind chance and suvival of the fittest is the be all end all of evolution theory, should be called a creationist. Especially when it comes to consciosness and human evolution.

You can tell yourself, well, we are under 1% different DNA-wise from chimpanzees, so basically we are only bald apes, reacting to our environment like very complex biological machines.

Or you can ask yourself "WTF, 1%? What's all the difference then? Does the fact I can ask myself that while the chimp probably can't have to do with this? Is it only that our brains are a little more complex?"

But of course, even askig that makes you suspect of the crime of creationist thinking.
Click to expand...


Information within the DNA is the real difference. For all the evolutionists here, how did it get there?
 
Jeff Davis said:
Information within the DNA is the real difference. For all the evolutionists here, how did it get there?
Click to expand...

Assuming God put the DNA there ( which he would have had to if he made us ), that makes God a genetic engineer. So if we're now looking at exactly the same material that God looked at all the way down to individual particles inside the molecules, and actually fixing the problems, what does that make us?
 
Humans are the Uber parasite we have "evolved" to a level where we can (and do) manipulate "mother nature" to our advantage.
God given or not, this is a massive responsibility.
 
ufology said:
Assuming God put the DNA there ( which he would have had to if he made us ), that makes God a genetic engineer. So if we're now looking at exactly the same material that God looked at all the way down to individual particles inside the molecules, and actually fixing the problems, what does that make us?
Click to expand...

Embryonic, at this point.
 
Embryonic as in just the beginning of our Genetic understanding, and just about every other form of understanding as well. How INSANE of mankind to somehow believe itself to be the first sentient being. Talk about improbability.
 
Jeff Davis said:
Embryonic as in just the beginning of our Genetic understanding, and just about every other form of understanding as well. How INSANE of mankind to somehow believe itself to be the first sentient being. Talk about improbability.
Click to expand...

Well, we've mapped out the entire human genome now, and we're into cloning and direct genetic manipulation ... so maybe we're a little further ahead than "embryonic". Embryonic might better describe the situation back when scientists were first figuring out that genes actually existed.
 
Back
Top