How old is the Earth?

Started by Surtur9 pages

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Intelligent design could mean God or it could mean aliens seeded the Earth with life. It's too abstract. ID was really invented by some Christians that had no counter for evolution and the origin of life.

As a Christian, you must believe in the Genesis account. There is no room for ID or the common thought of evolution taught in schools today.

So then you don't see the problem though if a Christian believes in something abstract? Since God isn't supposed to be abstract in that sense. He's a dude with a kid who has personally spoken to people and personally got involved in things and cares for us and all that.

That is why I was saying belief in ID makes no sense if you believe in a specific God.

Originally posted by Surtur
So then you don't see the problem though if a Christian believes in something abstract? Since God isn't supposed to be abstract in that sense. He's a dude with a kid who has personally spoken to people and personally got involved in things and cares for us and all that.

That is why I was saying belief in ID makes no sense if you believe in a specific God.

No. We are instructed to believe by faith.

I believe in the Genesis account, myself. I don't believe in ID, which accepts much scientific theory by default.

So then it sounds like you agree with me.

Originally posted by Surtur
So then it sounds like you agree with me.

I edited my post. I agree with you as far as a specific God creating the universe and everything in it.

WTF? Believing in intelligent design is not part of believing in Genesis account? That's nonsense. Intelligent design is the belief that an intelligent all-powerful being "intelligently designed" the universe. Doesn't matter which God you believe in. If you believe that he designed and created the universe to his own making then by definition you believe in intelligent design. Believing that the universe just happened by some random accident of absolutely nothing exploding then you don't believe in intelligent design because there was no"intelligence" used in the creation of everything. It's the exact opposite of believing in intelligent design. This is pretty common sense stuff, folks.

If you believe an intelligent being is the architect of the universe then you believe in intelligent design.

Originally posted by Star428
WTF? Believing in intelligent design is not part of believing in Genesis account? That's nonsense. Intelligent design is the belief that an intelligent all-powerful being "intelligently designed" the universe. Doesn't matter which God you believe in. If you believe that he designed and created the universe to his own making then by definition you believe in intelligent design. Believing that the universe just happened by some random accident of absolutely nothing exploding then you don't believe in intelligent design because there was no"intelligence" used in the creation of everything. It's the exact opposite of believing in intelligent design. This is pretty common sense stuff, folks.

If you believe an intelligent being is the architect of the universe then you believe in intelligent design.

ID, the way it is being discussed right now, infers billions of years of evolution. It states that God is the origin of life, not mere chance.
Neither you notlr I believe that. We believe the Genesis account.

Sasukedc entering the fray. Things have just gotten interesting.

Originally posted by Star428
WTF? Believing in intelligent design is not part of believing in Genesis account? That's nonsense. Intelligent design is the belief that an intelligent all-powerful being "intelligently designed" the universe. Doesn't matter which God you believe in. If you believe that he designed and created the universe to his own making then by definition you believe in intelligent design. Believing that the universe just happened by some random accident of absolutely nothing exploding then you don't believe in intelligent design because there was no"intelligence" used in the creation of everything. It's the exact opposite of believing in intelligent design. This is pretty common sense stuff, folks.

If you believe an intelligent being is the architect of the universe then you believe in intelligent design.

EDIT: Let me put this another way: do you believe God from the bible is the one behind everything or do you merely believe he is one possible explanation for everything?

No, you believe in both. Because one is inherent in the other.

Again, it's the same as squares and rectangles. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All Christians adhere to the concept of Intelligent Design, but not all believers of Intelligent Design are Christian.

In other words, Intelligent Design just means that the universe had to have been created by some higher form of intelligence. That is inherently true according to Christian belief; the universe was created by God. Christians believe in an intelligent designer, that's irrefutable.

On the other hand, you don't need to be Christian to believe that the universe was designed by an intelligent being. Which is why the concept of Intelligent Design can be applied to other religions or speculations. But belief in those origins or concepts isn't inherent in the belief that the universe was intelligently designed. 😬

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
ID, the way it is being discussed right now, infers billions of years of evolution. It states that God is the origin of life, not mere chance.
Neither you notlr I believe that. We believe the Genesis account.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. I've seen plenty of experts online call it ID when talking about the Genesis account. Again, believing in evolution is the opposite of intelligent design. I don't really care what Surtur or anybody else on this forum says. By simple definition, intelligent design is believing that there was an intelligent being involved in creation. Sorry we disagree but I have this nasty habit of taking words at face value as they're defined in the dictionary and not what some misinformed people on the internet mistakenly think they mean. I believe in the Genesis account of creation so going by the definition in the dictionary that means I also believe in intelligent design. I couldn't care less about atheists making up their own definitions of words. Webster's definition > atheists' opinion. That's all I'm gonna say on the subject.

By simple definition, intelligent design is believing that there was an intelligent being involved in creation.

👆

Originally posted by Star428
Again, believing in evolution is the opposite of intelligent design.

...And back to nonsense.

Originally posted by Star428
WTF? Believing in intelligent design is not part of believing in Genesis account? That's nonsense. Intelligent design is the belief that an intelligent all-powerful being "intelligently designed" the universe. Doesn't matter which God you believe in. If you believe that he designed and created the universe to his own making then by definition you believe in intelligent design. Believing that the universe just happened by some random accident of absolutely nothing exploding then you don't believe in intelligent design because there was no"intelligence" used in the creation of everything. It's the exact opposite of believing in intelligent design. This is pretty common sense stuff, folks.

If you believe an intelligent being is the architect of the universe then you believe in intelligent design.

Whoa, Star.

You want to be careful in discussions like this.

"Architect of the Universe"?

YOU may not be aware that term is applied to anyone but God, but I learned who ELSE people refer to when they say or write that phrase a bit earlier.

http://www.ephesians5-11.org/gllink.htm
" Masons worship a god which they call the Great Architect of the Universe. The symbol they have chosen to represent their god is the All Seeing Eye, which the Egyptians used to represent their pagan god, Osiris. Many Masons are well aware of the pagan connection. It is clearly stated in a number of Masonic Monitors. An example is found on page 116 of the Kentucky Monitor ..."

😂

I feel like there's some joke here I'm not getting.

Sorry, blue. Whatever it is you just said to me I've no interest in reading it after your earlier insult of me.

Originally posted by Star428
WTF? Believing in intelligent design is not part of believing in Genesis account? That's nonsense. Intelligent design is the belief that an intelligent all-powerful being "intelligently designed" the universe. Doesn't matter which God you believe in. If you believe that he designed and created the universe to his own making then by definition you believe in intelligent design. Believing that the universe just happened by some random accident of absolutely nothing exploding then you don't believe in intelligent design because there was no"intelligence" used in the creation of everything. It's the exact opposite of believing in intelligent design. This is pretty common sense stuff, folks.

If you believe an intelligent being is the architect of the universe then you believe in intelligent design.

I'd say... not exactly.

Intelligent design in common usage is specifically the idea that the biological setup of animals was intelligently made and did not go through the process of evolution.

One can believe an intelligent being is the architect of the universe, but this intelligent being merely set the rules of evolution and natural selection into place, rather than directly designing the result, and that wouldn't be ID.

Like the difference between personally micromanaging everything, and setting some loose guidelines and letting things go on their own.

NewGuy01
...And back to nonsense.

Nah, I'm with Star on this one point- Intelligent Design is opposed to evolution, because it was specifically a term/idea invented as something to try and push evolution out of teaching.

Someone who believes God set Evolution into motion doesn't believe in Intelligent Design, they believe in Thiestic Evolution.

Q, you're back; were you able to get a chance to view my prior response to you today? ( it's about 2 pages back now)
I AM interested in your opinion on this ...

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I understand your point of view. I heavily disagree, though.

Are you at least able to play YouTube clips that are 5 - 7 minutes long?

If you are please click and watch the following. Note that you will need roughly one minute of fortitude to get past the title and opening sequence but that immediately afterward this should start making a surprising amount of sense:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3ibU_SLHCvw

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I understand your point of view. I heavily disagree, though.

Disagree in what sense? In what issues, anything specific?

Saying you disagree, on it's own, doesn't tell me much. I provided a fair amount of data there. Could you be more informative in what part you disagree with and why?

Are you at least able to play YouTube clips that are 5 - 7 minutes long?

What is this video is about, what point do you think it makes, and what 15-second sections (via timecode) wise do you find most interesting?

Or, better yet, put in your own words what the video is about, and simply leave the link as an optional thing if the other person happens to be interested.

In 5-7 minutes, I can read multiple multi-page discussions of full-size posts. Like I said, providing a video with no explanation is not the most effective way to do arguments. It's not that people are afraid of having their ideas challenged, it's that that is a lot of time investment for very little gain, when the same information can be conveyed much faster.

Going from the title, it's about Saturn and it's place in the world. Saturn, as mentioned, was very visible to the naked eye, and thus it was a major figure in astronomy. Much as one would expect from one of the very brightest objects in the sky and one of the only ones that followed a path.

Originally posted by Surtur
I guess I'll bottom line it: it's not intelligent design to me if you give a name to what is behind everything.
That just makes you wrong.

You don't get to arbitrarily change the definitions of words. 👆

There's a point at which saying a thing takes up valuable time is a cop out. Absolutely I would concede the point when the link was to a full documentary, no matter how well done. 5 minutes, though? That feels absolutely disingenuous.
It probably took you longer to write your response above asking me what the clip is about than to simply watch it.

I disagree heavily with your assertion that people of the past considered the planets lightly. Saturn was so influential that one of OUR days of the week even now is named for it, and at least 2 major world religions (Islam and Judaism) hold it in enough regard that work periods and worship services are scheduled around that day. In the ancient world, people went to lengths that would be unthinkable today, sacrificing human lives to the planet, in a guise that would probably shock you if the narrator can be believed -- and so far I have little reason to believe he shouldn't. It is far out of proportion to what could be expected if Saturn were merely bright and singular in its paths as you assert.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
There's a point at which saying a thing takes up valuable time is a cop out. Absolutely I would concede the point when the link was to a full documentary, no matter how well done. 5 minutes, though? That feels absolutely disingenuous.

Considering you don't even feel it's worth spending the time explaining what the subject is or directly pointing to the good parts, I kinda toss that back to you? You're spending like, no effort on this.


It probably took you longer to write your response above asking me what the clip is about than to simply watch it.

How long do you take you to write...?

It normally takes me maybe a minute or two to write a post (I'll check the time at this one at the end), and the longest post here by others I probably read in 15 seconds. Watching a 6 minute video is a lot more time- and we aren't exactly talking an exciting music video at that.


I disagree heavily with your assertion that people of the past considered the planets lightly.

I never said that, I said that they viewed them as important due to them being highly visible and unusual in the sky.

Initially you said they had great influence despite not being easily visible- I was correcting that, they were always not just visible but easily so.

Meanwhile, the not-so-obvious but still visible planets, Mercury and Uranus, got ignored and not even named til far more recently, showing that even major planets would get no significance attached to them unless they were bright and pretty.

Saturn was so influential that one of OUR days of the week even now is named for it,

That's a bit backwards. The God Saturn was considered very important, so the planet was named for the God, and our calendar was made back when that god was big, and we kept it out of inertia.

. In the ancient world, people went to lengths that would be unthinkable today, sacrificing human lives to the planet, in a guise that would probably shock you if the narrator can be believed -- and so far I have little reason to believe he shouldn't. It is far out of proportion to what could be expected if Saturn were merely bright and singular in its paths as you assert.

I would say it's far more likely that they sacrificed to Saturn because they thought he was a living being who had great sway over day to day life (not that the Romans did much human sacrifice, they were more the type to sacrifice goats).

They didn't know they were planets. All they knew where they were lights in the heavens- and attached significant to that. In some cultures, latching them to things they viewed as massively important for other reasons.

Time of writing: 4 minutes. Hm, longer than I thought... still, that's with checking what you said before, and writing's more fun than watching.