Are creationists returning to their YEC roots?

Let me begin by saying I admire your collective knowledge and have a respect for many of your varied abilties and willingness to share information. That is of great vallue.You are an amusing bunch. You are all indeed intelligent enough to understand the nature of the argument.
The cliche that resides here has an agenda to point out technical errors in peoples thinking on this subject. The implications of why you are obsessed with this is disturbing.
Those that believe in ID or creationism do so for reasons that have nothing to do with science. Even though you are aware of this and know that no matter what you say it will not change thier view, you still foolishly persist.
You are all aware of the role religious teaching has taken in societies.Yet you revel like little children in the pointless arguments you make.
Debate for debates sake is just a foolish game.So tell me in your own words what exactly is the point or purpose of getting technical on the bible or any other religious teachings? Your aproach has not led to an uderstanding of any kind.
Now if this sight were to encourage a technical look at religious writings while recognising the solid social values they all have in common I might have some respect for the lot of you. This tells me that what motivates you is disturbing or you are truly highly educated fools.This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 03-04-2006 10:37 AMThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-04-2006 09:41 AM

There are many here who use "science" to argue thier philosophical views. In fact most here I have seen have manifested such behavior.

All evidence must be interpreted. Some bring a straight foreward conclusion. Much does not. This is the case only for this group of people. It is not the case for the concept itself. The concept itself simply looks into the question of intelligence in the process. It is an idea quite worthy of scientific pursuit. Up there with the SETI project.

What difference? They are the same. Things are what they are. It is all in how we look at them. Since when does natural exclude design? How is it separate from nature? We have this misconception that we are not natural? Nature has the ability to design. We are natural. We are not the only life form that designs. Intelligence and design are natural. They are a property of the process.We are not even sure where a boudary for intelligence or intelligent design exists or if there even is one. All things learn in some form or another. Cells learned to replicate. We simply learn on a different level. How you look at things makes all the difference in what you can find. Evidence of countless things are all around us. It is asking the right questions...to do this one must look at them differently. Hence philosophy. Yes. It's where it belongs at this time. I do not think the world is ready for "scientific" proof of such a thing. However my above statements are pretty natural.

Time is a concept.

There is no difference. No, I am saying there is no difference. I do not see it that way. Design is part of evolution. How large a part we do not know. These are very accurate scientific statements. Evolution is a process of adaptation...this whole process may in fact be a learning process. Neither of these are scientific statements. You have drawn mental boundaries where they do not necessarily exist. shortened link
http://www.biology.arizona.edu/Cell_bio/cell_bio.html
Top Health News and Guidance for the 50+
http://www.nimr.mrc.ac.uk/millhillessays/1996/morphgen.htmTry googling "how cells learn" http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/virus/page.html
Error
These links simply show how incomplete our knowledge is in this area.
Is there a line? If we are to look scientifically at the whole process then we must realise we are not the benchmark.We are but a step in the process. The earth is not the center of the universe as surely as we are not. Thinking so does not make it so and is not scientific. It is philosophy of a purely scientific nature. You have placed a boundary on what it means to learn. Nature is what it is. Our mistake is placing limits upon a process we are a product of. One needs to consider the entire process as a whole. In doing so, where does intelligence begin? Has it always been present in some form? These are scienctific questions. Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : typo'sEdited by 2ice_baked_taters, : Romoved bad link

There is no other. There is only one. Quite incorrect. Both views acknowledge design and intelligence relating to the process. How they relate is the question.
One makes no claim, the other claims these aspects are driving the process. Through chemical signals like we do. They are not. Really? what proof do you have to counter the evidence I provided in my links? What evidence do you have that supports this? Science has no answers here. I need not. These are sufficient to support my statement.
'Minds' of plants - Washington Times
Learn to shorten your links
http://ard.unl.edu/rn/0397/fungi.htm
http://home.hccnet.nl/v.kleven/engels/allelo.shtml This is an incorrect statement. We are discussing the entire process not your narrow view. One must look at it as a whole and not from one view to be scientific. We are but one small step in the process. Animals in general are another ect... To ingnore this is being very ignorant of the facts.Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

Really? So intelligence is not natural? What evidence supports such a claim? On the contrary. My definition is much more meaningful to evolution as a whole. You need to adjust your definition to include all of the process. Things have evolved. We are but one step in hundreds of millions of years. Do tell. The passing along of information.
It is a natural process.
All living things do it.

Considering we were discussing things within the framework of evolution your statement does not apply. Unless of course you want to include computers within the realm of the evolutionary process. Perhaps to be considered in another topic. An interesting look at the "mechanics" of thought.