Ostrich wings, Intelligent design. Goofed up?

[dlamberth]

Depends on the context.

Who's saying it?

Satan or God?

A fallen angel, or someone lying?

Context, context, context.

if it was Moses or Jesus?

 

[BCP1928]

Both predictions and estimates are used in the calibration of all of the dating methods. We don’t actually know how long it takes for c14 to decay it’s based on a prediction based on rates we’ve been able to observe. Just like we don’t know exactly how long it takes for radiation to accumulate in different material or how long it actually takes for radioactive isotopes to decay. All of this is based on predictions and estimates based on what we can observe now, not what we observed millions of years ago. Furthermore they incorporate geological predictions and estimates into the calibration process in an attempt to get a more accurate prediction.

And none of those factors (which you think that scientists are overlooking when in fact they are not) are enough to collapse billions of years into six or so thousand

 

[BCP1928]

It can only be called a religion in a very loose sense. Like someone saying the NFL is a religion due to fanaticism, pre-game rituals, icons, etc.

Intelligent Design is a term similar to Cowboy. Two words with a very basic definition. Intelligent Design is simply a being with enough intelligence to design with a purpose. This would include a human being. But because of it being associated with a demonized organization, the term has been glorified to mean something entirely different. Like a religion. And of course in similar fashion, a cowboy is simply a boy who tends to cows. But because of movie westerns, etc., the term has been glorified to mean something different than what it has been morphed into.

In the Dover case the ID being discussed was much more specific than that.

The problem goes much deeper than that. The need for the unnecessary double verdict is plain to see. The judge actually stated that ID might be true, but just not science. If the verdict would have been; ID might be true, just not constitutional, there'd be a problem.

Yes, there are two reasons to exclude that particular version of ID from science classes. 1. It is not science and 2. In that particular case it was being used as a cover to introduce religion into science classes.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Whether you see it as an attack depends on what you mean by "traditional religion" and why you think it should have a unique standing in our culture.

To clarify, the humanists are not violating any law with their manifestos, just as The Discovery Institute is not violating any laws with their wedge document. In other words, both have a right (like any American) to attempt to influence society. So on the one hand I'm simply comparing the humanist's attempt at influencing with DI's attempt at the same, which has nothing to do with the public classroom. On the other hand I'm addressing the illegal nature of the humanists attempting to extend their influence directly into the public classroom.

 

[BCP1928]

The reference was to the common claim that if God created the earth in a mature state, the earth would be lying to us because it would give us a false history, even though 6 day creation is implied in His Word.

Adam and Eve of course would be lying to us to as they would be projecting a false (non-existent) history as well.

I'm sure dlamberth doesn't believe in Adam and Eve, but I never really hear the same claim to A&E giving us a false history being created as adults. Maybe the idea of creating 2 fully mature humans would be more plausible?

If you're asking why did God create 2 fully adult humans; there was a specific purpose that required 2 fully adult humans. The idea of requiring Adam and Eve to have started out as embryos would IMO create more of a "why"?

What was that specific purpose? How do we know?

 

[BCP1928]

To clarify, the humanists are not violating any law with their manifestos, just as The Discovery Institute is not violating any laws with their wedge document. In other words, both have a right (like any American) to attempt to influence society. So on the one hand I'm simply comparing the humanist's attempt at influencing with DI's attempt at the same, which has nothing to do with the public classroom. On the other hand I'm addressing the illegal nature of the humanists attempting to extend their influence directly into the public classroom.

Why is it illegal, when it does nothing more than give all religions as well as atheism, a level intellectual playing field?

 

[Roderick Spode]

In the Dover case the ID being discussed was much more specific than that.

Yes, there are two reasons to exclude that particular version of ID from science classes. 1. It is not science and

Hmmmm.

Do you think they would allow for any other version of ID in a science class?

2. In that particular case it was being used as a cover to introduce religion into science classes.

Which religion?

 

[BNR32FAN]

A metaphor is a comparison of one thing to another for explanatory purposes. The object serving as the basis of the comparison need not be literal.

This doesn’t answer my question at all. Where do you see any indication of a metaphor here?

”When they had brought them outside, one said, “Escape for your life! Do not look behind you, and do not stay anywhere in the valley; escape to the mountains, or you will be swept away.” But Lot said to them, “Oh no, my Lords! Now behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have magnified your lovingkindness, which you have shown me by saving my life; but I cannot escape to the mountains, for the disaster will overtake me and I will die; now behold, this town is near enough to flee to, and it is small. Please, let me escape there (is it not small?) that my life may be saved.” He said to him, “Behold, I grant you this request also, not to overthrow the town of which you have spoken. Hurry, escape there, for I cannot do anything until you arrive there.” Therefore the name of the town was called Zoar. The sun had risen over the earth when Lot came to Zoar. Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven, and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. But his wife, from behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.“
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭19‬:‭17‬-‭26‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[Roderick Spode]

What was that specific purpose? How do we know?

Well, for one.

Genesis 1:26

New International Version​

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”​

 

[BNR32FAN]

And none of those factors (which you think that scientists are overlooking when in fact they are not) are enough to collapse billions of years into six or so thousand

We haven’t dated anything back billions of years, not by the actual dating methods. What you’re referring to is a prediction. You can’t claim scientists aren’t overlooking what they don’t know. That’s the whole reason why the age of the earth and man’s existence has been constantly changing is because they keep finding new information that was previously overlooked.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Why is it illegal, when it does nothing more than give all religions as well as atheism, a level intellectual playing field?

I pasted the quote for Barbarian, but I'll do it again.

In the Humanist Magazine (Jan/Feb, 1983, p. 26), humanist author John Dunphy says:

. . . a viable alternative to [Christianity] must be sought. That alternative is humanism. I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level . . . . The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new . . .. the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism . . . .

It doesn't really matter whether or not you personally like the idea.

 

[BCP1928]

This doesn’t answer my question at all. Where do you see any indication of a metaphor here?

”When they had brought them outside, one said, “Escape for your life! Do not look behind you, and do not stay anywhere in the valley; escape to the mountains, or you will be swept away.” But Lot said to them, “Oh no, my Lords! Now behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have magnified your lovingkindness, which you have shown me by saving my life; but I cannot escape to the mountains, for the disaster will overtake me and I will die; now behold, this town is near enough to flee to, and it is small. Please, let me escape there (is it not small?) that my life may be saved.” He said to him, “Behold, I grant you this request also, not to overthrow the town of which you have spoken. Hurry, escape there, for I cannot do anything until you arrive there.” Therefore the name of the town was called Zoar. The sun had risen over the earth when Lot came to Zoar. Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven, and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. But his wife, from behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.“
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭19‬:‭17‬-‭26‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

I didn't say there was a metaphor. All I questioned was the need for the pillar of salt to be an actual historical object to use it as the basis of a metaphor.

 

[BCP1928]

I pasted the quote for Barbarian, but I'll do it again.

In the Humanist Magazine (Jan/Feb, 1983, p. 26), humanist author John Dunphy says:

. . . a viable alternative to [Christianity] must be sought. That alternative is humanism. I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level . . . . The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new . . .. the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism . . . .

It doesn't really matter whether or not you personally like the idea.

Apparently it doesn't matter if I don't think Dunphy speaks for all humanists, either.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Both predictions and estimates are used in the calibration of all of the dating methods. We don’t actually know how long it takes for c14 to decay it’s based on a prediction based on rates we’ve been able to observe.

Yes we do. C14, like all radioisotopes, decays in an exponential fashion. The number of nuclei that decay in any time interval is proportional to the number that are in the sample. That ratio gives the decay constant. C14 decay has been measured as have the decay rates used in the actual measurements of the age of the Earth.

Just like we don’t know exactly how long it takes for radiation to accumulate in different material or how long it actually takes for radioactive isotopes to decay.

The radiation doesn't "accumulate. The decay particles (alpha, beta, or gamma) are abosorbed or blocked shortly after emission. (That's why it is called "active" -- it emits particles.) And to repeat -- the radioisotope decay rates are measured in the laboratory.

All of this is based on predictions and estimates based on what we can observe now, not what we observed millions of years ago.

The actual properties of nuclear decays are based on the properties of the strong and weak nuclear reactions. They are not observed to change. Evidence of the operating "normally" can be seen in distant stars and galaxies.

Furthermore they incorporate geological predictions and estimates into the calibration process in an attempt to get a more accurate prediction.

 

[BCP1928]

Hmmmm.

Do you think they would allow for any other version of ID in a science class?

The generalized notion that "someone designed" is not science, doesn't even pretend to be.

Which religion?

Which religion did you mean when you denounced humanism as an attack on "traditional religion?"

 

[BCP1928]

Well, for one.

Genesis 1:26​

​

New International Version​

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”​

That certainly tells us God's purpose in creating mankind. It doesn't tell us why he had to create mankind initially in the form of two adult humans in order that they fulfill that purpose.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's parse this OP:

So for the Creationists, whats the deal with Ostrich wings? They cant fly, but fit well within Evolutionary Theory. Intelligent design? Maybe God accidentaly added a too many numbers on his calculater when he was trying to calculate the correct weight and wing ratio for optimum flight performance.

GOOD QUESTION: So for the Creationists, whats the deal with Ostrich wings?
ANSWER: They aren't wings; they are rudders.

STATEMENT: They can't fly, but fit well within Evolutionary Theory.
ANSWER: I agree they can't fly, and inserting this error (that they're wings) into evolutionary theory is a mistake.

GOOD QUESTION: Intelligent design?
ANSWER: Designed intelligently.

QUESTION MEANT TO RIDICULE GOD: Maybe God accidentally added too many numbers on His calculator when He was trying to calculate the correct weight and wing ratio for optimum flight performance?
ANSWER: Notice how trying to inject science into God's creation has led to: 1) an anatomical mistake; which then led to 2) ridicule of God?

And you wonder why some people treat science the way they do?

Almost three hundred posts now, and this junk science is still being discussed.

Par for the course, if you ask me.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I didn't say there was a metaphor. All I questioned was the need for the pillar of salt to be an actual historical object to use it as the basis of a metaphor.

I understand and I wasn’t implying that you were but there are people here on CF that do say such things. Right now I’m in a discussion on another thread with a person that claims implies that Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt by a meteor. Apparently his logic is that because a meteor can flash boil sea water that would leave behind salt and this could explain how Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt. This same person also claims that Jesus didn’t actually walk on water, He was walking on ice and apparently Peter wasn’t skilled at walking on icebergs which is why he fell in. This person also claims to have extensive study in DNA and the Hebrew language from a university but judging by these explanations he’s given I’m highly doubtful. I would expect that anyone with that level of education would have at least some understanding of what a meteor would do to a human body.

 

[Roderick Spode]

The generalized notion that "someone designed" is not science, doesn't even pretend to be.

You mean as in, someone designing a sweater is not science?

Well humans practice intelligent design in laboratories when attempting to recreate a big bang, create synthetic embryos, theoretical physicists draw blue prints for potentially creating mini-universes with life.

Which religion did you mean when you denounced humanism as an attack on "traditional religion?"

I'm a bit confused. Where did I denounce humanism?

 

[BCP1928]

Let's parse this OP:



GOOD QUESTION: So for the Creationists, whats the deal with Ostrich wings?
ANSWER: They aren't wings; they are rudders.

STATEMENT: They can't fly, but fit well within Evolutionary Theory.
ANSWER: I agree they can't fly, and inserting this error (that they're wings) into evolutionary theory is a mistake.

GOOD QUESTION: Intelligent design?
ANSWER: Designed intelligently.

QUESTION MEANT TO RIDICULE GOD: Maybe God accidentally added too many numbers on His calculator when He was trying to calculate the correct weight and wing ratio for optimum flight performance?
ANSWER: Notice how trying to inject science into God's creation has led to: 1) an anatomical mistake; which then led to 2) ridicule of God?

And you wonder why some people treat science the way they do?

Almost three hundred posts now, and this junk science is still being discussed.

Par for the course, if you ask me.

Yes, it's Pluto all over again. Or Plato, more to the point.