CaliforniaSun
Well-Known Member
Well, that's the thing about facts, most cdesign proponentsists have trouble understanding them.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, that's the thing about facts, most cdesign proponentsists have trouble understanding them.Only an evolutionist can take pride in those examples.
It's not a book, it is 66 books, and its older than 2000 years. But I would not expect you to get bogged down with facts. Evolutionists aren't used to using them.
Interesting but not surprising that so many here chose to overlook the point. The arrogance is accepted even celebrated as science working as it should. What a twisted view and tell tail sign of how the evolutionary process is allowed to work.
Science is often a battlefield.
This is a fine example of drawing a flawed conclusion based on the data.
Think of it as a syllogism:
1. Many great ideas were initially reviled by the establishment and were later proven to be true
2. This idea is reviled by the establishment
3. ERGO: This idea will likely be proven true
(word games and shell games) I said nothing of the sort but twisting words and ideas is a fine art around here.
It doesn't follow. Should we assume the TimeCube guy is "onto something" because almost no one thinks he's sane or rational? Probably not.
Intelligent Design is an almost purely unfalsifiable hypothesis.
The IDist usually relies on a couple of tools:
1. The appearance of design
2. The statistical likelihood of a structure arising from random chance.
The first can be thought of as putting the cart before the horse. Remember a creature will only thrive in an environment where it can thrive. It will die in an environment which would kill it. Ergo if an organism adapts to survive in a given environment it will end up looking like it was "designed" for that environment. Kind of like a puddle of water in the ground. Was the hole made to fit the shape of the water or vice versa?
The second is nice, but not how evolution works. Perhaps when discussing the origins of life one can deal in more "random" statistics, but then when the origins are discussed chemically statistical factors come into play anyway. We use stochastic explanations for many things in chemistry. Reactions not the least of them!
(The more random, the better for evolution)
Evolution tends to bias the outcome, meaning that adaptations are hardly all just random changes.
Science is self-correcting. Why? Because the ideas that work work.
(self correcting? good one. Try suppressive and arrogant)
It's sad that some great scientists didn't get their just desserts at the time they came up with the idea. But great ideas should be trialed by fire. They can't be shouted onto the stage and even "black holes" cannot be legislated into acceptance by the scientists.
)Trialed by fire. What fantasy are you living in. They were dismissed and ignored, their ideas buried. Wait while I go get my boots on, it's getting pretty deep)
Human endeavors are what they are because we fight for our understanding. (speeking of deep)
And yes there are people who will not accept a new idea no matter what. It is true in all walks of life. Even good ideas!
So you and yours keep working on intelligent design and developing the hypothesis. Who knows....maybe someday someone will provide sufficient evidence for God that "ID" becomes common sense.
But just don't assume it will get traction because you can find examples where good ideas were overlooked in the past. Remember that people have been trying to "find" this "Intelligent Designer" for millenia. And we've got about 15 zillion different versions of him/her/it. And none of them are sufficient to displace the others using evidence.
What was the point of your post then, if not to suggest that because all of these other previously ridiculed theories were later accepted, ID should be accepted as well?3. ERGO: This idea will likely be proven true
(word games and shell games) I said nothing of the sort but twisting words and ideas is a fine art around here.
No, not really. Evolution is selective, not random.(The more random, the better for evolution)
Then why were all of these theories later accepted? ID and creationism are far more arrogant and suppressive than science.(self correcting? good one. Try suppressive and arrogant)
And later accepted when they had enough evidence to convince enough people. That's what we call "trial by fire." Don't put away your boots yet though - I think that hole you're digging is about to hit the water table.)Trialed by fire. What fantasy are you living in. They were dismissed and ignored, their ideas buried. Wait while I go get my boots on, it's getting pretty deep)
How is this any different from your last list of previously ridiculed, later accepted, theories?
3500 years old. Your not going to understand the 2000 year old NT if you do not understand what Moses wrote 3500 years ago.particular interpretation of a 2000 year old book, is in fact its greatest strength.
Gorilla Genome Researchers Fall Back to Weaker Arguments for
"A whopping 30% of the gorilla genome--amounting to hundreds of millions of base pairs of gorilla DNA--contradicts the standard supposed evolutionary phylogeny of great apes and humans. That's the big news revealed last week with the publication of the sequence of the full gorilla genome. But there's a lot more to this story"
You should leave the implications to the experts. You guys are doing it wrong!
Whats the difference between the Institute for Creation Research and the Discovery Institute?
March 14, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Nothing. Nothing at all.
The ICR is a young earth creationist organization; we know theyre a bunch of anti-scientific loons. The Discovery Institute claims to be pursuing an evidence-based scientific theory about lifes origins. So why is the DI echoing the ICRs totally bogus claim that 30% of the Gorilla Genome Contradicts the Supposed Evolutionary Phylogeny of Humans and Apes?
The bottom line is that the gorilla genome has confirmed that there is not a consistent story of common ancestry coming from the genomes of the great apes and humans. Hundreds of millions of base pairs in the gorilla genome conflict with the supposed phylogeny of great apes and humans. They might think their explanation salvages common ancestry, but clearly the gorilla genome data badly messes up the supposedly nice, neat, tidy arguments which they use to claim humans are related to the great-apes.Thats breathtakingly wrong. Ive already explained that incomplete lineage sorting is an expected outcome of evolutionary theory (see also Joe Felsensteins complementary explanation of the same phenomenon). There is a consistent explanation; coalescence does not represent a conflict with the phylogeny; the gorilla genome data does not mess up any arguments of common descent. That the Discovery Institute will so baldly mangle the evidence and distort its conclusions shows how dishonest or incompetent the organization is.
The article is by Casey Luskin, which does tilt the interpretation in the direction of incompetence. What a clown.
Slee Z myers has a personal agenda and easily fits the character of those arrogant suppressors of history past, who has a personal problem with DI and Casey inparticular. I guess because Casey takes him apart regularly. Giant egos hate that. He is far from non bias. A man pretty pleased with himself.
.
Gorilla Genome Researchers Fall Back to Weaker Arguments for
Common Ancestry
"A whopping 30% of the gorilla genome--amounting to hundreds of millions of base pairs of gorilla DNA--contradicts the standard supposed evolutionary phylogeny of great apes and humans. That's the big news revealed last week with the publication of the sequence of the full gorilla genome. But there's a lot more to this story"
My blog and website will continue to have current uncensored news and information regarding Intelligence and Anti-Intelligence.
What point am I supposed to have overlooked?
What was the point of your post then, if not to suggest that because all of these other previously ridiculed theories were later accepted, ID should be accepted as well?
No, not really. Evolution is selective, not random.
Then why were all of these theories later accepted? ID and creationism are far more arrogant and suppressive than science.
And later accepted when they had enough evidence to convince enough people. That's what we call "trial by fire." Don't put away your boots yet though - I think that hole you're digging is about to hit the water table.
How is this any different from your last list of previously ridiculed, later accepted, theories?
The point was how closed minded science is to new ideas. How inflexible and dogmatic.
So it appears that idscience is trying to say that because ID is a currently rejected and ridiculed theory and other past rejected and ridiculed theories have later become accepted, then we should just skip a few steps and accept ID.
That is your logic, no?
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. All of these formerly rejected and ridiculed theories were accepted because the evidence for them grew to the point that it was obvious that they were true. ID hasn't even come close to that. First of all, it is non-testable (as pointed out many times already in this thread). No one has yet to pose a successful test for design and the results can't be repeated since none of us is this "Intelligent Designer" (aka God). Second, the majority of your arguments consist of "well, evolution can't explain it, so it must have been designed." I hate to break it to you, but logic doesn't work like that.
So you must be an "evolutionist" then, since you're using those examples as grounds to have ID accepted. ID would then become one of those examples, and you take pride in ID, right?
What does the exact age and number of books have to do with anything? I'll restate:
"A whole bunch of examples of science not only correcting its mistakes, but honoring the people in involved. Once again, what you see as a weakness of science because of your slavish devotion to a particular interpretation of 66 really old books."
Happy now?
True, but the theory of evolution also makes predictions, which are testable and observable, and, by and large, they've proven correct.
The only testable part of evolution that is proven is variation within species. I include speciation, in there because of it marginal and conflicting definition. Outside of speciation there are no tests. In this article it says;
punctuated patterns, with periods of rapid speciation followed by long-term stasis of species lineages."Which we all recognise "rapid evolution" as no evidence was left behind. Could ID get away with such a statement? "We have no evidence so it must have happend to fast". don't think so. Sounds an awfull lot like another canned statement anti-intelligent people say though.
All of which consist of Goddidit, a non-testable hypothesis.
All ready answered
Show me one place where evolution has predicted that dogs can evolve into cats.
Really? Where are you getting this stuff. And you wonder why I am not answering you?
You should be careful about who you call Godless.
And it could apply just as equally to you. Again, I do, in fact, believe in God. I kindly ask you to stop stating otherwise.
My comment was general, it was not meant for your personally.
It has nothing to do with atheism, at least not for me. I simply see evolution as a way of better understanding the world.
Evolution has everything to do with atheism. What is it about it's definition don't you understand? Just because you have co-opted it doesn't change that fact. Evolution compromises God's word. On several levels it says that the word of God is wrong on some points. When you go there, it is no longer a light, because you now have to deside what you will believe and what you won't.
"Goddidit" is not enough for me - I want to know how.
You are going to one disappointed individual. I don't know how long you have been a believer, but God doesn't tell us lots of things. Why our brother died, or child, why our job was lost or people are allowed to go hungry and children beaten.
God told you how you got here, evolution says he is a liar, you are believing evolution and not God? Or, your are not believing he has left us a correct record and bible to follow. Which is it for you?
What if Abraham told God to forget it unless he layed out his plan first? or Moses, or king David, or Josheph? or a hundred others in scripture.
When you actually look critically at evolution, and get rid of the all the proof that is agreed about. All that is left is common descent for which there is no evidence outside the variation we see today and inference to similarity in the fossil and genome record. Exlpained by common design. The bible says God created living things in segments of time, man being last. This could account for the layers of fossils. There are many assumptions that have to be made to infer events millions of years ago. Or even to assert it was milllions of years ago. That is information scientists just don't have. The problem isn't evolution, it is questioning the validity of the whole bible by the believer. Either it's right or it isn't. The next thing to question is Jesus. God, or just a good guy. If it's wrong on some points it may be wrong on others.
What will you do if you are around at the end times when the false prophet does his miracles and fools the world into believing he is god? Is that the kind of proof you will accept? or will you stick by the bible? where do you draw the line on where it is correct and where it is ok to question it?
No, one does not suggest the other. This is one of the problems with evolutionists. You are trained to read into data.
All it means is just because main stream science is rejecting ID today, lends no credence to it's legitimacy.
You make it sound like these guys were just put off until riggerous testing could prove their theories. It was plain old censorship and ignorance.
Ok now your just talking down to me, and you want me to be nice to you. As mentioned several time, not everyone thinks there is not test for intelligence. If the current test doesn' t pass muster today, a better more accepted test may arise.
Again as stated before, my arguments for ID are not based on evolutions failure. I am quite sure I will be repeating myself again and again as people don't read the former posts. YOu statement is a canned response that is parroted by anti-intelligent people. A well know tactic to redefine the discussion. Who knows, maybe it has worked on you. Maybe you are ignorant to what ID says.
IF you found a dead body in a room after a tornato, and the body has had some organs missing. Would it be possible to determine if the tornato or an intelligent agent caused the trauma? if the organs were ripped out or surgically removed?
Scientists use tests for intelligence all the time. They may not call it that and someone may not have defined it quantatatively speaking, but certainly it can be determined if intelligence was involved in many areas.
I really don't know how to respond to this. I thought you were joking, accept for the insulting part.
How you connect my post with your first statement excapes me. I am guessing your a young fella. I was equating ID not with the other scientists, who had nothing to do with evolution anyway, but the treatment of their novel theories. Who were dominated by the arrogant mindset of those scientists who were in a position to help and further science instead of stifle it.
No where anywhere in my post did I state anything even remotely close to suggesting ID should be accepted because those on my list were not. You are not reading what is being said, your responses are colored by your bias, and only condidering what you expect me to say or perceive me to say. I don't know which.
You statement about science some how redeemed itself by redicovering something that whs brought to them 30 and 40 years earlier doesn't impress me. How many other ideas were squashed and have not been rediscovered? all this talk about science being skeptical and scientists only follow evidence is nonsense. Science is as political as anything else, and ID is suffering for that today.
For those who are reading and not participating in this thread because of the ridicule and insulting remarks you will receive from the Atheists, that's ok.
(emphasis added)There are clear lines of separation within the animal kingdom. That is why we don’t see enumerable animals that are indistinguishable from other animals through out the animal kingdom. Cats, dogs, horses, fish, birds insects, primates, humans. All separate and distinct. If evolution had a foot to stand on, there would be a smooth line of animals from the last most common ancestor to now
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?