Intelligent Design isn’t intelligent

Subduction Zone said:

That appears to be you here. The Bible not only describes Tyre as an island, if you read the full passage you will also see Ezekiel admit that Tyre did not fall. He then made another failed prophecy.

Click to expand...

Are we done now?

AV1611VET said:

Are we done now?

Click to expand...

I doubt it. You probably have not seen your errors yet. On another site I ran into a Christian with an interesting approach, she argues that prophecy is not storytelling the future, it fails when a Christian takes that stance. It is social commentary.

The Barbarian said:

Since you can't find one, it's a moot point, isn't it?

Click to expand...

why should i give such a fossil if evolution can explain it?

(talk of fossils supposedly 100 million years out of place)

Barbarian suggests:
Since you can't find one, it's a moot point, isn't it?

xianghua said:

why should i give such a fossil if evolution can explain it?

Click to expand...

So you don't have one after all? O.K.

But then, what was all that talk about it?

The Barbarian said:

(talk of fossils supposedly 100 million years out of place)

Barbarian suggests:
Since you can't find one, it's a moot point, isn't it?



So you don't have one after all? O.K.

But then, what was all that talk about it?

Click to expand...

i do have but since you cant make any prediction about your theory its pointless.

xianghua said:

i do have but since you cant make any prediction about your theory its pointless.

Click to expand...

Ah, so you'd show us this information, but the Evil Barbarian won't let you. Got it.

xianghua said:

why should i give such a fossil if evolution can explain it?

Click to expand...

If you can't support your claims via the scientific method then they fall into the worthless category of "Not even wrong". By not doing so you are in effect claiming that your beliefs are even worse than wrong ideas. You see in the sciences when one learns that one is wrong one often gets a clue as to the right answer. Your thoughts do not even do that.

Subduction Zone said:

The problem with the Tyre prophecy is that it did not even come close to coming true. So the odds only confirm what we already knew. It is a failed prophecy. People have to do all sorts of unjustified distortions of both the Bible and of history to support that claim. If one reads the passage without gymnastics it is clear that the prophecy claimed that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat the King of Tyre and destroy the island. That did not happen. In fact Ezekiel admits it later on and makes another failed prophecy, that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Egypt. He never did so.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ. Here's a video I made on the subject.

tas8831 said:

Right - and this is addressed further down - and before this thread was ever started. I have asked you about/explained to you why such an expectation is unwarranted. But I guess that flubs up your 'grand argument.

Click to expand...

I have explained excessively why in this particular discussion, to prove common descent, only a finely graduated chain will work. All...repeat...ALL other arguments no matter how cleverly presented are rooted in similarity arguments. Again similarity can just as easily mean common creator as it can mean common ancestor. Therefore if you are going to ever convince me that common ancestry is a superior theory to a common creator you must... repeat...MUST present me with at least one example of a finely graduated chain of fossils leading from one major form to another -->.<--

BradB said:

Again similarity can just as easily mean common creator as it can mean common ancestor.

Click to expand...

Since there is no way to falsify common creator (via supernaturalism), anything and everything can mean common creator. As an unfalsifiable proposition, it's quite useless in the end.

Conversely, there are specific constraints (owing to hereditary reproduction) that make patterns for common ancestry far more restrictive. And yet those very same patterns are what is observed in the history of life on Earth.

So either a creator decided to independently create a bunch of organisms carefully mimicking what we would expect from evolution... or life evolved.

BradB said:

No I am merely saying the Bible describes special creation and the observable science actually collaborates with it. That's what you are not grasping here. We are in a discussion as to rather or not biblical special creation occurred.

Click to expand...

It's still an unfalsifiable proposition though. That is what you are not grasping here.

Unless you specifically have constraints with which to test ideas, the ideas aren't particularly useful. Scientific ideas are tested with respect to the universe itself (the assumption being the universe is inherently objective).

However, the moment you invoke supernaturalism, you have removed those constraints and any ideas you put forth cannot be tested.

ou see if the Bible, or any other religious document, were truly inspired by an all powerful all knowing God then it would agree with known science, history, be inconsistency free, and one hundred percent prophetically accurate.

Click to expand...

This is a completely unwarranted assumption. After all, who is to say that an all powerful, all knowing God couldn't create something that didn't agree with history, science or be full of inconsistencies? You'd have no way of knowing that other than making completely arbitrary assumptions.

(Besides, the Bible clearly does not agree with history and science from a literalist POV. It reads like a document compiled over the years and based on the relative knowledge level of the time.)

Have you ever had a fish aquarium? Was it placed on a table or possibly built into the wall. Can you imagine two fish arguing over rather their home was naturally formed or intelligently designed? One of the fish could make your exact same claim. But it falls apart by just the fact that even a few obvious design elements can be seen in the makeup of the aquarium.

Click to expand...

This analogy fails since the aquarium is still just an object within an observably bigger universe. And yes, I do have fish and yes, they do observe things beyond the boundary of the aquarium.

With the universe itself, we cannot see past its boundaries. We can't see "outside" our universe.

It doesn't matter if the table and floor and ceiling and walls in the room are "inhospitable" or not.

Click to expand...

Well why not? If you're making an argument about the universe as a whole, then you have to consider the universe as a whole. The universe does not seem like it was made explicitly to support life.

If you just want to talk about the Earth itself, then any arguments about "fine tuning" is post-hoc fallacy.

From the beginning of the tank, the fish keeper's invisible nature is clearly seen being observed by the tanks make up, so that all the fish are without excuse.

Click to expand...

Except the fish keeper isn't invisible. My fish actively observe me and respond to my physical presence.

Your aquarium analogy fails on multiple levels.

BradB said:

I beg to differ. Here's a video I made on the subject.

Click to expand...

Hmmm...
"No, Tyre was not destroyed by Nebuchanezzar, as Ezekiel predicted. It continued on until it was destroyed by Alexander the great."

"Wait, I made a video!"

You Tube doesn't actually change reality. Might seem like it...

BradB said:

I have explained excessively why in this particular discussion, to prove common descent, only a finely graduated chain will work.

Click to expand...

Your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise gave you numerous examples, of finely graduated chains, which he admitted are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." No point in denying it. I can show you again if you like.

All...repeat...ALL other arguments no matter how cleverly presented are rooted in similarity arguments.

Click to expand...

You've already been shown that your "similarity" argument won't work. Similarity isn't necessarily a sign of common descent, but homology is. Would you like me to explain that again, to you?

Again similarity can just as easily mean common creator as it can mean common ancestor.

Click to expand...

This is why you keep walking into walls here; you don't even know what it is you're trying to fight. You keep making up weird ideas and insisting other people believe them.

Therefore if you are going to ever convince me that common ancestry is a superior theory to a common creator

Click to expand...

Yep. Like that. No wonder you hate evolution; I'd hate it too, if I thought it was like that.

you must... repeat...MUST present me with at least one example of a finely graduated chain of fossils leading from one major form to another -->.<--

Click to expand...

Already done. Wise showed you. If all you've got left is denying what other creationists have shown you, I guess you're done here.

BradB said:

I have explained excessively why in this particular discussion, to prove common descent, only a finely graduated chain will work.

Click to expand...

Then you have explained only your ignorance of several fields of science.

All...repeat...ALL other arguments no matter how cleverly presented are rooted in similarity arguments.

Click to expand...

Repeat it all you need to - it is still naive and disingenuous. You keep ignoring - probably purposefully - context.

Again similarity can just as easily mean common creator as it can mean common ancestor.

Click to expand...

So you keep claiming.

Tell us all about how your constrained creator made sharks and dolphins and mesosaurs.

Therefore if you are going to ever convince me that common ancestry is a superior theory to a common creator you must... repeat...MUST present me with at least one example of a finely graduated chain of fossils leading from one major form to another -->.<--

Click to expand...

WHY????

Did you not understand ANYTHING I wrote? Are you this dense in real life, or only when discussing your precious tribal creation myths?


A reminder as to what you just ignored in order for your naive, ignorance-based fantasy to have merit:

WHY do you think you should see such a thing?

In order for your position to be valid, we should expect:

1. ALL things that lived had to have fossilized in sufficient numbers that finding them is a reasonable expectation
2. Once the fossils are formed, they should remain in situ, undisturbed, unaffected by geological forces for all time
3. a human should actually have already found them all, examined and classified and catalogued them
4. all physical changes MUST proceed by small gradations
5. all developmental genetic modules must only affect physical features such that any changes occur via small increments

Can you provide a rationale and justification for ANY of those?

As I have presented to you previously - a prime example of how a change in a gene involved with development can make, by your standards, a large leap in a single generation - a mutation in the FGFR-3 gene in humans produces an achondroplastic child - a child with dwarfism. And as I have explained, dwarfism is NOT just being short, but it involves alterations to limb length and proportions, alterations to the cranial skeleton, loss of interphalangeal joints, etc.
All in 'one leap', all at once, in one generation, because of a single point mutation. AND achonroplastic people can reproduce with normal phenotype humans, and some of their offspring will be achondroplastic.


So, let's look at your sail backed dinosaur claim - can you guarantee the following:

1. ALL sail backed dinosaurs and their ancestors fossilized
2. ALL of these fossils have been found
3. It has been shown that there is no developmental genetic process that could have produced the sail in a short period of time

I'm guessing not? So the real question is, what, exactly, are you premising your argument on?

Tell me about the time you SAW a mutation in the FGFR-3 gene occur, then tell me all about how you SAW how this altered embryonic and fetal development.


No, you don't need a PhD in genetics or paleontology, but it would help if you bothered to try to understand the subjects a little bit before making grand pronouncements in the fields.
It would also help if you held your own position to the same standards you hold everything else. Funny how creationists never, ever, do that.

If evolution was totally, 100% refuted this very day, bible-style creation would STILL be a myth with ZERO actual evidence in its support.



Clearly, you think you have a major 'gotcha' for evolution. Clearly, you think your demands must be met. Clearly, you have foolishly hung your hat on this 'argument' of yours having merit, lest your 'faith' be demolished.

And that is YOUR problem, nobody else's.

Learn some genetics and development. Learn some taphonomy. THEN make an argument.

The Barbarian said:

Hmmm...
"No, Tyre was not destroyed by Nebuchanezzar, as Ezekiel predicted. It continued on until it was destroyed by Alexander the great."

"Wait, I made a video!"

You Tube doesn't actually change reality. Might seem like it...

Click to expand...

Hm Hm Hmmm
Hm Hm Hmmm
Hmmm Hm Hmmmm Hm Hmmmm
Hmm Hmm Hmmm Hm Hm Hm Hmmm
Hm Hm Hmmm Hmm Hm Hm Hmmmmm

BradB said:

Concerning the mainland town, however, Kenrick concludes : "That he (Nebuchadnezzar) took and destroyed Palae-Tyrus cannot be doubted, as it remained a ruin to the time of Alexander, and no other event than the attack of Nebuchadnezzar can be alleged as the cause of its being in this state."

Click to expand...

The old city, known as Ushu, was founded c. 2750 BCE and the trade centre grew up shortly after. In time, the island complex became more prosperous and populated than Ushu
Tyre

Ushu (in the Amarna Letters Usu) was an ancient mainland city that supplied the city of Tyre with water, supplies and burial grounds. Its name was based upon the mythical figure Usoos or Ousoüs, a descendant of Genos and Genea whose children allegedly discovered fire, as recorded by Sanchuniathon (Sankunyaton).[1]
Ushu - Wikipedia

Tyre (meaning "the rock") was a separate city offshore from Ushu. Nebuchanezzar destroyed Ushu, but was unable to take Tyre. Much later, Alexander the Great destroyed Tyre.

The Barbarian said:

The old city, known as Ushu, was founded c. 2750 BCE and the trade centre grew up shortly after. In time, the island complex became more prosperous and populated than Ushu
Tyre

Ushu (in the Amarna Letters Usu) was an ancient mainland city that supplied the city of Tyre with water, supplies and burial grounds. Its name was based upon the mythical figure Usoos or Ousoüs, a descendant of Genos and Genea whose children allegedly discovered fire, as recorded by Sanchuniathon (Sankunyaton).[1]
Ushu - Wikipedia

Tyre (meaning "the rock") was a separate city offshore from Ushu. Nebuchanezzar destroyed Ushu, but was unable to take Tyre. Much later, Alexander the Great destroyed Tyre.

Click to expand...

Are you willing to not only skew what people say in order to claim you have met what they asked for, but now you are also willing to commit historical revisionism just to continue feeling justified in your assault on the Bible? I plead with you friend, repent and receive God's grace and mercy through His only begotten Son Jesus Christ.

BradB said:

Are you willing to not only skew what people say in order to claim you have met what they asked for, but now you are also willing to commit historical revisionism just to continue feeling justified in your assault on the Bible? I plead with you friend, repent and receive God's grace and mercy through His only begotten Son Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

@The Barbarian is catholic. He's already done that.

Barbarian observes:
The old city, known as Ushu, was founded c. 2750 BCE and the trade centre grew up shortly after. In time, the island complex became more prosperous and populated than Ushu
Tyre

Ushu (in the Amarna Letters Usu) was an ancient mainland city that supplied the city of Tyre with water, supplies and burial grounds. Its name was based upon the mythical figure Usoos or Ousoüs, a descendant of Genos and Genea whose children allegedly discovered fire, as recorded by Sanchuniathon (Sankunyaton).[1]
Ushu - Wikipedia

Tyre (meaning "the rock") was a separate city offshore from Ushu. Nebuchanezzar destroyed Ushu, but was unable to take Tyre. Much later, Alexander the Great destroyed Tyre.

BradB said:

Are you willing to not only skew what people say in order to claim you have met what they asked for

Click to expand...

As you realize, even honest YE creationists admit what I showed you. There's really no point in you denying it. Find a way to live with reality.

but now you are also willing to commit historical revisionism

Click to expand...

You were the one who renamed Ushu "Tyre", when you knew that Tyre was actually an island offshore from Ushu.

Instead of misrepresenting the Bible, why not just take it as it is. There's no point in trying to switch names for the two cities. As you know, "Tyre" means "rock", meaning the rocky island on which it was founded.

I plead with you friend, repent and receive God's grace and mercy through His only begotten Son Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

If you profess to follow Him, don't dishonor him with deceptive behavior.

BradB said:

I have explained excessively why in this particular discussion, to prove common descent, only a finely graduated chain will work. All...repeat...ALL other arguments no matter how cleverly presented are rooted in similarity arguments. Again similarity can just as easily mean common creator as it can mean common ancestor. Therefore if you are going to ever convince me that common ancestry is a superior theory to a common creator you must... repeat...MUST present me with at least one example of a finely graduated chain of fossils leading from one major form to another -->.<--

Click to expand...

Arguing for a "common creator" needs a qualifier. You are arguing for an incompetent common creator since there are examples of bad design in almost all life that only makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. The recurrent laryngeal nerve is an excellent example. Yes, other functions have been added to it, but that is what is predicted by evolution. Those functions need not piggyback on some already existing structure, but since it is there it does get used.