What is ID?

[Jordan Mays]

Jordan, do you mind fixing your quote tags please?

We call it proofreading, and I would think those who preach education would practice it.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean, can't you read the post? it looks OK to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, your point?

My point is:

Don't tell me ...

There is no connection between X and Y until a connection has been demonstrated.

... when you know as well as I do that a connection can be established well-before it is demonstrated.

You say there is no connection between X and Y until demonstrated ... and I totally disagree.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hitler was a Christian. See I can play that game too.

And with this, I'm finished for now.

 

[Skreeper]

You say there is no connection between X and Y until demonstrated ... and I totally disagree.

Maybe I should have been clearer. I though it was obvious I was not actually claiming that a demonstration creates the connection.

What I meant was: You are not justified in believing that there is a connection between X and Y until it has been demonstrated.

 

[Skreeper]

And with this, I'm finished for now.

I'm looking forward to the next non-sequitur hour with you.

 

[Jordan Mays]

Bumper stickers, holidays, edifices, martyrs ... etc.

You forgot days of the week unless they came from the wrong God? however they were all devised and made up by men with not a God in sight.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's right science changes everytime we learn something new, would you rather it didn't? if it didn't then you and I would more than likely not be alive today.

And we most certainly wouldn't be having this conversation either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

if I would have DNA'd my parents while they were still alive, and at the same time some alien would have answered our Aricebo message,* then suddenly they would be equal claims, wouldn't they?

Indeed. It seems you finally figured out how evidence works.

Or did you?

 

[AV1611VET]

You forgot days of the week ...

No, I didn't forget the days of the week.

... unless they came from the wrong God?

They attest to fallen angels.

however they were all devised and made up by men with not a God in sight.

You were there?

You must have a lot more accounts than I give you credit for!

 

[Jimmy D]

Not on your life.



ID = Identification in my case.



Surely you aren't saying that is the officially accepted definition?
To me, and if you will forgive my candidousity...it's reference to creation with an intelligent designer, as opposed to stupid design, meaning no intelligence required.

Great, we can add ID to the list of things you know nothing about. That definition came from the Discovery Institute, as close to the 'official' proponents for ID as you can get You seem to be referring to good old traditional Creationism which I have no interest in discussing with you in this thread

 

[Jimmy D]

as i said: it may be evidence that those are a different creation events. but also remember that till 2010 all tetrapods fossils date no more then 375my. till we found one date about 400.

Is that a prediction of the ID 'model' or is it an ad hoc explaination after the fact?

Which 'theory' do you think explains the facts better... Evolution or ID?

 

[Jimmy D]

No, I didn't forget the days of the week.They attest to fallen angels.You were there?

You must have a lot more accounts than I give you credit for!

Seeing as I started the thread I feel I'm entitled to politely ask you to take your off-topic nonsense elsewhere. Thanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

Seeing as I started the thread I feel I'm entitled to politely ask you to take your off-topic nonsense elsewhere. Thanks.

Mind if I answer questions put to me along the way? or should I just ignore them?

 

[xianghua]

Is that a prediction of the ID 'model' or is it an ad hoc explaination after the fact?

Which do you think 'theory' do you think explains the facts better... Evolution or ID?

its actually a prediction. we know that under the id model we will find a lot of out of order fossils. and we indeed found such.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

its actually a prediction. we know that under the id model we will find a lot of out of order fossils. and we indeed found such.

What do you mean by "out of order" in context of the "id model"?

And could you also properly formulate what that prediction is exactly + explain how that prediction naturally follows from the model? Thanks.

 

[xianghua]

What do you mean by "out of order" in context of the "id model"?

And could you also properly formulate what that prediction is exactly + explain how that prediction naturally follows from the model? Thanks.

if creatures arent the result of a common descent then we need to find in many cases examples of non-hierarchy. the appendix is a good example: we can find many appendix without a hierarchial pattern in nature. and because of this fact scientists claim that the appendix suppose to evolve about 30 times convergently.

 

[Jimmy D]

if creature arent the result of a common descent then we need to find in many cases examples of non-hierarchy. the appendix is a good example: we can find many appendix without a hierarchial pattern in nature. and because of this fact scientists claim that the appendix suppose to evolve about 30 times convergently.

That has got absolutely nothing to do with TM's question (one which I was just about to ask had he not got there first).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

if creature arent the result of a common descent then we need to find in many cases examples of non-hierarchy. the appendix is a good example: we can find many appendix without a hierarchial pattern in nature. and because of this fact scientists claim that the appendix suppose to evolve about 30 times convergently.

As Jimmy D pointed out, you're not addressing my questions at all.

Please try again. Just reply to that post once more, and this time: try to actually directly address what I'm asking about.

 

[xianghua]

As Jimmy D pointed out, you're not addressing my questions at all.

Please try again. Just reply to that post once more, and this time: try to actually directly address what I'm asking about.

if all creatures are the result of creation then we should not expect to find hierarchy in a lots of shared traits between species. like we see in the real human design world.

 

[Jimmy D]

if all creatures are the result of creation then we should not expect to find hierarchy in a lots of shared traits between species. like we see in the real human design world.

If you can't answer the question just say so and retract your assertion that the ID 'model' makes predictions about the fossil record.

A reminder....

its actually a prediction. we know that under the id model we will find a lot of out of order fossils. and we indeed found such.

What do you mean by "out of order" in context of the "id model"?

And could you also properly formulate what that prediction is exactly + explain how that prediction naturally follows from the model?