Jump to content

"Intelligent" Design


JHAQ
 Share

Recommended Posts

And why does a designer give *us* (who are supposedly made in his image) a crappy retina that's basically on backwards and can detatch and blind us from a slight bump to the head, while this designer gives the octopus the good retina that's on right-way-round and firmly attached. Unless.....

 

All Hail Cthulhu, designer of the Cosmos!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 242
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

By your dismissal of obvious evidence' date=' and your unwillingness to admit you have been wrong when presented with proof, it is clear you will continue to argue against evolution at every opportunity simply to repeat your flawed hypotheses. This takes time away from people who have little to spare, and forces our members to wade through pages of denial and logical fallacies in order to glean the morsels of truth posted by others.

 

It is my recommendation to the administrators that you either be banned from the Biological Sciences part of the forum or simply banned altogether. Science welcomes disputation, but at a certain point pigheadedness in the face of strong evidence can't be tolerated. You've been shown more than enough evidence in this and other instances. It's clear you have closed your mind on this subject.[/quote']

 

There are many IDist creationists besides myself who argue that the fossil record is not sufficient on the web Nevertheless, I'll quit this thread and leave biological sciences to those who are more compatible to what is suitable to the board and more able to articulate in scientific terms. Thanks for the warning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many IDist creationists besides myself who argue that the fossil record is not sufficient on the web Nevertheless, I'll quit this thread and leave biological sciences to those who are more compatible to what is suitable to the board and more able to articulate in scientific terms. Thanks for the warning.

that is one of their very few arguments. none of which are valid. you have been shown that this claim is wrong. if you can't see it, go back to kindergarden and learn to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a wonderful thread, I had a great laugh. My favorite parts: buzsaw asks for a list of transitional species between sarcos and humans, confidently thinking no one could supply such a list, mokele does, buzsaw attempts to ignore it, mokele calls him on it, buzsaw tries to shift the goalposts, then sputters a bit before agreeing to not post about biology anymore. Classic creationist crap, made my day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a wonderful thread, I had a great laugh. My favorite parts: buzsaw asks for a list of transitional species between sarcos and humans, confidently thinking no one could supply such a list, mokele does, buzsaw attempts to ignore it, mokele calls him on it, buzsaw tries to shift the goalposts, then sputters a bit before agreeing to not post about biology anymore. Classic creationist crap, made my day.

 

Laugh at buz.......laugh at Harvard's Gould. I suppose Harvard's prestigious S.J. Gould also needs to go back to kindegarten. LOL!

 

Gould:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record

persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees

that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of

their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the

evidence of fossils. " (Gould S.J., "The Episodic Nature of

Evolutionary Change", "The Panda's Thumb", Penguin: London, 1980,

pp150-151)

 

Gould's predecessor at Harvard, George Gaylord Simpson agrees:

 

"This is true of all thirty-two orders of mammals...The earliest and

most primitive known members of every order already have the basic

ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous

sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is

so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is

speculative and much disputed...This regular absence of transitional

forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal

phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of

almost all classes of animals both vertebrate and invertebrate...

it is true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is

apparently also true of analogous categories of plants." (Simpson

G.G., "Tempo and Mode in Evolution", 1944, pp105,107, in Sunderland

L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems", Master Book

Publishers, El Cajon, CA, revised edition, 1988, p80).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have a response to the Gould quote?

 

I'll respond.

 

 

"... the rest is inference, however reasonable ... 1980.

 

"Gould's predecessor at Harvard, George Gaylord Simpson agrees..." in 1944!

 

Even the more recent quote is a quarter of a century old [2005 - 1980 = 25]; and Gould challenged science in order to advance it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey ID guys, I guess it was Gods perfect plan to have all these genetic deseases like the one shown below. What about viruses, rogue DNA gone wild? I guess we are forgetting Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, sun flares, and I will throw in a few killer asteroids for good measure to prove that the earth is far from a stable and nice place. I dont type these things to offend you, but to make you think.

 

elephantitis2fd.jpg

 

After pondering these points, I really hope you fully read this website with an open mind:

 

Why Atheism?

 

Here is a final thought... Mankind working together has overcome many diseases and problems that plague us. If we stop petty bickering and all work together we can possibly forge a world which would definately be Intelligent Design... Ours. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pêön de ■, your use of the above photo is a Misleading Vividness fallacy. Assuming that a god would have no reason to allow diseases and deformities shows a lack of understanding of religion. It's not a good argument.

After pondering these points, I really hope you fully read this website with an open mind:
From the Why Atheism website:
We’ve seen that there is no reliable evidence that any god exists, especially a personal god of the Christian/Jewish/Muslim type. This typical personal god would show up in its interactions with the real, physical world.
Flawed. It is a bad assumption that a personal god would manifest itself observably. Evidence notwithstanding, it is part of the nature of the personal god that faith is made superfluous by physical evidence.
As I said, there is no empirical evidence of this. Thus, in this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Flawed. This is a Burden of Proof fallacy and is never acceptable. The Christian/Jew/Muslim using this logic could just as easily say that God exists because you can't prove He doesn't.

 

I still maintain that agnosticism is the only stance that agrees with the scientific method. ID is entirely possible but is a religious view and has no bearing on science. ID should not be taught in the schools as an alternative to evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey ID guys' date=' I guess it was Gods perfect plan to have all these genetic deseases like the one shown below. What about viruses, rogue DNA gone wild? I guess we are forgetting Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, sun flares, and I will throw in a few killer asteroids for good measure to prove that the earth is far from a stable and nice place. I dont type these things to offend you, but to make you think.

[/quote']

 

Have you considered the effects on population if there was no disease, natural disasters, the effect this would have on our resources et.c. I'm certainly not a follower of ID or religion, but this is a weak argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you considered the effects on population if there was no disease, natural disasters, the effect this would have on our resources et.c. I'm certainly not a follower of ID or religion, but this is a weak argument.

 

This was not directed towards someone who does not believe in ID, since without ID genetic diseases and other things I mentioned would have a nice place in society in general, survival of the fittest, and makes sense.

 

 

"Assuming that a god would have no reason to allow diseases and deformities shows a lack of understanding of religion. It's not a good argument."

 

I was mainly gearing my argument towards those that believe in the Jewish/Muslim/Christian God. Its clear through the religeous texts this god portrays himself as being a "loving caring" god, one which I could not concieve of allowing such things to permiate. I was actually a staunch christian my entire life until recently, and studied arduously the bible in that light, so I would assume I know some things regarding religeous beliefs. I have yet to find a decent reason as to why God allows such things to occur, and a good explanation as to what will happen to all previous intelligent life such as Neanderthal and why such intelligent beings are not mentioned in the bible, or being mentioned as having any sort of salvation. My only conclusion is that the biblical writers knew nothing of these beings, thus excluded them from the text due to ignorance.

 

"Flawed. It is a bad assumption that a personal god would manifest itself observably. Evidence notwithstanding, it is part of the nature of the personal god that faith is made superfluous by physical evidence. "

 

To think it is part of his nature to make faith superflous by physical evidence is just as much an assumption as mine. Thus your argument is flawed as well.

 

 

"I still maintain that agnosticism is the only stance that agrees with the scientific method. ID is entirely possible but is a religious view and has no bearing on science. ID should not be taught in the schools as an alternative to evolution. "

 

Thank you for being at least semi-reasonable. ;) And forgive me if I am not making sense, I am alittle "drunk" right now and its hard to think with my higher brain at this time. Hehe. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for being at least semi-reasonable. ;) And forgive me if I am not making sense' date=' I am alittle "drunk" right now and its hard to think with my higher brain at this time. Hehe. :D[/quote']

offtopic...

Well I've been guilty of doing some late night posts after the pub et.c Someone always replies before I have time to delete it in the morning ! :)

 

I've decided to stick to viewing as opposed to posting if intoxicated...besides there's a dozen other things I'd rather be doing when drunk.

 

A drunken philosophy thread could prove to be quite humorous though...a tip of the hat, to the speech at the end of Team America. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll respond.

 

 

"... the rest is inference' date=' however [b']reasonable ... 1980[/b].

 

"Gould's predecessor at Harvard, George Gaylord Simpson agrees..." in 1944!

 

Even the more recent quote is a quarter of a century old [2005 - 1980 = 25]; and Gould challenged science in order to advance it.

 

So can you offer an updated refute to the 1980 quote? Has anything changed of any significance? How many gaps have been filled since then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

forgive me if I am not making sense, I am alittle "drunk" right now and its hard to think with my higher brain at this time. Hehe. :D

 

When you're sober, consider that the Biblical record states that there is an evil intelligence in the universe as well as the good, which accounts for the decline, decay and suffering present in the world. This seems to be evidenced by observing things happening on planet earth. This is not an attempt to convince you it exists, but to simply state what the Biblical record teaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So can you offer an updated refute to the 1980 quote? Has anything changed of any significance? How many gaps have been filled since then?

Be specific. What "gaps" were open as of 1980?

 

As an aside, I have actually read "The Panda's Thumb", and I greatly enjoyed it as well. Gould was referring to the relative rarity of your beloved transitionals, meaning that, in terms of all the animal fossils that have been found, studied and classified, a relative few are still missing. This indicates no shortcoming of evolutionary theory, but if you want to point the finger at something blame natural geological processes for destroying the fossils. At any rate, its all moot. There is enough evidence through complete lines of descent, (such as whales and horses and possibly turtles for starters) as well as much, much more varied junk, that evolution (yes, macroevolution too) has occured, is responsible for changes in organisms, and continues to occur as we speak. I will post some links for your benefit, and it is up to you to at least read and address them, although there is still the feeling that you probably won't like what you read here and act like I never took the time out of my day to post this.

 

Transitional Fossils FAQ:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

 

Evidence for "macroevolution" FAQ:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4

 

My favorite, "jury-rigging" in organism anatomy:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be specific. What "gaps" were open as of 1980?

 

I don't know. I'm not a paleontologist. I simply quoted this prestigious scientist who stated that the tree had a lot lacking and large gaps existed. I was being laughed at and as long as people are laughing let Mr. Gould join me in the "box."

 

As an aside' date=' I have actually read "The Panda's Thumb", and I greatly enjoyed it as well. Gould was referring to the [u']relative[/u] rarity of your beloved transitionals, meaning that, in terms of all the animal fossils that have been found, studied and classified, a relative few are still missing. This indicates no shortcoming of evolutionary theory, but if you want to point the finger at something blame natural geological processes for destroying the fossils.

 

That's not how I understood his quote. According to his 1980 quote, at that time there were, according to him, large gaps in the tree which, in his view left a lot unsubstantiated. I doubt that a quarter century has changed his view greatly, but could be wrong. Perhaps a more recent quote may be helpful in determining that.

 

I did read your links and I'm sure if Mr Gish's argument is rejected in T.O. I'm in no way qualified to present an educated argument greater than his. Though your links showed what some considered to be macro transitionals, compared to all that exists in the world of the living, there seems to be a lot to yet be verified, with the links covering relatively, (I say relatively) few examples of what I would expect to be out there to fill all the gaps which Gould was referring to, whatever they were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So can you offer an updated refute to the 1980 quote? Has anything changed of any significance? How many gaps have been filled since then?

 

I don't have to; I am not defending a position. Neither are you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did read your links and I'm sure if Mr Gish's argument is rejected in T.O.

Its not rejected; its dealt with over and over again, and not just on talk.origins. You think we reject tired old arguments out of hand when we are really just tired of refuting them over and over for the amusement of people who never get the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not how I understood his quote. According to his 1980 quote' date=' at that time there were, according to him, large gaps in the tree which, in his view left a lot unsubstantiated. I doubt that a quarter century has changed his view greatly, but could be wrong. Perhaps a more recent quote may be helpful in determining that.

[/quote']

 

 

That's one of the big problems in following what is said in a book rather than developing an actual understanding - you think that it's all about providing a quote. (and, far too often, context be damned). In science, using quotes as ammo is probably the most impotent form of debate.

 

Gould was a proponent of punctuated equlibria, and if you understand that, the context of the quote becomes a lot clearer. You don't expect there to be small, incremental changes between species in many cases. The accumulation of genetic change does not always manifest itself in the fossil record (genotype vs phenotype).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another reason why it pays to actually read the whole book[/i']. Trying to use out of context quotes from ICR can really make one look the fool.

 

Regardless of the context of the book, the quote by this scientifically prestigious author was quite emphatically clear that as for the fossil record, the "tree," in Gould's view consists of branchless "nibs," and a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions being used by evolutionists to make the case for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of the context of the book,

i wan't talking about the context of the book, I was talking about the quote.

 

the quote by this scientifically prestigious author was quite emphatically clear that as for the fossil record, the "tree," in Gould's view consists of branchless "nibs," and a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions being used by evolutionists to make the case for it.

To continue your sentence for you: ",because secularist scientists are all part of a global conspiracy to prop up a theory that they know to be false to promote their godless philosophies." That about right?

I'm afraid there is no such thing as an "unsubstantiated assumption" in a scientific theory. If there is no immediate evidence, there may be many other reasons why scientists will think something. The fossil record for snakes is far from complete (thanks to their delicate skeletal structure), but they infer from other things that snakes evolved from early lizards, through comparative anatomy, homology, etc. (Plus the fact that snakelike (legless and glass lizards) creatures have in a sense, started to evolve from lizards again, which we can see happening). So it isn't just an "unsubstantiated guess" if there isn't this perfect, flawless and clear fossil line. Scientists can go on much, much more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.