3
   

Intelligent Design Theory Solution

 
 
John Creasy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 05:03 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Actually, the real proof is there is no evidence of a world flood that buried everything under 20 feet of water in 2304 BC.

Really? Where is this proof? Is it located right next to the proof that virtually every culture has a great flood story that dates back thousands of years?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 05:11 pm
Every culture probably had great floods, but they occured at different times in geological history. They did not all occur in 2304BC.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 06:00 pm
parados wrote:
real life wrote:


Ros,

Darwin started with the theory, AND THEN looked for evidence to back it up. Why is that so hard to admit?

And why aren't students taught that today? They are given the impression that evidence ALONE led Darwin to his conclusions, instead of acknowleding that he started with the conclusion before ever stepping aboard the Beagle.

It is because evolutionists won't (can't) admit that Darwin interpreted circumstantial evidence to support his theory. This is something that only creationists do, right?


Then it ought to be easy to point to the science that disputes Darwin. Please do so.

Provide us the alternate theory that fits the evidence BETTER than evolution does. With the peer reviewed science that backs it up.


Oh, by the way. .you can't start with the theory then try to match the evidence..


So I can't do the very thing that Darwin did? He started with the conclusion (evolution) first and went out to try to bolster his view by his inferences from circumstantial evidence.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 06:04 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Being as we know from the bible the exact size of the ark, I think it's safe to say that it would not, no way no how, have held every species on the planet.


Really? Show the math.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 06:10 pm
The ark was 450'X75'X45'. Depending on how many floors the ark had, the calculation would be almost impossible.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 09:11 am
real life
Quote:
So I can't do the very thing that Darwin did? He started with the conclusion (evolution) first and went out to try to bolster his view by his inferences from circumstantial evidence.


Remember, the major method that Creationists use to debate, is to take an untruth, embellish it , and then continue repeating it as if it were new stuff.
"evolution" as a philosophical concept and a biological concept were not new, it was merely a thought like "gee the world must be round". It took the development of a synthesis based upon (youre favorite phrase) "circumstantial evidence", and analysis to arrive at a scientifcically defensible theory. What've you got in your wallet?
BBB, I wish that you would post that recent article about IDcs and Craetionism that was written by Eugenie Scott.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 09:33 am
real life wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Being as we know from the bible the exact size of the ark, I think it's safe to say that it would not, no way no how, have held every species on the planet.


Really? Show the math.

I read that as a challenge for you to do the math. Although I suppose God could make the Ark bigger on the inside than on the outside. Was He handing our pocket universes?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 11:22 am
Having two of each living thing above water, I wonder how they stayed separate from one another that usually have them for lunch. LOL
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 11:34 am
farmerman wrote:
real life
Quote:
So I can't do the very thing that Darwin did? He started with the conclusion (evolution) first and went out to try to bolster his view by his inferences from circumstantial evidence.


Remember, the major method that Creationists use to debate, is to take an untruth, embellish it , and then continue repeating it as if it were new stuff.
"evolution" as a philosophical concept and a biological concept were not new, it was merely a thought like "gee the world must be round". It took the development of a synthesis based upon (youre favorite phrase) "circumstantial evidence", and analysis to arrive at a scientifcically defensible theory. What've you got in your wallet?
BBB, I wish that you would post that recent article about IDcs and Craetionism that was written by Eugenie Scott.


Hi Farmerman,

Which of the following statements , either stated or implied by my post, do you perceive to be untrue?

a) The theory of evolution existed before Charles Darwin was born.

b) Darwin's grandfather was among those who published their ideas on evolution

c) Darwin went out and collected evidence to support the idea of evolution

d) The evidence Darwin collected was largely circumstantial

e) Darwin did this after, not before, learning of his grandfather's belief in evolution

Since you have indicated your agreement with all of these points at one time or other in our conversations, (unless I have misunderstood your post) , I wonder which of them you now believe to be untrue. I don't want to mischaracterize your seeming agreement, so correct the record if I have misstated it, please.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 11:52 am
real, Even though the answer to your list may be "yes," that doesn't prove creationism, so what's your point?

You rely on one fictional, mythical, book called the bible that has been shown to be filled with contradictions, errors, and omissions.

If you wish to argue against evolution, show your proof that "circustantial evidence" is useless.

Many crimes prosecuted in many countries use "circumstantial evidence," because they are more reliable than eye-witnesses. DNA is used from many crime scenes to prosecute criminals. That's called "circumstantial evidence." Crimiologists go "backward" to find criminals - sometimes 20 years after the fact. DNA has also found people in prison to be falsely accused (by an eye witness) of crimes they didn't commit.

So, what's your problem with "circumstantial evidence?" It's also inconsistent that you support a comic book called the bible that has no other support for its claims.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 12:38 pm
I'd like to know why in Genesis does God create everything twice? Didn't He get it right the first time?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 12:43 pm
Yeah, he created light first, then the sun. Then he made day and night - even though any school child would know that with one light source, one side would be dark.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 02:16 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
real, Even though the answer to your list may be "yes," that doesn't prove creationism, so what's your point?............

If you wish to argue against evolution, show your proof that "circustantial evidence" is useless. ........

So, what's your problem with "circumstantial evidence?"..........


Hi CI,

Perhaps you should slow down and read my posts a little more carefully. I never said that circumstantial evidence is useless.

In fact, I noted that BOTH creation and evolution draw inferences largely from circumstantial evidence because neither can or has been observed directly.

The caution that all should observe regarding circumstantial evidence is that it may be interpreted in a variety of ways. So for evolutionists to insist that all evidence is 'their evidence' and cannot be interpreted to support anything but evolution is clearly not the case.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 02:27 pm
If it's clearly not the case, show us why. Just saying something doesn't make it true or false unless you provide realiable facts that others can verify.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 03:00 pm
real life
Quote:
Which of the following statements , either stated or implied by my post, do you perceive to be untrue?

a) The theory of evolution existed before Charles Darwin was born.

b) Darwin's grandfather was among those who published their ideas on evolution

c) Darwin went out and collected evidence to support the idea of evolution

d) The evidence Darwin collected was largely circumstantial

e) Darwin did this after, not before, learning of his grandfather's belief in evolution


aThere were several hypotheses of evolution that went back to the Greeks, none was a real theory. Point being?

b Erasmus published POEMS about his natural history musings. His thoughts went from Comte le Buffon and Lamarck into petic couplets and his master work Zoonomia, was a real biological page turner. Im sure you could, like the Bible, find some couplet in Erasmus that obliquely referred to atomic structure but I sorta doubt its usefulness. Erasmus is given as much due as Donald Trumps father for giving him his first coupla hundred million. You should read the Zoonomia, its not what Id carry with me to the field.

c If this were true, Darwin did a shitty job. He booked onto a boat that had a political mission to return 3 natives to the Tierra del Fuego Straights so that, along with a missionary, they could establish a presence for the EMPIRE in the southern tip of South America (the natives were , Jenny Button, York Minster, and Fuegia Basket (along with a missionary 'coast watcher"). Also there was a minor dispute among the English, Spanish, ARgentinians, and The US regarding seal hunting lands in the FAlklands so Fitzroy was to establish some outposts there in the seal hunting grounds. The fact that Darwin had no control over the destinations or the mission, he took what he could find and , in the case of the GAlapogos, he didnt even know that almost all his specimens were finches , he was more interested in the many types of turtles.

Darwin was, unlike his Grandfather, slower, more methodical and less prone to waht wed call ADD. Darwin was more interested in the natrural philosophy of Jeffrie St Hillaire, Lyell, and Humboldt, whose logs contained the questions that resounded in Darwins head
"Why are so many areas on the planet, though separated by vast differences, complet with species of animals that appear similar though are not"
Like the animals that occupy madagascar v Africa or the Animals that lie on either side of what later became Wallaces line. Speaking of Wallace, Darwin owes more to Wallace than to his grandfather. Since Wallace glimpsed the mechanism of natural selection in the beetle family and let Darwin in on his findings early. Darwin used that little kick to complete his gestating theory Massif.
Erasmus was mostly a Lamarkian, capeesh?

d Circumstantial yep, so what ? Wilson and Penzias won a Nobel prize on waht could be considered circumstantial evidence, and Nobels invention of dynamite and Einsteins positing of E=mc^2 was also circumstantial.(My favorite circumstantial story that I tell students is the famous mechanism and energy calculation for large displacement faults in the Appalachians{called gravity glide faulting} It was disccovered by M King Hubbert and WW Rubey as the skidded empty beer cans on a wet table top) This ledto the role of interbed fluids to assist in the propogation of gravity glide earthquakes in the Blue Ridge of NC and Tenn

e. Well, we certainly cant hide anything from you dear boy. Erasmus never had the chance to sail, he was a country doctor. Charles had no impediments to travel and he was less a "flamer' t5han his grandad. Im not detracting from Erasmus's place in the pantheon of amateurs. He certainly was one of the many who wrote on evolution, mostly based upon Hume and Mills philosophy and Lamarcks biology. However, to then try to make the faulty extension that Charles was merely copying Erasmus work is total BS and shows a lack of understanding of the work that Charles had embarked upon (almost unknowingly because at the start of the Beagles voyage in 1831, he had no ideas to develop what many historians now admit may be THE most important idea of the millenium)
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 03:13 pm
I didnt want to lose my post by timing out on my cable service. While I have doubted your in-depth understandings of science and from that your "incorrect generalizations postings", that is until I found very similar points on another Christain"Creqtionist" source website. So now Im not so sure where youre trying to lead. Maybe you are trying to establish some credibility;

1By trivializing Darwin because his grandfather Erasmus had written poems and developed some poetic hypotheses about evolution, you accuse Charles of being derivative in its most cynical means. To that I say, please read more or question your own sources more. I accuse them of being agenda driven becase, in evolution, we often make vast departures from last weeks dogma and modify the theory. The Creationists and IDers deny the data when it doesnt fit the agenda

2Your trying to , by accepting the scientific evidence, evade the actual conclusions of all this evidence. That evolution cannot be denied and its hardly a theory in crisis. Right now there are many focused studies on determining mechanisms in DNA responsible for morphological variations and that many of these are quite parsimoneous like Hox genes. There are also models that are quite accurately predicting what an intermediate fossil would look like in a mixed clade. Weve got that "old earth" question so nailed that its amazing that there are some people out there who desparately cling to things like Genesis accounts and Floods and all. Im truly surprised at how gullible people can be when all it takes is some in depth study to arrive at sound conclusions.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 03:28 pm
farmerman, I've come to the simple conclusion that IDers are afraid of the truth, because it destroys their religious beliefs. They can't see how irrational and illogical their arguments are, because their whole religious belief system goes up in smoke once they let in some truths (fresh air). Their desperate hanging on to that last thread that keeps unfurling just makes them look more foolish.

They can't accept that they've been wrong for most of their life.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 04:52 pm
That's what one gets when one accepts a translation as the literal word of God....
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 06:36 pm
the Bible, as it exists today , is more like a series of xerox copies made one upon the other with previous copies used as the subsequent master. Gradually all meaning disappears and its all fuzzy and faded.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 09:18 pm
farmerman wrote:
the Bible, as it exists today , is more like a series of xerox copies made one upon the other with previous copies used as the subsequent master. Gradually all meaning disappears and its all fuzzy and faded.


Perhaps you should find out more about the surviving Greek manuscripts of the Bible, AND ancient translations of the Scriptures into numerous other languages, AND the numerous quotations of scripture in the writings of the early church Fathers, AND the Dead Sea scrolls before you generalize your way into gross error such as this.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/19/2021 at 01:37:28