betsy Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 The theory of evolution displaced creationism in the scientific world, over 150 years ago. Trying to return to the old creation theory means explaining how it could provide a better explanation for the data gathered by biologists, archaeologists and palenontologists over the years. The reason your sources don't bother trying to build a theory of creationism, But the sources I gave you were not there to prove Creationism. They were there to support the theory of ID.....remember? We're talking about Intelligent Design.....ID! Please focus. You cannot be rational in your defense if you keep straying out of the argument. This is about the theory of ID debunking the theory of Evolution. It just so happens that this argument is being presented by a Creationist (moi), but the sources/arguments/refutations etc.., have nothing to do with my personal belief. I don't know why that's so hard for you to cmprehend. Unless like a drowning man, you're grabbing at about anything to throw into the argument...because you've nothing else for defense. You seem to conveniently ignore or forget that sources gave the evidence that DARWIN and DAWKINS themselves admitted to the possibility of Design! So your rebuttal above is complete baloney! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 (edited) Wyly:yup, the Universe is complicated and difficult enough to comphrehend as it is without making it a biziillion times more complex by inventing a mythical sky fairy who created it all...where did the sky fairy come from? who created the sky fairy? Arthur C. Clarke once said that a sufficiently advanced civilization would appear to be godlike to us. One catch though -- the advanced alien creators of universes would be deistic gods, since they would not be able to enter the new universes that they seeded, and instead would be permanently cut off from interacting or learing about their new creations. Any intelligent creatures that evolved in the new universes would be left wondering about the hiddeness of God. ARTHUR C. CLARKE! Sir Arthur Charles Clarke, CBE (16 December 1917 – 19 March 2008) was a British science fiction author.... Edited May 27, 2009 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 Arthur C. Clarke once said that a sufficiently advanced civilization would appear to be godlike to us. One catch though -- the advanced alien creators of universes would be deistic gods, since they would not be able to enter the new universes that they seeded, and instead would be permanently cut off from interacting or learing about their new creations. Any intelligent creatures that evolved in the new universes would be left wondering about the hiddeness of God. Michael Crichton can explain the fossil record! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 Michael Crichton can explain the fossil record! No wonder children all think T-Rex is cool! Coz dat's grampa! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 I must admit that you seem to be very dedicated in following scientific developments...especially scientific "discoveries" that can be used to prop up the theory of evolution. I must admit that my interest in this topic is hardly anything compared to yours. But of course that's simply understandable. You need proof. Whereas I, don't. Then why are you pretending to debate this subject? Your mind is already made up, and no evidence would convince you otherwise. And with theory of ID, your own faith of Atheism is undeniably under siege. So you are in defense-mode. Very much in defense-mode. Desperately in defense-mode. You have to. You are projecting your own neuroses onto others! I do not live by faith, and I never said that evolution disproved God. I am an atheist for many other reasons explained elsewhere. Anyway, just to accomodate you....here's an excerpt that may or may not give the answer you are looking for.It's a long read....but since its an important matter to you, I guess that wouldn't matter. Enjoy. OUTLINE PREDICTION 17: FUNCTIONAL MOLECULAR EVIDENCE—PROTEIN FUNCTIONAL REDUNDANCY Evolution can accommodate this phenomenon, but it can also accommodate its absence. If the amino acid sequence in such a protein was not the same or “similar” in two or more species, evolutionists simply would vary the time of divergence and/or the mutation rate, which is claimed to vary for different proteins, to account for the differences. Since neither universal common ancestry nor Neo-Darwinism predicts this phenomenon, they cannot be falsified by its absence or confirmed by its presence.And he doesn't answer the question of why the amino acid sequences would follow a pattern expected by common origins. Theobold pointed out that there were enough possible combinations to give each organism a unique cytochrome c, and even more surprising, all animals tested so far, have been able to use any version of the Cytochrome C protein for metabolic functions -- so only one version would have got the job done for every plant and animal.The real argument being made here is theological, not scientific. The claim is that, since allegation that God could employ countless arrangements of amino acids in the God could make cytochrome c with countless arrangements of amino acids, he would not have used an identical or similar series of amino acids in the cytochrome c of separately created species. Of course, even if that were true, it would not establish the claim of universal common ancestry (because, as pointed out above, divine creation is not the only theoretical alternative to universal common ancestry). But more importantly, the claim combines an uncertain factual premise with an unprovable theological assertion. It is even more damning to the theory of individual creations that one universal cytochrome c wasn't used. The creator could have used between one and 10^93 different types of Cytochrome C, and yet he just by coincidence decided to follow the phylogenetic pattern that would be expected if life evolved from a common ancestor. The construction of cytochrome c (or other proteins) ignores the possibility that the gene coding for cytochrome c may also be involved in the production of numerous other proteins. Does he have any reason for this speculation, or why, even if the genes that code Cytochrome C were making other proteins, why this should mean that they would follow the phylogenetic tree of life? If the gene for cytochrome c, for example, does more than code for that particular protein, then its other functions may influence the order of its codons and thus influence the order of amino acids in cytochrome c. Without knowing all that a gene does within an organism and how it accomplishes those functions, one cannot know the gene’s design constraints and therefore cannot know the corresponding constraints on amino acid sequences. So we end up with humans and chimpanzees sharing the same cytochrome c, while other mammals are different by 10 amino acids. A more distant related life form -- Candida Krusei yeast differs by 51 amino acids. The rest of the plants and animals analyzed follow expectations of common morphology -- and that's just some sort of coincidence to creationists? Again, if he's theorizing that the cytochrome c genes may be needed to code other proteins, why should that matter? Why should they have to follow a pattern expected if life came from a common origin, rather than exhibiting distinctly separate characteristics of independently created plants and animals? So, what has he got for explaining endogneous retroviruses? God just decided to add viral codes to animal genomes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 Michael Crichton can explain the fossil record! I am a bit of a reader and thinker - a grade 10 drop out and a believer in God - even I know that some fossils are over a million years old - I can tell by common sense and by simply looking and giving it some thought - a sea creature fossilized on top of a mountain is not 6000 years old - the mountain does not pop up in such a short time...you have to mix the idea of creation and evolution and understand that we adapt constantly in order to survive - minute by minute. We evolve - creationism and evolution are bother and sister - to the thinking person - blind faith and literal translation of ancient writings is the lazy man's answer to the origin of man and the world...LOOK again to the fact that there are likely a billion universes and more - this is grand - it's and evolving and expanding creation...matter is not static - it evolves - it moves - Fundamentalist creationists believe that there is a balance between positive and negative fields - there is not - if there was reality would be at a stand still and nothing would exist - we are on the move - we are creations in a constant state of evolution...if we are not - then we are dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 ARTHUR C. CLARKE! Sir Arthur Charles Clarke, CBE (16 December 1917 – 19 March 2008) was a British science fiction author.... So! He was also the first person to propose putting communications satellites in geosynchronous orbits, back in 1946. But I guess you know more about science than he did! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 (edited) But the sources I gave you were not there to prove Creationism. They were there to support the theory of ID.....remember?We're talking about Intelligent Design.....ID! Please focus. please focus ID can never reach the level of Theory, to do that it must first be a Hypothesis and it can not reach that level either as it cannot be observed or tested Creationism and ID are the same no slight of hand can change that...The person who came up with the term Intelligent Design Charles Thaxton took the Creationist textbook Of Pandas and People edited it and merely replaced the word creation/creationism/creationist and replaced it with intelligent design....the two concepts are exactly the same [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover#Decision[/url] This is about the theory of ID debunking the theory of Evolution. It just so happens that this argument is being presented by a Creationist (moi), but the sources/arguments/refutations etc.., have nothing to do with my personal belief.I don't know why that's so hard for you to cmprehend. over and over you repeat the same flawed logic...ID can not be a Theory EVER! it is not even a hypothesis! therefore it cannot be true science and can never be taught in a classroom along other sciences it's religion!!!, why is that so difficult for you to comprehend Edited May 27, 2009 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 You need proof. Whereas I, don't.Send me $50,000 and I"ll make you a millionaire. Guaranteed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 Worked at Crecy. so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 so... Sarcasm: not many French knights survived the longbow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 Sarcasm: not many French knights survived the longbow. Longbow is a tool, a creation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 But the sources I gave you were not there to prove Creationism. They were there to support the theory of ID.....remember?We're talking about Intelligent Design.....ID! Please focus. Please focus on the fact that Intelligent Design is just another word that replaces Creationism. By proxy you are trying to prove creationism. it seems that you are the only one not aware that they are one in the same. Using creationist logic. if you are talking about Intelligent Design, then you must be talking about an Intelligent Designer aka the creationists god (or whatever god you decide to believe in) Evolution does not deal with the God question. It is simply not part of the study. You are a thick skull for sure. Creationism and ID both lead to the notion of a god. This is why it is all faith based, and the first book pulled for any reference is the Bible. Which is a storybook. Alegories and stories from long ago. Wyly Creationism and ID are the same no slight of hand can change that...The person who came up with the term Intelligent Design Charles Thaxton took the Creationist textbook Of Pandas and People edited it and merely replaced the word creation/creationism/creationist and replaced it with intelligent design.. This is true, and an important fact lost on supporters of ID and creationism. So! He was also the first person to propose putting communications satellites in geosynchronous orbits, back in 1946. But I guess you know more about science than he did! Indeed. Have you ever read anything by Greg Bear or Greg Egan? Greg Egan is a Aussie mathemetician who writes hard hard sci-fi. His stories are simply mind blowing. Quarentine and Diaspora are top notch books from him. They are scientifically accurate as well. Many hard sci-fi writters use actual science in their books. Egan would blow most of your skulls wide open. I had to read Quarentine 3 times to really understand it. Diaspora was much harder to grasp. Not light reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Egan Egan specialises in hard science fiction stories with mathematical and quantum ontology themes, including the nature of consciousness. Other themes include genetics, simulated reality, posthumanism, mind transfer, sexuality, artificial intelligence, and the superiority of rational naturalism over religion. I love that last bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarantine_(novel) But back to the topic at hand. When I get home I will post some vids I found off Youtube that talks about the ways IDers and creationists use ad homenins, red herrings ect ect to 'prove' their point. I reacall one video were creationists were saying you should not trust any person in a lab coat that talks about science. The lab coat does not give them any authority over their knowledge. And yet in a series of creationist vids, very much done in the style of the now incarcerated Kent-water-above-the-earth-we-think-we-are-not-sure- Hovind. This guy said he was a scientist, and he was also wearing a lab coat. I found the hypocracy quite hilarious. I know many here fail to see that juxtapostion at work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 I will also add, that I know more about religion and ID and creationism than I did when these threads were started. I have spent a couple hours almost every day researching this. lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 Creationism and ID both lead to the notion of a god. This is why it is all faith based, and the first book pulled for any reference is the Bible. Which is a storybook. Alegories and stories from long ago. Science is all incorporated into faith in the sense that a human baby would have remained like an animal - would have become psychotic - if his very first impression about his surroundings would not have been one based of some kind of faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 Science is all incorporated into faith in the sense that a human baby would have remained like an animal - would have become psychotic - if his very first impression about his surroundings would not have been one based of some kind of faith. Are you saying animals are psychotic? Or is this just another word salad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 Science is all incorporated into faith in the sense that a human baby would have remained like an animal - would have become psychotic - if his very first impression about his surroundings would not have been one based of some kind of faith. Science is not faith. Faith is not science. All your future posts will be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 Are you saying animals are psychotic? Or is this just another word salad? Animals and psychotics are comparable in the sense that they are both more immersed in reality than normal human beings (i.e. Dasein). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 ....word salad? Oh My God!!!! I have a new descriptor... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 descriptor... metaphor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 Animals and psychotics are comparable in the sense that they are both more immersed in reality than normal human beings (i.e. Dasein). And the word salad continues. I've got to ask, do you actually fool anyone into thinking you know anything about anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 Longbow is a tool, a creation. So? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 And the word salad continues. I've got to ask, do you actually fool anyone into thinking you know anything about anything? "Maieutic" and "irony" are the two Socratic methods; that is why Socrates asserted: "I only know that I know nothing". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 "Maieutic" and "irony" are the two Socratic methods; that is why Socrates asserted: "I only know that I know nothing". Are you asserting that Socrates was a epistemological nihilist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 Are you asserting that Socrates was a epistemological nihilist? No !!! A confirmed creationist !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.