'Dr Dino' offers strategy for addressing Darwinian inaccuracies

Agape Press ^ | March 6, 2006 | Jim Brown

[Renderofveils]

I expect clear, simple answers from evolutionists, not obfuscation. Primates and dinosaurs have a different lineage? I would hope so. The biblical text indicates as much. That this distinct lineage can be attributed solely to genetic mutations and natural selection apart from any application of intelligence or information? Don't tell me such an assertion can be made within the realm of empirical science and stand as unquestionable fact to be protected by law. Would that be a "Do as I say, not as I do" post? You've been asked to give a concise description of Intelligent Design to which you used nothing BUT obfuscation in order to eventually present an answer that said absolutely nothing.

The only thing seeking to be protected by law was ID, in this case. That's an important distinction. Remember it well.

[Renderofveils]

You know, that was rather unfair of me. So before I bow out of this discussion (this will be my last post here) I'd like to request one thing from you. You're obviously an educated person so this should be really easy.

All I'd like to see is a summary of what you think is the optimal way to introduce Intelligent Design to a classroom full of 9th graders.

[gomaaa]

Ah! Terribly sorry. It is a bit of a convoluted conversation.

[gomaaa]

Thank you. I figured the principle of superposition would be the predominant assumption as to how the fossil record was formed. But what I am asking is why we would predict a find of dinsosaurs at (I presume) a lower level of the fossil record than primates. Why does the theory of evolution "predict" this?

TOE predicts that each species breaks off from an older one in an unbroken chain. (That's a little simplistic, as what you really see is more like a tree, with branches sprouting off of one another, but for the purposes of comparing with that 'Grand Canyon' picture I posted, imagine a simple chain.) So a reptile-like animal gives rise to a dinosaur which gives rise to a bird. With this picture, we would PREDICT that a reptile-like ancestor came earlier, and therefor would HAVE to be found in a lower geological strata. This could be disproven (falsified) by finding something like a bird in the same geological strata as that reptile-like forbear of both the bird and the dinosaur.

Now, you will often here of archeologists being "surprised" at finding a new fossil in a particular time period (geological strata). This corresponds to finding a bird fossil a little bit earlier than was previously thought they would be found (based on previous finds), implying that the "chain" needs to be corrected a bit. There is no real contradiction in such a find, as it merely represents new information and requires the adjustment of previously helf beliefs to match the new data. A TRUE falsification of the TOE would require a major find of, say, a bird in the same strata as the reptile-like ancestor of both dinosaur and bird (or, as I think this discussion started out on, finding a human fossil in a dinosaur-age strata). That kind of major contradiction would throw the scientific community into apoplectic shock and instantly guarantee the Nobel Prize to the discoverer. I don't think it's very likely to happen, though.

[nmh]

"You've gone full circle from a halfway pleasant anti-evo to a full fledge troll. It's the company you keep, apparently."

She's no more of a troll than you are.

Just because she holds a different point of view doesn't mean she is s "troll". Take the emotion out of it! Name calling is when one is cornered and losing the debate.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" She's no more of a troll than you are."

Her only intent in posting to me was to get an emotional response.

" Just because she holds a different point of view doesn't mean she is s "troll"."

And I didn't say it did.

"Name calling is when one is cornered and losing the debate."

Exactly. She was losing the debate and resorted to name-calling.

[nmh]

Excuse me, but you did start the name calling by referring to her as a "troll".


Me: "Name calling is when one is cornered and losing the debate."

You: Exactly. She was losing the debate and resorted to name-calling.


Reality check:

To: metmom

" Gee, that's too bad. There's always literacy classes you could go to for help with your reading."

You've gone full circle from a halfway pleasant anti-evo to a full fledge troll. It's the company you keep, apparently.

And they say WE have no sense of humor. :)

1,021 posted on 03/14/2006 6:47:42 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1020 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Excuse me, but you did start the name calling by referring to her as a "troll"."

Follow the thread, keep up. She posted to me first, with the intent to bait me. She was trolling.

[metmom]

She was losing the debate and resorted to name-calling.

What name calling was that? I'm not the one who called someone a *full-fledged troll*.

[Stultis]

If you mean "appear" as in the little green graph you supplied, how do we know this figure accurately represents either history or the fossil record? Because 150 years worth of speculation declare it so? [...] You've pontificated in jargon tailored to those who are like-minded to yourself and then added a dash of snobbery as if the whole world must be stupid for not climbing aboard the reasonable speculation you believe should be given a sole hearing by law as hard science.

Hmmm. So now we've moved beyond evolution to geology. The geologic time scale stands or falls independently of evolution. It was constructed before Darwin published, and by scientists who were creationists to a man. Indeed they were also open advocates of "intelligent design," certainly by your understanding thereof. Many if not most of the early to mid 19th Century paeans to design in nature, and arguments for the compatibility of science and scripture, were written by geologists, often by individuals also instrumental in defining the geologic column (e.g. Sedgewick, Buckland).

Now I'm (even more) confused about your rhetoric. I thought you were playing up the difference between naturalistic mainstream science and science based on presuppositions of ID, and arguing for inclusion of the later in curricula. Now you're disparaging a body of science -- historical geology -- that came out of exactly such presuppositions. It may not be usually understood that way now, but neither the essentials of the science itself, nor the mains divisions of the geologic relative time scale, have not changed in any fundamental way.

So what in the world could you now want as an alternative to historical geology in the curricula???

[nmh]

"Follow the thread, keep up. She posted to me first, with the intent to bait me. She was trolling."

I think were stepping into paranoia here.

ALl she did was express a different opinion. SUrely a different opinion is not "bait" on FR!!! A debate on differing views is not "trolling". Perhaps you need a "time out"? Just kidding ... .

Good grief!!!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"What name calling was that? I'm not the one who called someone a *full-fledged troll*."

Yes, your post to me was sent with the deepest kindness and was filled with Christian love. lol

You were trolling, and not very well. Again, it's the company you keep.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"ALl she did was express a different opinion."

Talk about delusional. lol You keep telling yourself that, one year you'll believe it.

[nmh]

"Follow the thread, keep up. She posted to me first, with the intent to bait me. She was trolling."

Posting a response to anyone it okay here. Her "intent" was to communicate to you. Communicating to you wasn't "baiting" you. You have the choice of NOT replying.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

I will now stop feeding the trolls; this thread is over, as far as I'm concerned. They can stew in it if they want, their choice.

[nmh]

"Follow the thread, keep up. She posted to me first, with the intent to bait me. She was trolling."

Posting a response to anyone is okay here. Her "intent" was to communicate to you. Communicating to you wasn't "baiting" you. You have the choice of NOT replying.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

All I'd like to see is a summary of what you think is the optimal way to introduce Intelligent Design to a classroom full of 9th graders.

Here are a few ideas:

CRITICAL ANALYSIS of Evolution, Material for Students

For more advanced material, IDTHINK.NET is always good.

[Fester Chugabrew]

If indeed the theory of evolution is best represented by a tree, what form of life is considered to be at the base of the trunk? Is this tree a product of inductive or deductive reasoning?

[hyperkitty]

You've gone full circle from a halfway pleasant anti-evo to a full fledge troll.

If she's gone full circle, wouldn't she be back where she started; *a halfway pleasant anti-evo*? So, are you having trouble with geometry, too?

[metmom]

What name calling was that?

You still didn't answer the question.