Designed to deceive: Creation can't hold up to rigors of science

CONTRA COSTA TIMES ^ | 12 February 2006 | John Glennon

[Havoc]

To borrow a stupidity from creationist Ken Ham: "Excuse me, were you there?" You're just stating your ignorant presumption as if you had actually established its truth.

No, I'm just invoking common sense. Dogs come from Dogs. We witness that and expect that to be so. Until someone can prove otherwise, the bottom line assumption that does stand as reasonable is that the ancestor was a dog. If you wish to offer something as otherwise reasonable, you need to establish that - which is the subject of our current discussion. I've seen a dog give birth to pups that grew up into "dogs" (gasp). I've never seen a cat give birth to a dog though I have witnessed the birth of many many kittens. So have a great cross-section of our population. They haven't seen cats or dogs produce other than cats or dogs either. Guess they're all just blind, dumb and misinformed.. your argument as it were.

[Ichneumon]

They're all dogs.

Yes, but they're not all the same species, just as tigers and pumas are "all cats", but they're not the same species either. And there are 400,000+ species of beetles which are "all beetles" despite the fact that they come in a vast variety of forms and lifestyles.

Caught on yet, or do you need a picture?

No need for a picture, we've already caught on to the fact that you cluelessly think that all kinds of canids are exactly the same thing, no matter how stupid that claim is and how obviously false it should be to anyone with a double-digit IQ or higher...

[Havoc]

Dog is a type of animal. If you want to define Great dane and
bulldog as differing species, that's your problem, not mine.
I understand how the textbooks and scientists have made their deliniations, that's part of the argument. It's a dog. Until you establish something other than a dog, you don't have a change in species - you have a variation within it. You want to say Dog is a family level label - fine. All you're really saying is that there is a disconnect between science and common sense. I've already made that point. Next.

[Thatcherite]

It's a Not a loss for the numbers of variation, it would be a fulfillment of the available genetic pool of diversity. The animal wouldn't exist if the genetics did not allow for it. But when the genetics are expressed to a degree that leaves the animal incapable of interbreeding with some other breeds, it's a loss on the dna front for that breed. You're problem is that it is still a dog. If it then grew wings or something like that, you would have a speciation event when an obvious dog became an obvious non-dog.

Maybe you could re-post that, but in english next time.

[RightWingNilla]

they're unable to recognize their own incompetence on the subject, and in fact mistake it for superiority.

Its really an amazing feat of self-delusion. I find it fascinating in a way. Probably one of the reasons I like these threads.

[Havoc]

And the reason that species is such a loose term is that men classified them. Now men are wanting to use those classifications which they imposed as a ground for saying a dog isn't a dog because a species label applies to one dog but not another.

As I said, species is a "loose" term. You'd argue the same about "kind". I would agree with you. That doesn't mean I give you a pass. Sorry. Try again.

[Right Wing Professor]

Now run along and go bother someone your own mental age.

Easy now, Ich. Don't want to encourage anyone, even accidentally, to pick on five year olds.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Reminds me of someone once brought into the British Government as Minister Without Portfolio, to present The Government's Case. The fact that The Government had no case explains the lack of a portfolio.

[Californiajones]

"Most Christian geologists had already discarded a literal reading of Genesis decades before Darwin published."

What "Christian Geologists"? Anyway Darwin published before the treasure trove of artifacts in Palestine proving the historicity of the Bible were discovered. Kenyon sr. et all.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Dog is a type of animal. If you want to define Great dane and
bulldog as differing species, that's your problem, not mine."

Where did I say they were?

"It's a dog. Until you establish something other than a dog, you don't have a change in species - you have a variation within it."

Dog means more than the domestic dog. *Dog* isn't specific enough for science. The link I gave you was of the family canidae; you said they are all dogs. Foxes are members of this family; they are clearly different species than chihuahuas.

" All you're really saying is that there is a disconnect between science and common sense."

And common sense is wrong. On the other hand, most of the species level designations that scientists have discovered have also been accepted by cultures that have had extremely limited contact with science. Species describes a real biological population; *kind* doesn't.

[Californiajones]

So?

So that's why this thread is so painfully long --

--the antiChristian spirit stirs up people on both side of the belief scale where Evolution and Evolutionists are concerned.

[Thatcherite]

All you're really saying is that there is a disconnect between science and common sense.

There are many disconnects between science and common sense. For example most people would say that it is common sense that if you are in a room with 190 other people then there is a greater than 50% chance that one of those people has the same birthday as you. However, that is false, no matter how strong the common sense argument that (190/365)>50% seems. Given the choice to determine what is true between common sense and science I'll go with science every time.

[Mamzelle]

re: Shhh. They think they're coy and getting away with it. )))

What if there's no "they"--just a "he"? They sound so much alike! "Go back to biology class" is so common that they must have a macro-key going. And look at the pacing of the high-fives--before one is over, another one has already replied. Scripted, maybe? IM?

[atlaw]

Right. No personal attacks. Only wholesale demonization of scientists is allowed. I got it.

Now, how about this. Assume that I'm the "liberal eco-terrorist who desires the destruction of human kind" that you say I am (who, oddly enough, has been posting on this forum for more than four years without detection), and assume that I just don't have your (self-professed) level of scientific expertise.

Reconcile for me the surface, atmospheric, and satellite data on temperature variations in the lower troposphere.

Is the surface data just wrong? If so, why is it wrong? Have sneaky liberal meteorologists just been making up the data to get grant money? Is there a conspiracy of eco-terrorist meteorologists bent on destroying human kind with deadly thermometers? Or is there some other reason?

And while you're at it, maybe you could explain precisely why arctic sea ice is retreating in measurably significant quantities in historically stable areas (as shown by DMSP satellite data), and accumulating in marginal, non-offset quantities in other areas.

The scientific community awaits your definitive resolution of these issues.

[Right Wing Professor]

You want to say Dog is a family level label - fine.

Is this a dog?

How about this?

[Ichneumon]

You're just stating your ignorant presumption as if you had actually established its truth.

No, I'm just invoking common sense.

Yeah, that's what the Church claimed when it imprisoned Galileo for stating that the Earth went around the Sun, instead of the "common sense" view that the Sun went around the Earth. Things are not always as "common sense" would indicate.

Dogs come from Dogs. We witness that and expect that to be so.

And yet, over vast numbers of generations, that naive presumption turns out not to hold.

Until someone can prove otherwise, the bottom line assumption that does stand as reasonable is that the ancestor was a dog.

The vast evidence, which you keep refusing to learn anything about, has established beyond any reasonable doubt that your *assumption* is incorrect.

If you wish to offer something as otherwise reasonable, you need to establish that

I have, and so has 100+ years of biolical science. Deal with it, or not. You apparently enjoy your ignorance so much that you refuse to learn anything to the contrary of what you wish to believe, so go for it.

- which is the subject of our current discussion.

It's not a "discussion" when you just keep stamping your feet and making multiple claims which are contrary to established fact. It's just you being ignorantly stubborn.

I've seen a dog give birth to pups that grew up into "dogs" (gasp). I've never seen a cat give birth to a dog though

Nor is that kind of thing necessary for macroevolution to occur, as you would already know if a) you had bothered to learn anything about biology before spouting off about it, or b) if you had bothered to read any of the many informative posts on that very subject.

They haven't seen cats or dogs produce other than cats or dogs either.

Nor is that what evolutionary biology requires.

Guess they're all just blind, dumb and misinformed..

They are if they're stupid enough to think that this *is* what evolutionary biology is about. I don't think *they're* that stupid, although *you* clearly are, as you demonstrate at nearly every opportunity. You argue against a bizarre, distorted, cartoon-version of evolution instead of the real thing, because you haven't the first clue what the real thing actually entails.

[Ken H]

You can always hope. If you wish to delude yourselves, don't let me stand in the way.

The Dover election results are not imaginary, nor are the two high level GOP defections from ID (Santorum and Taft).

Here is an interesting take from Jeb Bush on science standards and teaching ID:

He wants those standards to become more rigorous -- and raising the standards should take priority over discussing whether intelligent design has a place in the public schools' curriculum, he said.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1547174/posts

[Californiajones]

The origin of the species, as in Mankind, is what the Bible is all about.

So again, I'll repeat myself.

The INHERENT (please look up that word, Evos) argument of Darwin's hypothesis is that the species evolved from lower life forms.

As this negates the idea of the Soul, of the conscience, of the moral comport of Mankind as well as dishes entirely the Biblical descriptions of how and why Man was created, Darwin's hypothesis of Evolution in the early 19th century negates the Biblical model.

Don't know how to say it any clearer except if it didn't nail the Bible, this thread would not be this long. Our spiritual nature is something that did not "evolve" out of physical processes. Sorry.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" What "Christian Geologists"?"

Sedgwick, Lyell, Hutton.

"Anyway Darwin published before the treasure trove of artifacts in Palestine proving the historicity of the Bible were discovered. Kenyon sr. et all."

What *treasure trove*?

[Dimensio]

The INHERENT (please look up that word, Evos) argument of Darwin's hypothesis is that the species evolved from lower life forms.

Actually, that's the explicit claim, not the inherent one.

As this negates the idea of the Soul, of the conscience, of the moral comport of Mankind

Please explain how common descent negates the above. Be specific.

as well as dishes entirely the Biblical descriptions of how and why Man was created, Darwin's hypothesis of Evolution in the early 19th century negates the Biblical model.

Darwin's theory of evolution negates a specific interpretation of the book of Genesis. Oddly, however, there are a number of Christians who dispute that Darwin's theory disputes the existence of the Biblical God or the need for Christ's salvation. Since there are clearly Christians who accept evolution and who accept the divinity of Christ and the necessity of salvation through Him, you are clearly wrong in your universal pronouncement.

Also note that even if you are correct (and you are not) in your claim that Darwin's theory negates the Biblical account, you have not demonstrated that Darwin's theory negates the existence of a "Designer" of the universe. Christianity is not the only religion in existence.