On Solid Ground: Evolution versus Intelligent Design

Breakpoint with Charles Colson ^ | August 4, 2005 | Charles Colson

[VadeRetro]

I'm not quite convinced that you know what my position is since I've made no reference to it on this thread...

That you find something convincing in Fester's relentless dumb-dumbisms is far more of a clue than you seem to realize.

... all you can really surmise is that I'm a theist.

Junior, LurkingLibertarian, Physicist, NakatuX, narby, and too many other freepers to name are theists--theistic evolutionists. You're not one of those, either.

I've never gone into detail about my specific beliefs...

I've already handed a folded slip of paper to Dr. Watson at my right.

... although, in time, maybe that will come.

Whatever. You and Fester apparently think we're all idiots.

Again, you make way too many assumptions for someone who is supossed to be enlightened and wise.

Most things really are what they look like.

That said, you've yet to show that these inferences (whatever they are since you didn't specify) are logically necessitated, which they must be if they are inferences.

I explain it relentlessly and Fester doesn't answer it except by shifting wave-aways and ignorantly parroting his original statements. From the fossil record we see a thing called faunal succession. That's this picture here.

Fester's dumber-than-dumb answer to this is it's all in the evolutionary suppositions and the ordering is purely based upon the forms of the fossils. This is mind-numbingly stupid and wrong and based utterly upon Fester's own ignorance. Even more staggering, Fester claimed at one point--based no doubt upon a perceived temporary tactical convenience--to accept geology and its basic assumption that the younger layers can be distinguished from older ones based upon superposition, warping, faulting, intrusions, and other recognizeable features of the landscape.

If you accept that geology has its story even halfway straight, which Fester has claimed to do, then Fester's wave-away for faunal succession is no good.

Fester has basically declined to discuss why molecular biology supports the supposedly spurious picture of the fossil record. You seem to approve.

Furthermore, Fester has come right out and said he will disallow any disciple that makes inferences which undercut his literal interpretation of his untouchable Holy of Holies.

You claim to believe that Fester is the wise one here, even as he has forfeited any shred of credibility as a critic of science. Basically, you have to be a liar or an idiot.

That is the choice you have left the audience here. Once upon a time, there was nothing more advanced than an amoeba. You accept that, or you don't accept geology. The content and the dating of the layers gives you no choice but to accept faunal succession unless you reject something incredibly basic here.

Yes, feel free to present an alternative science that blows away biology, geology (supports faunal succession), nuclear chemistry (supports radiometric dating, which puts numbers on some of those relative dates), astronomy (supports an old universe)... Your Nobel awaits you.

[VadeRetro]

... he will disallow any disciple that makes inferences which undercut ...

"Discipline, Double-Oh-Seven! Discipline!" -- Sean Connery (to himself) in Goldfinger.

[RobbyS]

Catholic theology is not based on faith alone but is an effort to reconcile faith and philosophy. For instance, Thomas Aquinas tried to construct synthesis of the philosophy of Aristotle and Christianity, Aristotle was as much as naturalist as Darwin was, and Darwin approach biology in much the same way that Aristotle did. Aristotle was essentially a biologist and his metaphysics reflects this fact. My problem with Darwinists is that they have tried to make
"natural selection" a mechanism that explains every phenomeon that relates to matters that have nothing to do with biology. Darwinism has itself become a faith.

[RobbyS]

Notice how the Creation stories differ from what you have related. More important, how Genesis differs from the Mesopotamian myths which are often thought to have influenced it. In all these stories there are intermediate forces and entities. In Genesis, there a simple fiat.

[RobbyS]

Are we really son confdient about this Chronology? Until the discovery of radioactivity and the develoipment of the notion of half-life, geology alone could not show that the earth was more than 100 million years ago.

[Coyoteman]

Notice how the Creation stories differ from what you have related. More important, how Genesis differs from the Mesopotamian myths which are often thought to have influenced it. In all these stories there are intermediate forces and entities. In Genesis, there a simple fiat.

Seems to be a difference in degree only. I could post more for you to examine if you want.

Are we really son confdient about this Chronology? Until the discovery of radioactivity and the develoipment of the notion of half-life, geology alone could not show that the earth was more than 100 million years ago.

From 100 million years to 4.6 billion. Whoa! Going in the wrong direction! That's even farther away from 4004 B.C. than it used to be. All kidding aside, when you are dealing with 4.6 billion years a few here or there don't matter much.

I doubt if the ordering of events changed significantly when the absolute age went from 100 million years to 4.6 billion.

[csense]

From the fossil record we see a thing called faunal succession. That's this picture here...

I beg to differ.

What we see is phylogenic succesion from the Cambrian forward. It seems to me that if your theory was as solid as you claim it is, you should have no problem empirically demonstrating phylogenic succesion before that period.

That said, I await this demonstration with baited breath.

[csense]

Once upon a time, there was nothing more advanced than an amoeba. You accept that, or you don't accept geology.

You really do make some outrageous assumptions, not the least of which is that evolution infers complexity and direction.

Even if we do accept that geology quantitatively supports the placement of the amoeba in it's provincial point in time, your extended qualifying statement is completely unsupportable by either science or logic....and no geologist, worth his degree, would agree with what you've said above.

You should really lay off calling people stupid, because from where I'm siting, your general reasoning skills are not very impressive.

[csense]

Yes, feel free to present an alternative science that blows away biology, geology (supports faunal succession), nuclear chemistry (supports radiometric dating, which puts numbers on some of those relative dates), astronomy (supports an old universe)... Your Nobel awaits you.

I, nor anybody else, be they scientist or otherwise, need provide an alternate theory, or discipline, or science, to either criticise or falsify the theory of evolution.

That you think someone should, speaks volumes for your understanding of science and methodology, not to mention logic, reason, and common sense.

[csense]

You and Fester apparently think we're all idiots.

That's a battle line that you've drawn singlehandedly.

That said, I'm going to refrain from once again launching into my criticism of your untennable assumptions, although it is now quite clear to me why fester has to keep repeating himself on certain points.

[VadeRetro]

Are we really son confdient about this Chronology?

Yes. Would some of you militantly ignorant nutcases please crack a book before I have to dump every science-related web page on the Internet into this thread? Whatever you may say about the relative dates, the trilobites are way down there, the dinosaurs are further up (no overlap), and we're up on top (no overlap with the non-avian dinosaurs).

Until the discovery of radioactivity and the develoipment of the notion of half-life, geology alone could not show that the earth was more than 100 million years ago.

That's the result of Lord Kelvin's calculation in 1862. It had nothing to do with geology and was based on the assumed cooling rate of an Earth with only its initial kinetic energy of condensation.

The actual history of Age of the Earth estimations is here. I see a picture of continual refinement of model and measurement techniques converging to a figure of quantifiable reliability. Unless you're just rejecting the science you don't like, which in that case would be most of science, there's no grounds for suspicion.

[VadeRetro]

You really do make some outrageous assumptions, not the least of which is that evolution infers complexity and direction.

It does when you start with about the simplest self-reproducing thing possible and evolve from there. There's noplace to go but more complex.

Even if we do accept that geology quantitatively supports the placement of the amoeba in it's provincial point in time...

A billion years ago, on that chart the first fossil eukaryotes turn up. That's thing made of big cells with nuclei, and all the early ones are one-celled including amoebae. There aren't any dinosaurs or any people named Adam and Eve. If you aren't accepting this point you've got some explaining to do.

... your extended qualifying statement is completely unsupportable by either science or logic....and no geologist, worth his degree, would agree with what you've said above.

It's got to be 99.999 percent to .001 in geology, my favor over yours. Steve Austin of ICR and John Woodmorappe of some high school classroom where he teaches would go with you.

You should really lay off calling people stupid, because from where I'm siting, your general reasoning skills are not very impressive.

We don't have much to talk about here except what you refuse to infer from what you insist you don't know, Dummy.

[VadeRetro]

I, nor anybody else, be they scientist or otherwise, need provide an alternate theory, or discipline, or science, to either criticise or falsify the theory of evolution.

That would be true if evolution didn't explain life on Earth: it's fossil history, molecular relatedness, embryology, and about 26 other lines of evidence. And we're not just talking about evolution, now. We're talking about all the things you're throwing out rather than admit you have a problem with the evidence. You don't accept geology. You had to throw that out too or admit you had a problem. Remember now? You don't accept nuclear chemistry. It has to go or you've got radiometric dating to deal with. We might as well say you threw out the twentieth century.

Anyway, you don't beat something with nothing. Evolution works and we have definitely established that you have nothing that would be of interest to science.

[Coyoteman]

Here's another one they'll hate.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050805192316.htm

Small Discovery Has Large Implications

They were the width of a few hairs pressed together, but the microscopic fossils discovered in China were enormous in their implications.

The fossils turned out to be the oldest examples of a bilaterian -- animals that display bilateral symmetry, meaning their right and left halves are mirror images. The remarkable 2004 discovery pushed back the genesis of complex animal life by as many as 50 million years.

USC College paleontologist David J. Bottjer was among the group that discovered the fossils -- period-sized blobs believed to have skimmed the ocean floor with suction-cup mouths some 580 to 600 million years ago...

[VadeRetro]

Yes, good post! You and I would say that's another gap filled in as predicted.

It's the find elsewhere characterized as "deep roots and tiny prototypes" for the 50 million years later Cambrian "Explosion." It will always be an "explosion" to the creationists, however. Never fear!

Of course, the particular set of creos on this thread isn't sure there was ever a Cambrian, or even that there's a layer of that name, or that the geologic column is layered at all. I'm not sure that they're sure of anything much, except that ebolooshun is da Debbil.

[VadeRetro]

What we see is phylogenic succesion from the Cambrian forward. It seems to me that if your theory was as solid as you claim it is, you should have no problem empirically demonstrating phylogenic succesion before that period.

Things come thicker and faster after the Cambrian, but the lack of sponges back there when the amoebae were king and the lack of amoebae when the archaebacteria were king is succession. It's also a succession of ever larger and more complex forms, just like the one that comes after the Cambrian. Have you broken it to Fester yet that you think the geologic column is layered?

That said, I await this demonstration with baited breath.

"Bated," unless you can catch flies with your breath.

[csense]

It's got to be 99.999 percent to .001 in geology, my favor over yours.

What, that geology infers the amoeba...at one point in time, and up until that point in time, relative to the histroy of the earth...was the most advanced organism to exist?

excuse me for a second....

I'm not sure if you do it deliberatley, or if it just comes with the territory, but you are one confused person. Even your other responses to me of late indicate that you're arguing points I've never made, and ascribing positions to me that I have not made known, irregardless if they may be true or not, and I say that, because if you payed attention to some of the arguments I'm making, I'm working from common territory, or what is commonly accepted, and framing my questions from there.

When I said: Even if we do accept that geology quantitatively supports the placement of the amoeba in it's provincial point in time..." I am basically agreeing with you for arguments sake, and I am not necessarily disputing this point, or the inferences of geology in general...and besides, it's a minor point in the proposition, but the way you swarmed on it, really says a lot about your agenda.

Look, it's been fun, mostly, but it's clear to me you'd rather wage war than sit at the table of discussion.

I'm not your enemy Vade. Both of us are asking the same questions that everyone else has from one time or another, from the common peasant, to the nobel laureate, except in my case, and maybe others as well, I'm not satisfied with the explanation evolution gives for why we humans are so distinct from every other life form on this planet, and that's a self evident observation that anyone can make...why deny it, or even bury it, when you know it's true.

Are we the result of some rare, natural event? Perhaps. I'm a little hesitant though to accept as an immutable doctrine that we have found and understand a fundamental force of nature, since I've been so dissapointed before, throughout history....and still am for that matter.

When, and if, I see my parakeet stop attacking the mirror and start arranging his bird seed in geometric patterns at the bottom of the cage, while at the same time motioning for my attention....I'll give my self evident proposition that my distinctness is a clue....a little less weight.

[csense]

Things come thicker and faster after the Cambrian, but the lack of sponges back there when the amoebae were king and the lack of amoebae when the archaebacteria were king is succession. It's also a succession of ever larger and more complex forms, just like the one that comes after the Cambrian. Have you broken it to Fester yet that you think the geologic column is layered?

While this is an interesting response, it doesn't really answer my question...or even attempt to do so.

"Bated," unless you can catch flies with your breath.

.Yes, and it's allele, not alelle (go check your previous posts, and multiple times I might add)

Other than just trying to be *****, what's your point.

[VadeRetro]

Actually, yes. I'm glad your delusionsal system is totally impenetrable. Geology dates certain sediments to an age of about a billion years. The most advanced organism ever noted in such would be an amoeba. There are no multicellulars in those sediments.

Geology indeed says this, if words mean anything. Maybe "geology" means anything someone wants it to mean. I'm not interested in that. There's an objective reality out there and we have learned more about it in 2005 than some dumbasses want to accept. Too bad.

If you have a credible source for anything different, fire away. I'm pretty good and pointing out where AiG and ICR are not exactly peer-reviewed journals and can spot most of their howlers myself.

Faunal succession both precedes and follows the Cambrian, as I said. For instance, there is a period preceding the Cambrian called the Vendian AKA Edicarian. It has multicellulars. Note that the Vendian is after the appearance of the amoebas and other single-cell eukaryotes but before the Cambrian fauna. I realize I'm teaching calculus to a cow, here, but if you have a rebuttal to this you are so far just bluffing it.

Look, it's been fun, mostly, but it's clear to me you'd rather wage war than sit at the table of discussion.

Excuse me, but it is your story here that Fester has the real story and somehow I'm blocking. Never mind the lack of content in his posts, you haven't answered my question on whether you have informed him of your acceptance of geologic column layering. We have established that you accept such, since you refer to something called the "Cambrian" as a "problem for evolution." I want to see how you explain it to Fester, and whether he believes it from you.

The acceptance of such layering is a problem for Witch Doctor science which, for instance, disallows anything in seeming conflict with a literal interpretation of certain Bronze Age creation stories. Why are there no camels in the Cambrian? After all, it was an "explosion" in which all major life forms supposedly appear without predecessors, etc. etc. etc. False, but at any rate... where are Adam and Eve?

Where are the birds? Where are the dinosaurs? Where are the mammals? Where are Adam and Eve?

If the "Cambrian" is a problem for me, what is it for poor Fester? Someone taking you at your word might think, since you're a fan of Fester-thought, you would need that cleared up. Somehow, though, I personally don't expect to see it.

Both of us are asking the same questions that everyone else has from one time or another, from the common peasant, to the nobel laureate, except in my case, and maybe others as well...

Can't you even tell the truth about that? You have none of the questions science has, and don't want the answers. Period.

When, and if, I see my parakeet stop attacking the mirror and start arranging his bird seed in geometric patterns at the bottom of the cage, while at the same time motioning for my attention....I'll give my self evident proposition that my distinctness is a clue....a little less weight.

Your parakeet is not as smart as you are. It probably has more integrity, however.

[VadeRetro]

Yes, and it's allele, not alelle (go check your previous posts, and multiple times I might add)

Not on this thread and not in weeks. Oppo research in full swing? Need a link to my web page?