Intelligent Design Grounded in Science

CBN ^ | November 2005 | By Gailon Totheroh

[Thatcherite]

Alan Turing later provided a constructive interpretation of Godel's results by placing them on an algorithmic foundation: There are numbers and functions that cannot be computed by any logical machine.

But waasn't he one of those [hushed anger] HOMOSEXUALISTS??? So anything that he discovered must be both wrong and evil, and you must be a liberal if you agree with him.[/loony science rejector mode]

[VadeRetro]

Leakey has been quoted as saying "the Australopithecines were long-armed short-legged knuckle-walkers, similar to existing African apes".

What do I think?

Creationist Arguments: Australopithecines.

Even in 1970, Zuckerman's views had long since been largely abandoned. In what is obviously a fabrication, Willis says that Leakey "referred to Lucy as an ape who did not walk upright", three years before Lucy was discovered. Leakey was merely making a suggestion (about robust australopithecines) which he soon retracted, not stating a firm opinion, and he has since stated (1994) that Lucy "undoubtedly was a biped".

So we've established that you're the one with the hoax here. Now the only questions are what did you know, when did you know it, and will you acknowledge or do the usual creationist perfuming of the pasture pie?

[Thatcherite]

Would any of the ID proponents care to propose a falsification test for ID? It's never to late to start doing some science rather than engaging in religious philosophy.

[Ichneumon]

Of course. If everyone would just stop exposing the flaws, deceptions and misreprentations of ID, things would be so much more peaceful.

To paraphrase Will Rogers, "If the creationists promise to stop telling lies about science, we'll promise to stop telling the truth about the creationists".

[moog]

do the usual creationist perfuming of the pasture pie?

What the................ ?:

[VadeRetro]

It's the opposite of gilding the lily. Catching a creationist on a "misspeaking event," we don't get frank acknowledgement from the Holy Warrior types.

We're there now. Stand by for the Dance of the Superdumb Larry.

[moog]

Would any of the ID proponents care to propose a falsification test for ID?

I don't think one can because it is faith-based. I guess it probably depends on the individual as to what one would be and the degree to which scientific knowledge is applied.

[Ichneumon]

And any way, the reason to even bring this up is that there is no magical proof machine that can be constructed to prove these statements (EVO,ID,stone soup,etc.), and so will rely on some Human to say otherwise.

Wow, you don't know the first thing about the scientific method or epistemology... Start here, and then go on to read this if you'd like to start coming up to speed on the topic.

[VadeRetro]

The tension is killing me ;) but I gotta bug out for an hour or more.

[Ichneumon]

["Is your post a hoax or a mistake?"]

Now you're being cruel. Are you picking on me because I don't want to claim a chimp as a relative?

Why don't you try actually answering the question?

[SubMareener]

Yes! If you take 6x7 = 42 as short hand for this:

[moog]

It's the opposite of gilding the lily. Catching a creationist on a "misspeaking event," we don't get frank acknowledgement from the Holy Warrior types.

I got you. I must be a different type of creationist then. I misspeak ALL the time. Actually, I misterspeak since I am male. I am a strong Christian, but I do have room in my beliefs for scientific ones.

[Ichneumon]

Will the paleos never stop trying to make apes into men?

No need, natural selection has already done so.

[moog]

Holy Cow! I wonder what it was like to learn the timestables then.

[Ichneumon]

Of course, I was putting out another dumb one-liner as I am wont to do many times.

That's what I figured, but it was a good opportunity for me to get pedantic again. ;-)

[moog]

"No need, natural selection has already done so."

Actually, in evolutionary theory, didn't apes and men have a COMMMON ancestor rather than men being descended from the apes. It just seems like I heard that somewhere.

My great great great grandma though could maybe fit the bill though.

Just wondering...nothing else.

[Ichneumon]

The accepted body of knowledge about evolution may be vast, but what do we really know about the ancestor of man? So far, just a lot of dead-end branches of the chimp family.

Yet another lie. Why don't you try getting truthful for a change?

I'm getting pretty tired of dishonest creationists, sometimes it seems like that's the only kind there is.

[Ichneumon]

It has been decisively proven time and time in these threads that a believer in ID can never evolve into a supporter of Darwin.

Actually, the talk.origins newsgroup -- a Usenet discussion forum dedicated to this topic -- maintains a lengthy list of people who have admitted to having switched from being a creationist to an evolutionist as a result of the discussions on that forum, or from other such debates.

Last time I checked, they couldn't find a single person who personally claimed to have been "converted" in the other direction.

[moog]

That's what I figured, but it was a good opportunity for me to get pedantic again. ;-)

Just what I figured too:). Interesting note that I'm no longer considered a pedant anymore. :)

[Ichneumon]

Specifically, the Darwin theory relies on a optimization subject often lumped together as pareto curve (or surface) minimization, and is often cited in the realm of game theory

ROFL! Wrong, but thanks for playing.