The Other Intelligent Design Theories

Skeptic Online ^ | May 2006 | David Brin

[Dimensio]

Now if only we can get someone to bury this thing and dig it up in ten years it could be called a missing link.

Are you suggesting that all transitional fossils are actually hybrids? Do you have an adequate biological background to draw such a conclusion with any authority?

[taxesareforever]

Do you have an adequate biological background to draw such a conclusion with any authority?

Adequate? Now that is a pretty liberal definition of a biological scientist. I can say that I have an "adequate" education in order to deduce fact from fiction.

[Dimensio]

Adequate? Now that is a pretty liberal definition of a biological scientist.

I fail to see any political slant regarding my comments.

I can say that I have an "adequate" education in order to deduce fact from fiction.

I do not believe that this is universally possible. I am unaware of any individual sufficiently educated to distinguish "fact" from "fiction" in all possible fields of study.

[taxesareforever]

I am unaware of any individual sufficiently educated to distinguish "fact" from "fiction" in all possible fields of study.

Someone has to be the first, so I'll step up to the plate and accept the compliment. :)

[Dimensio]

Someone has to be the first, so I'll step up to the plate and accept the compliment. :)

So you are saying, then, that you know everything?

[taxesareforever]

So you are saying, then, that you know everything?

Pretty much, according to my public education administrators. They were amazed how I could deduce fact from fiction.

[js1138]

By the way is this story a sign of evolution or is it just a change in species?

Neither.

Species is a term applied to populations the rarely or never interbreed.

[balrog666]

Just want to chime in her as a very conservative person with no belief in the SUPERNATURAL. No ghosts, no God, etc. I'm amazed at how many smart people who I agree with about most subjects believe in the supernatural with ZERO evidence, it's nothing personal I have nothing against anyone who's a believer but if you apply the scrutiny that you use in politics to religion you would be hard pressed to defend the supernatural.

As you can see by the examples here, a belief in the supernatural often means never having to be polite, never having to make reasoned arguments, and never having to understand (or acknowledge) what either evidence or logic actually is.

Or perhaps the highest form of worship for some gods is to embrace one's inner imbecile and disrupt any potentially rational discussion between others.

[Dimensio]

They were amazed how I could deduce fact from fiction.

Then please explain how you have deduced that the theory of evolution is a lie.

[taxesareforever]

Species is a term applied to populations the rarely or never interbreed.

Except when it serves to push the evolution agenda.

[taxesareforever]

Then please explain how you have deduced that the theory of evolution is a lie.

The B-I-B-L-E, now that's the Book for me. I stand alone on the Word of God, the B-I-B-L-E. And believe me, this did not come from public education.

[Dimensio]

The B-I-B-L-E, now that's the Book for me. I stand alone on the Word of God, the B-I-B-L-E. And believe me, this did not come from public education.

You have not answered my question. How have you deduced that the theory of evolution is a lie?

[taxesareforever]

Haven't seen you do any posting on this thread. It's probably because you consider this geologist just another liar.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1632295/posts

[Dimensio]

The geologist reference in the article to which you linked is quoted as saying "Charles Darwin actually graduated in theology, which is a little-known, well-kept secret,"

Given the number of FReepers here who point to Charles Darwin's plans to join the seminary following his studies in theology, it would appear that John Mackay is either uninformed or not honest regarding his claims. I notice also that the article does not present any argument from Mackay in demonstrating that the earth is only 6000 years old.

I will remind you again that you have still not demonstrated that your claim that evolution is a "lie" is accurate.

[taxesareforever]

I will remind you again that you have still not demonstrated that your claim that evolution is a "lie" is accurate. I allow experts to lay it out for you.

http://education.independent.co.uk/news/article359111.ece

[Dimensio]

The article that you reference merely makes mention of John Mackay, but does not offer any examples of actual arguments that Mackay uses. As such, it still does not demonstrate that evolution is a lie. Pointing out that there exist other individuals who believe as you do is not the same as presenting evidence for your specific claims.

[taxesareforever]

Pointing out that there exist other individuals who believe as you do is not the same as presenting evidence for your specific claims.

In your opinion, of course. Believe me, there is nothing I could say or present to you that you would even consider to be factual if it goes against your thinking. So let me leave you with this poem: Three monkeys sat on a coconut tree, Discussing things as they're said to be. Said one to the other, "Now listen you two, There's a certain rumor That can't be true ... That man descended from our noble race. The very idea is sure to disgrace." "No monkey ever deserted his wife, Starved her babies and ruined her life. And you've never known another monk, To leave her babies with others to bunk, Or pass them on from one to another." "And another thing you will never see ... Is a monk build a fence around a coconut tree; And let the coconuts go to waste, Forbidding all the other monks to taste." "Why, if I put a fence around this tree, Starvation would force you to steal from me." "And here's something else a monk won't do ... Go out at night and get on a stew; Or use a gun or club or knife, To take some other monkey's life." "Yes, man descended ... ornery cuss, But, brother, ... he didn't descend from us! ~ Author Unknown ~

[Dimensio]

In your opinion, of course. Believe me, there is nothing I could say or present to you that you would even consider to be factual if it goes against your thinking.

This is incorrect. If you can demonstrate a clear contradiction between the theory of evolution and reality, you will have the foundation of an argument. You would then need to demonstrate that the original authors of the theory of evolution were aware of this contradiction with reality to demonstrate your claim that the theory is, as you claim, a "lie". It would appear, however, that you would rather make excuses for not supporting your claims with evidence. This suggests that you are aware that your claims cannot be supported.

[RunningWolf]

//they are atheists he said. "Their arguments do not come from pure science but from their interpretation of the evidence in order to back their beliefs."

Even then, we keep seeing (almost monthly) new findings that 'the evidence' is made up & fabricated. In court that would be called a lie I think. But in the inside out upside down world of evo however it reflects a reality.., their reality as it were.

guardian.co.uk History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud

guardian.co.uk Flamboyant anthropologist falsified dating of key discoveries

"the professor's sensational finds, "Binshof-Speyer" woman, lived in 1,300 BC and not 21,300 years ago, as he had claimed, while "Paderborn-Sande man" (dated at 27,400 BC) only died a couple of hundred years ago, in 1750"

" one of archaeology's most sensational finds. The skull fragment discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg was more than 36,000 years old - and was the vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals"

" a crucial Hamburg skull fragment, which was believed to have come from the world's oldest German, a Neanderthal known as Hahnhöfersand Man, was actually a mere 7,500 years old, according to Oxford University's radiocarbon dating unit. The unit established that other skulls had been wrongly dated too"

Wolf

[taxesareforever]

And your claims are supported by what? Hearsay and speculation and theory. You have no facts to back up evolution. All you have is theories. Funny how you want me to look into the minds of people who are dead and state what they were thinking and what they based their ideas on, when you can't even do that. Gobbeldygook does not pass for science. Sorry to say however, it does however fool many many people and you can vouch for that.