The Other Intelligent Design Theories

Skeptic Online ^ | May 2006 | David Brin

[Dimensio]

So, I guess you must believe that if a like fossil is discovered it automatically is catalogued in reference to previous fossils.

Only in relevant terms, and only if found consistently with the previously established pattern. The pattern described requires that fossil A always comes before fossil B and that fossil B is always found to come before fossil C. Should a geologist uncover an example where fossil C appeared during or after the time of fossil B, the existing established lineage is overturned.

Don't take into account cataclysmic actions such as volcanoes or tsunamis which could lead to fossils thousands of years apart but yet entered into the evo database as the same time.

On the contrary. Such "catacylsmic actions" leave distinct marks in the geologic record, and thus fossils found in affected layers can be regarded with such upheaval in mind.

[taxesareforever]

and thus fossils found in affected layers can be regarded with such upheaval in mind.

Yeah, in your dreams.

[Dimensio]

Yeah, in your dreams.

Do you have evidence to show that cataclysmic effects in the geologic record are not addressed by palentologists when examining fossil placement?

[taxesareforever]

Do you have evidence that they are? If you do, why didn't you state it?

Here is something to feast your eyes on. Looking at the picture I wonder what explanation evos have that all this evolving seems to have stopped. Maybe it is just waiting for some new theories before it takes off again.

http://library.thinkquest.org/19012/treeolif.htm

[taxesareforever]

Scholars say mankind is a product of evolution
Citing many textbooks for their conclusion
They say man is a descendant of the ape
That there is no Heaven; no Pearly Gate

Scholars say mankind is a product of evolution
And some argue for this man made solution
But God created Earth and God created Man
Why is this so hard for them to understand?

Scholars say mankind is a product of evolution
And this muddled thinking has lead to confusion
Maybe man does act like a monkey sometimes
But it's God's help they seeks when in a bind
Ellen Bailey

[Dimensio]

The poem that you cite not only includes the demonstratably false claim that all who accept evolution are atheists, but also does not amount to evidence at all that the theory of evolution is false.

[metmom]

Don't you have a sense of humor?

[taxesareforever]

The poem that you cite not only includes the demonstratably false claim that all who accept evolution are atheists

That may be so, but if they aren't atheists they are putting their souls in danger by discounting the Biblical truth of creation. This will only lead to question other portions of Scripture.

[taxesareforever]

:)

[Dimensio]

That may be so, but if they aren't atheists they are putting their souls in danger by discounting the Biblical truth of creation.

As I have stated before, it is not the fault of reality that it produces observations contrary to your interpretations of the Biblical creation account.

[taxesareforever]

As I have stated before, it is not the fault of reality that it produces observations contrary to your interpretations of the Biblical creation account.

And that is your problem. You only believe what you touch or see. At least until it comes to putting blind faith in evolution. Then the table turns and my, how fast you are to believe in the unknown. You can't have it both ways. When you point the finger at me for having faith in the Biblical interpretation of creation there is three fingers pointing back at yourself for your faith in the unknown.(At least the unknown as far as you are concerned).

[Dimensio]

You only believe what you touch or see. At least until it comes to putting blind faith in evolution.

Acceptance of evolution is not "blind faith". I have even given you a relatively small list of reasons for evolution's acceptance amongst the scientific community.

[taxesareforever]

Acceptance of evolution is not "blind faith". I have even given you a relatively small list of reasons for evolution's acceptance amongst the scientific community.

Sure, but no facts. Dazzle the masses with huge amounts of info and that makes evolution bona fide. Give me the facts and only the facts, otherwise your opinion is no better than anyone else's including the "scientific community".

[Dimensio]

Sure, but no facts.

This is false. Mutations have been observed. That is a fact. Mutations that provide an environment-based benefit for the organism have also been observed. This is another fact. ERV sequences across species in patterns suggesting common descent of specific lineages is also a fact.

[Ichneumon]

The alleged "mountains" of evidence in favor evolution turn out on closer examination to be speculation, hypotheses, and guesses piled impossibly high. Every observation is inserted into the evolution paradigm somehow to support the theory.

Gee, really? What, for example, is wrong with the ERV evidence for evolution? We await your insights. After you get done with that one, I've got several hundred other lines of independent cross-confirming evidence for you to "englighten" us about.

Or, will you turn out to be yet another in a long line of anti-evolutionists who dismiss the evidence without actually knowing what in the hell they're talking about, and with no actual knowledge of the evidence in the first place?

Go for it. Your credibility is on trial.

[Ichneumon]

Do you consider this source to be objective?

I consider this source to be correct, because he is. I don't care if someone is "objective" or not, as long as they arrive at the truth.

[Ichneumon]

[That is how I know that you have made a number of claims about evolution, but have given no reason to believe that any of them are true.]

And you have given exactly zero facts that support evolution that can be proven.

Because science doesn't deal in proof -- in fact, "proof" is an unobtainable standard in *any* methodology in this real world. Duh! Proof is only possible in artificial realms like mathematics. Science uses other methods to validate its conclusions -- why don't you try dealing with *that* instead of engaging in cheap games like demanding "proof" of evolution, when you can't even prove your own beliefs?

Of course, this has been explained to you before, why are you now pretending not to be aware of this? Oh, right, because you're an anti-evolutionist -- if you weren't allowed to repeat your fallacies and word games, you'd have nothing left to work with.

[Ichneumon]

[Why not just forget Darwin and then all the others wouldn't be considered either]

Touche bump!

Bookmarked to use the next time some creationist dishonestly tries to claim, as they frequently do, "oh, creationists don't actually favor pulling evolution from schools, we just want 'equal time'..."

[Ichneumon]

Why not just forget Darwin and then all the others wouldn't be considered either.

Because that would result in a very substandard science education. It would be like forgetting the discoveries of Einstein and Newton in physics. Oh, right, you guys *want* to cripple science, since you consider it a flawed way to gain and validate knowledge about the world, and because you don't like its findings.

Oh, that's right, there is an agenda that needs to be promoted.

Yeah, evil us, we have an "agenda" to give students a good education in the sciences.

Forget I even mentioned it.

Sorry, no -- your Luddite suggestion has been archived and you'll have to take responsibility for it.

[Ichneumon]

Any evidence submitted by an IDer will be debunked as a lie by evolutionists.

When the shoe fits, yeah! Unfortunately, that's pretty much all you folks have managed to produce so far.

So what's the point?

Our point is that you made a claim and then have played various childish games (like "this guy says so, that proves it!", or "that's what I think, end of story"), instead of actually substantiating it as requested. In short, you are behaving like a typical anti-evolutionist.