The Other Intelligent Design Theories

Skeptic Online ^ | May 2006 | David Brin

[Dimensio]

Your reply does not in any way invalidate my point.

[taxesareforever]

Let me help you get started:

Lots of Time Sadly, it is well known that living things can die. This has often been observed. It has NOT been scientifically demonstrated that a dead thing can come to life. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, something dead will come to life by some method or another. It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some critters will eventually evolve into other critters. Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. It is extremely improbable that you can toss a coin and have it come up heads 100 times in a row. But if you toss coins long enough, eventually it will happen. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen. If we observe present processes, and make the assumption that they have have been going on at the same rate since they started, we generally come to the conclusion that the Earth could not be billions of years old. Some of the processes that have been studied that give young ages for the Earth are: Continental erosion Sea floor sediments Salinity of the oceans Helium in the atmosphere Carbon 14 in the atmosphere Decay of the Earth's magnetic field The old ages for the Earth come primarily from the ages of rocks, which are dated by the presumed ages of the fossils in them. Radioactive measurements of rocks are based on assumptions that were chosen to make the radioactive measurements agree with the presumed ages of the fossils. The eruption of Mount St. Helens produced many feet of stratified rocks which look millions of years old, but were produced in days or hours. Radioactive measurements of these rocks show them to be millions of years old, too. But we know they were formed in 1980 because scientists saw them formed. The notion that the Earth is billions of years old is not consistent with a considerable amount of scientific observation. Conclusion The theory of evolution is not believed because of scientific evidence. It is believed DESPITE scientific evidence. Science is against the theory of evolution.

[taxesareforever]

Here's another for ya:

From October 2002: Fossilised tracks in the sand, dating back 500 million years, offer the earliest evidence so far of animals coming onto land for the first time.

From May 2006 This April, researchers announced another big discovery on Ellesmere Island - a strange creature, part fish and part alligator, which could have been the first to crawl from the oceans to shore 375 million years ago.

My my. What's a 125 million years to scientists? Oh, it can be explained. Back then a year wasn't what it is today.

[Dimensio]

Lots of Time Sadly, it is well known that living things can die. This has often been observed. It has NOT been scientifically demonstrated that a dead thing can come to life. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, something dead will come to life by some method or another.

This statement is false. The theory of evolution does not, in any way, predict that "something dead will come to life by some method or another". I do not know where you have obtained this information, but it is completely inaccurate.

It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another.

This statement is also false, as speciation has been observed.

Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some critters will eventually evolve into other critters. Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable.

This statement is founded upon a false premise, and thus has no meaning.

If we observe present processes, and make the assumption that they have have been going on at the same rate since they started, we generally come to the conclusion that the Earth could not be billions of years old.

This statement is demonstratably false.

Some of the processes that have been studied that give young ages for the Earth are: Continental erosion

This argument assumes that continents are static entites that only change geologically through erosion. this is not the case, thus the claim that erosion demonstrates a young earth is false.

Sea floor sediments

Sea floor sediments vary from location to location, based both upon age and geological events shifting sediment. Sea floor sediments do not demonstrate a young earth.

Salinity of the oceans

This claim is based upon ignorance of processes by which salt is removed from the ocean.

Helium in the atmosphere

This claim is based upon helium released during radioactive decay; creationists claim that not enough helium is in the atmosphere for billions of years of decay, however they neglect to consider that helium is light enough to escape the earth's atmosphere, and thus there is no reason to expect all helium released from all radioactive decay throughout the earth's history to be represented in the atmosphere.

Carbon 14 in the atmosphere

This statement is based upon a faulty assumption regarding the ratio of Carbon-14 decay to Carbon-14 release in the atmosphere, and also relies on an assumption that contradicts the next claim that you make.

Decay of the Earth's magnetic

This claim relies on the faulty assumption of a constant rate of decay.

The old ages for the Earth come primarily from the ages of rocks, which are dated by the presumed ages of the fossils in them. Radioactive measurements of rocks are based on assumptions that were chosen to make the radioactive measurements agree with the presumed ages of the fossils.

No evidence is given to support this claim.

. The eruption of Mount St. Helens produced many feet of stratified rocks which look millions of years old, but were produced in days or hours.

This is based upon a misuse of dating techniques; the technique used for dating the rocks can never give an age under two million years and as such is not given for any samples known to be under two-million years of age.

The notion that the Earth is billions of years old is not consistent with a considerable amount of scientific observation.

No actual evidence for this claim is given, all that are offered are references to demonstratably false claims.

[taxesareforever]

This statement is also false, as speciation has been observed.

From YOUR article: 3.0 The Context of Reports of Observed Speciations The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author's main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one review that was specifically on this topic (Callaghan 1987). This review cited only four examples of speciation events. Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events? In my humble opinion, four things account for this lack of interest. First, it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature.

As usual, you have provided me with absolutely nothing.

[taxesareforever]

<

In a science article out today: Using a mathematical model based on the body size and temperature-dependence of individual metabolism, the researchers made specific predictions on rates of speciation at the global scale.

If it is observable why do they need a mathematical model? Sheesh No actual evidence for this claim is given, all that are offered are references to demonstratably false claims.

And that is all you provide. References. Give me a break. Works for you but can't work for creos.

[Dimensio]

As usual, you have provided me with absolutely nothing.

I believe that you are applying an incorrect usage of the phrase. That you choose to ignore what I have provided does not mean that I have not actually provided anything.

[Dimensio]

If it is observable why do they need a mathematical model? Sheesh

I do not understand the cause for your objection.

And that is all you provide. References.

I have provided you with references that specifically refute the claims that you have provided, the references themselves referring to supporting evidence. You plagarized -- without attribution to Do-While Jones -- an essay that makes vague and easily refuted claims. I have pointed out that the claims of the essay are demonsratably false.

Give me a break. Works for you but can't work for creos.

It is not my failining that "creoes" do not wish to consider factual information and that they are unconcerned that they report demonstratably false claims.

[RunningWolf]

talk-origins placemaker.

W.

[taxesareforever]

I have provided you with references that specifically refute the claims that you have provided,

And I have provided you with references that specifically refute your claims. It is not my failining that "creoes" do not wish to consider factual information

There you go again claiming "factural" information when in previous posts you admitted that your information is not factual. Talk about false claims. The pot calling the kettle black.

[Dimensio]

And I have provided you with references that specifically refute your claims.

On the contrary, you have not. I have responded to the references that you have presented to show that they rely upon misunderstandings and factual errors. You have not made any effort to show that I am incorrect.

There you go again claiming "factural" information when in previous posts you admitted that your information is not factual.

I made no such admission that the information that I presented was not factual. You are again misrepresenting my previous statements.

[taxesareforever]

I made no such admission that the information that I presented was not factual.

Go back and check your posts. You're continuous backstepping is getting annoying. I have responded to the references that you have presented to show that they rely upon misunderstandings and factual errors

And I have responded with references that debunk your references. Oh, by the way, in the local paper today there is an article that says the Arctic was once like Florida. Go figure. Guess they haven't accepted the teaching of Creation either.

[Dimensio]

Go back and check your posts. You're continuous backstepping is getting annoying.

You are incorrect. I have not claimed that the data points that I have referenced were not facts.

And I have responded with references that debunk your references.

No, you have not. In post #412 I provided point-by-point refutations to an article that you presented. You did not provide any counter-references in your reply. In post #444 I again refuted a number of claims that you presented, this time from an excerpt that you plagarized. Again, you have not provided any refutations to my rebuttal.

Oh, by the way, in the local paper today there is an article that says the Arctic was once like Florida. Go figure. Guess they haven't accepted the teaching of Creation either.

What relevance does this have with the current discussion? Moreover, what evidence have you that the claims within the article are incorrect?

[taxesareforever]

You did not provide any counter-references in your reply

Unlike you I let my references speak for themselves. I don't have to be a computer geek to go find supporting "facts" like you do. Makes me wonder how many you tossed into file 13 because they didn't agree with your theories. Naw, I don't have to wonder. It's probably full. What relevance does this have with the current discussion?

If you can't see it, check it out at B-I-B-L-E. Genesis.

[taxesareforever]

From YOUR article: 3.0 The Context of Reports of Observed Speciations The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author's main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one review that was specifically on this topic (Callaghan 1987). This review cited only four examples of speciation events. Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events? In my humble opinion, four things account for this lack of interest. First, it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature.

Come on. Give some substance intstead of "it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question". Based on what. NON-DATA. They just said it. Typical for evos.

[Dimensio]

Unlike you I let my references speak for themselves.

This statement does not change the fact that you have offered no relevant counter-references to show that the rebuttals to the claims of your original references are false.

I don't have to be a computer geek to go find supporting "facts" like you do.

My expertise in computer science does not change the fact that the references that you provided contain demonstratable factual errors.

Makes me wonder how many you tossed into file 13 because they didn't agree with your theories.

You again have provided no reason to believe that the rebuttals to the false claims of your references are false.

Naw, I don't have to wonder. It's probably full.

You are attempting to change the subject. You have made demonstratably incorrect claims and you have referenced demonstratably incorrect claims. You appear to be making personal attacks against me rather than acknowledge your errors or defend your claims as truthful.

If you can't see it, check it out at B-I-B-L-E. Genesis.

This does not show how an article about the past condition of the Arctic relates to the current discussion.

[Dimensio]

Come on. Give some substance intstead of "it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question". Based on what. NON-DATA. They just said it. Typical for evos.

You are incorrect. Nowhere in your cited excerpt was a claim that the question is settled based upon "non-data".

[taxesareforever]

You again have provided no reason to believe that the rebuttals to the false claims of your references are false. Naw, I don't have to wonder. It's probably full. You are attempting to change the subject. You have made demonstratably incorrect claims and you have referenced demonstratably incorrect claims.

So I was right. Your file 13 is full.

[Dimensio]

So I was right. Your file 13 is full.

Again, your personal attacks in no way validate your claims, nor do they validate the demonstratably false claims of the references that you have provided or plagarized.

[taxesareforever]

Again, your personal attacks in no way validate your claims, nor do they validate the demonstratably false claims of the references that you have provided or plagarized.

But I know and believe the truth and in the end that is all that will matter. I am sure you know what I mean by "the end". It deserves contemplation.