Posted on 07/14/2007 10:33:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Nor do I. I just find it odd that the person chosen by the Discovery Institute to represent Intelligent Design as an expert witness fails to see what you claim is the end of Darwinism.
I also find it odd that the evolution critics having the best academic credentials in mathematics and information theory don't see what see.
Perhaps they aren't smoking what you are smoking.
Lord... SPIT on our eyes and heal our vision and observation problems.. Amen...
If Thomism is.
Simply fascinating, dearest sister in Christ! I'm going to have to read the rest of the article....
Thank you so very much for this truly outstanding post -- it's a real "keeper!"
Well, catastrophe can have different causes... and probably different observers will ascribe different causes. Best to listen to what each of them has to say; for none of them (in all probability) can give you the "complete description" beyond a reasonable doubt.
Still, comet impacts certainly seem a cause that reasonably could account for the full range of catastrophic events during the historical period in question, including rising sea levels and widespread flooding.
Thank you ever so much, dearest Alamo-Girl, for another totally magnificent post! (Plus another "keeper.")
Amen, dear brother 'pipe; AMEN.
True.. as the bible says God whistled for the gentiles Darius, Cyrus and Nebucanezzar (and probably Titus[diaspora] also) to come and "chasten" the Jewish people for their idolatry and entrenched conniving..
Just as surely God could whistle up a "space rock" if needed.. for chastening the whole planet(Noah).. Considering all that, and the multi millions of murdered people(babies) in the United States.. The U.S.. may be at serious RISK NOW...
[[Nor do I. I just find it odd that the person chosen by the Discovery Institute to represent Intelligent Design as an expert witness fails to see what you claim is the end of Darwinism.]]
There are many otp sicnetists at Discovery that are agnostic too- but their opinions don’t discount the good science they do- the results are of course open to opinion, and I don’t find it odd that the discovery institute would present good science by folks who’s opinions might lead to different conclusions- their ocnclusions are again, simply opinion.
[[I also find it odd that the evolution critics having the best academic credentials in mathematics and information theory don’t see what see.]]
[[Perhaps they aren’t smoking what you are smoking.]]
No, they’re prolly smoking somethign stronger- There is no biological evidnece of relatedness of supposedly million year old species, and if these people are ‘seeing something different’ then they are forming an a priori opinion that has no evidence to back it up. That is not to say the field shouldn’t be explored, of course it should, and peopel should have different opinions, however, it should always be noted and stated, that beleif in evolution is just that, beleif, and that it has many problems. But alas, that’s asking too much I guess.
The argument I made is already madew by the field of Baraminology-
[[if I make the effort to post a prediction from common descent, will you at last drop the bullshit]]
I’m not interested in predictions for common descent- common descent has no biological evidence ot support it- it’s a simple hypothesis based on an a priori belief. predictions for common descent rely on natural selection and show nothign more than adaption- microevolution.
since you won’t investigate hte predictions yourself, Here’s a starter link- the rest is up to you:
Google “predictions made by baraminology” http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=predictions+made+by+baraminology
Here’s one link with some predictions: http://baraminology.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_archive.html
and another: http://www.crsblog.org/
another prediction: “Evidence for typological isolation in the fossil record confirms the laboratory evidence that change is limited and the creation model prediction that populations resist change”
http://mbbc.us/creation/species.htm
You will find much if you search Sheppa.
let me also point htis out because it’s important- Behe of course is a brilliant person, but he even jumps the chasm of evidence and puts his faith in something that has no evidentiary examples to support. He argues against Darwinian evolution, and does so devestatingly, however, as you point out, he does beleive in common ancestry, and what does he base that belief on? Evidence? No- opinion! He states that macroevolutionary changes must have happened as a result of natural direction for which we can’t reasonbly expect to have happened in an unguided manner. This is a cop out hwne it comes to science- plain and simple. It’s paramount ot stating “Common ancestry is a fact, we don’t know how, we don’t have any evidence, but it non the less is fact.”
His opinion is fine- for him. His scientific understanding of true facts are what’s important- not his own a priori opinion.
Baraminology ... predicts that we should see major unrelatedness, or discontinuity, among various taxa because God made them after their kinds.That is what passes for logic amongst creationists. What a joke. Only it's not funny because evidently many of my fellow conservatives actually believe this stuff. It's quite embarrassing.
However, while scanning for that I did see this. I thought you might enjoy it.
As for "baraminology," predictions are as follows:Now, to be honest, these can't really be predictions of baraminology since it is an ad hoc classification scheme and, without underlying principles, you can't formulate the logical arguments necessary to make predictions. But I found it amusing nonetheless.Prediction 1: Taxa do not have deep molecular similarity derived from common descent.
Falsified.
Prediction 2: Taxa should not show gene similarity that corresponds both functionally and phylogeneticall.
Falsified.
Prediction 3: Gene evolution should not occur and should not increase morphological diversity.
Falsified.
Prediction 4: Molecular divergence dates should be impossible to find and should not correlate with each other or with the fossil record.
Extensively falsified.
Prediction 5: Morphological and molecular phylogenies should not produce any sort of identifiable signal, and should not converge on the same tree topologies.
Extensively falsified.
Prediction 6: All taxa should appear as the crown clade, showing full character suites, rather than stepwise derivation of individual characters. No stems should exist in the tree topology, and "basal" taxa should not exist.
Extensively falsified.
Prediction 7: Fossil faunas and floras should not show any sort of meaningful temporal evolution; that is, components in modern faunas and floras should remain approximately identical to the components of all fossil faunas and floras from identical abiotic environments. Any discrepancies should be due to loss of taxa, not gain of taxa.
Extensively falsified.
Prediction 8: No stem-taxa or "transitionals" should be found in the fossil record.
Extensively falsified.
Prediction 9: Evolutionarily useful structures will arise only once, or if they arise multiplle times, will arise with similar deep morphological similarity.
Extensively falsified.
Prediction 10: Extinction of specialized taxa will be followed by a void in this niche.
Extensively falsified.
Every single thing you said there is false. It is an amazing accomplishment. I dub you the Dick Morris of creationism.
everyhtign you just posted is nothign but apologetics and opinions and no scientific hard facts
[[That is what passes for logic amongst creationists. What a joke. Only it’s not funny because evidently many of my fellow conservatives actually believe this stuff. It’s quite embarrassing.]]
Are you always os arrogantly offensive? Hang tight, because two can play that game
[[Prediction 1: Taxa do not have deep molecular similarity derived from common descent.
Falsified.]]
What a biased pile of crap nonsense! Nothign you state falsifies it, and nothign you can produce refutes it- pony up.
[[Prediction 2: Taxa should not show gene similarity that corresponds both functionally and phylogeneticall.
Falsified.]]
Flasified by the blind ONLY if you have an assumption driven blind faith in common descent- thgerefore the prediction is NOT false- those that oppose apparently are ignorant of htis.
[[Prediction 3: Gene evolution should not occur and should not increase morphological diversity.
Falsified.]]
Getting tired of stating htis- when you can prove common descent, biologically, using fact and not some a priori blind faith- then you can claim falsified- until then, it’s not falsified.
Blah Blah Blah for the rest which is nothign but more of the same biased drivel with absolutely NO amount of evidnece to support your assertion that they have been falsified. How bout showing some facts instead of making general statements knowinbg full well that you can’t produce evidence?
See? Two can play the game of looking down hte nose at hte other- Care to keep it civil? Or do you wish to be called on your lies point blank?
Ad hoc? As you full well know, Evolution hypothesis is the most ad hoc arguments arou nd- Care to have me elaborate? A pineapple is not an apple- never has been, never will be. A monkey has never been a shrew- it’s biologically impossible- Amino acids could not have survived i ntheir hostile environments, nor could they have made their way to protiens- scientifically impossible. DNA had reapir instructions ready made awaiting DNA assembly? Lol-
Again- either show hte eivdnece that common descent is fact or face the fact that you present nothign more than ad hoc arguments and biased opinion which isn’t supported by the science-
Care to dance this little dance? As I said- you would dissagree- but the fact is that simply because you and others dissagree does nothign to de-validify the system of Baraminology. The evidneces presented support it just fine
[[Every single thing you said there is false. It is an amazing accomplishment. I dub you the Dick Morris of creationism.]]
Everythign you claimed is an unsubstantiated lie- I dub you the Bill clinton of apologetics- Hey- what fun
Ed- if you can’t produce evidence showing that Baraminology isn’t science- then obviously I’m wasting my time- i’m not going ot dance htis dance over and over again with you- you’ve proven nothign, you’ve offered nothing, and infact can offer nothing but petty little maligning remarks against soemthign you dissagree with- take your childishness elsewhere.
If you have scinetific FACT to back up your statements- let me know-0 till then- don’t waste any more of my time. It’s quite frankly too boring arguing agaisnt petty opinion when hte scientific facts are clear.
The facti s Ed, that everythign in biology resists the comnmonly held belief in common descent, and Baraminolgy points htis out by predicting that htere should be, and infact are, major discontinuities. Molecular biology points out that life’s observed patterns itself resists common descent. to state that common descent is true and that Baraminology and biological observances which point out those resistances to common descent are not true science is quite frankly nothing but a hand waving dismissal of the obvious, and not worthy of being limped together with science, which as I understand it, seeks to find hte truth- not suppress it as you seem willing to do.
If you can engage in actual relevent discussions by prove the discontinuity patterns don’t exist, and don’t rightfully support the scienctific classification of Baraminology, then by all means, have at it- If al lyou’re going to do is offer opinion and use an ad hoc argument to support your argument and with wich to engage in petty maligning- then really, I’m done arguing.
Extensively Falsified Ed? Provide the evidence that backs htis up that doesn’t rely on assumptions that common descent is a fact when infact hte evidence is completely missing to support htis.
Archeologists, of course, would be loathe to correlate the evidence of a worldwide catastrophe (ending all centers of civilization) with the date of the Noah flood.
But there you have it. And who knows, perhaps God used comets in carrying out His judgment? Such disasters are associated with tidal waves and severe weather conditions. Or perhaps it just looks that way?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.