Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-15-2018 4:05 AM
122 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (4 members, 118 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,280 Year: 15,103/29,783 Month: 1,047/1,502 Week: 45/492 Day: 8/37 Hour: 1/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
12Next
Author Topic:   Help me understand Intelligent Design (part 2)
ringo
Member
Posts: 15393
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 91 of 173 (265998)
12-06-2005 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by pink sasquatch
12-06-2005 2:12 AM


Re: randman problems
pink sasquatch writes:

Read the forum rules lately?

FYI, randman is not subject to the forum rules. He's the "village idiot", who must be tolerated no matter what he says or does. Thus saith Admin.


People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-06-2005 2:12 AM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 1912 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 92 of 173 (266002)
12-06-2005 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by johnfolton
12-05-2005 10:35 AM


Re: ID is the Missing Link
Its this scientific evidence thats turning Evolutionists into ID'ers.

Silly me. And here I was thinking it took brain surgery.Brain-removal surgery.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by johnfolton, posted 12-05-2005 10:35 AM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by johnfolton, posted 12-06-2005 6:25 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 1912 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 93 of 173 (266003)
12-06-2005 5:32 AM


Abio and ID
Since creos sooner or later try to steer evolution discussions around to Abiogenesis, I want to put the torch to the belly and narrow down exactly who the ID-er is. I realise you propose nothing could have been 'created' without some form of intelligence. My question is, just how much evidence do you have to the identity of this mythological being? Do you have trademarks, fingerprints, irreducible (I couldn`t help myself there)proof of identity, leftover DNA,clay tablets,fossilised lab equipment,original blueprints or any evidence apart from an educated guess? Just must have happened that way will NOT pass.
    
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3510 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 94 of 173 (266151)
12-06-2005 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Nighttrain
12-06-2005 5:02 AM


Re: ID is the Missing Link
Nighttrain, I'd agree with Ned & Randman that the evidence is more than just the sudden emergence of the fossil evidences. Scientists are simply flipping a 180 based on the totality of the scientific evidences (this includes the fossil record).

Professor Antony Flew turned a 180 based on the evidence (scientific complexities issues). Flew has not yet given a name to this Intelligence but based only on the evidence, he has recanted.

Professor Flew told the Associated Press if his admirers are upset with his about-face, then thats too bad. My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato;s Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.

http://www.ca/tracks/converted-to-creation-antony-flew-former-atheist.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Nighttrain, posted 12-06-2005 5:02 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by randman, posted 12-06-2005 6:29 PM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 100 by nwr, posted 12-06-2005 7:44 PM johnfolton has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2817 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 95 of 173 (266153)
12-06-2005 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by johnfolton
12-06-2005 6:25 PM


Re: ID is the Missing Link
But Golfer, now Flew is a village idiot, old man,senile, etc, etc,...

Evos kind of flip out when they lose someone from the group.

This message has been edited by randman, 12-06-2005 06:30 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by johnfolton, posted 12-06-2005 6:25 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2817 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 96 of 173 (266156)
12-06-2005 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by pink sasquatch
12-06-2005 1:59 AM


Re: Discovery Institute problems
If you aren't interested in even briefly explaining how ID theory predicts/is confirmed by the fossil record, then you shouldn't be making such a strong assertion in a science forum.

Golfer's comments do fine.

The scientific evidence for ID is simply in agreement with the Paleontologist massive fossil evidences. There is no reason for the scientist to go to the age of the fossil. Transitionals would of supported Toe, instead the lack thereof "only" supports ID.

Scientists have been hoaxed with frauds of a few fossils, it will take massive transitional fossils to derail ID. Scientists care about what is (not what is not)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-06-2005 1:59 AM pink sasquatch has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-06-2005 6:43 PM randman has responded

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 3941 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 97 of 173 (266163)
12-06-2005 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by randman
12-06-2005 6:33 PM


Re: Discovery Institute problems
randman writes:

The fossil record in toto fits ID, and does not fit ToE.

This was the assertion I asked you to support. You give me:

randman writes:

Golfer's comments do fine.

Golfer writes:

The scientific evidence for ID is simply in agreement with the Paleontologist massive fossil evidences. There is no reason for the scientist to go to the age of the fossil. Transitionals would of supported Toe, instead the lack thereof "only" supports ID.

Golfer's comments are no different than yours that I asked you to explain. They're both just assertions that the fossil record supports ID but not the Theory of Evolution.

I'll take this idiocy to mean that you cannot explain how the fossil record data is predicted by ID theory, or how the data confirms ID theory.

Simply ridiculous.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by randman, posted 12-06-2005 6:33 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by randman, posted 12-06-2005 6:45 PM pink sasquatch has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2817 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 98 of 173 (266166)
12-06-2005 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by pink sasquatch
12-06-2005 6:43 PM


Re: Discovery Institute problems
lack of transitionals
sudden appearance
stasis (opposite of evolution)
etc, etc,...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-06-2005 6:43 PM pink sasquatch has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Wounded King, posted 12-06-2005 7:05 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 101 by TimChase, posted 12-06-2005 8:33 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 107 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-07-2005 1:03 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 12-07-2005 8:40 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2013 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 99 of 173 (266179)
12-06-2005 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by randman
12-06-2005 6:45 PM


Re: Discovery Institute problems
lack of transitionals
sudden appearance
stasis (opposite of evolution)

Is it just me or is this the same point phrased in three different ways?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by randman, posted 12-06-2005 6:45 PM randman has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5583
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 100 of 173 (266195)
12-06-2005 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by johnfolton
12-06-2005 6:25 PM


Re: ID is the Missing Link
Professor Antony Flew turned a 180 based on the evidence (scientific complexities issues).

I never did understand why creationists like to mention Flew. He was a philosopher, not a scientists. Most evolutionary scientists had never heard of Flew until the creationists mentioned him. And Flew did not turn against evolution, only against atheism.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by johnfolton, posted 12-06-2005 6:25 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by johnfolton, posted 12-06-2005 9:45 PM nwr has not yet responded

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 173 (266206)
12-06-2005 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by randman
12-06-2005 6:45 PM


Re: Discovery Institute problems
randman writes:

lack of transitionals
sudden appearance
stasis (opposite of evolution)
etc, etc,...

Here is one of my favorite, more recent quotes on this point:

"Though fossils don't provide the cinematic, step-by-step record of evolution that some ID proponents demand, the sum-total of the scientific evidence for evolution is incredibly strong—and it will only strengthen in the coming years."

Intelligent Design vs. evolution: a lopsided debate
by Adam Dylewski
Monday, November 14, 2005
http://www.dailycardinal.com/article.php?storyid=1027663

Here is just a little bit of the evidence you will find if you look around on the web.

Whale Evolution/Cetacean Evolution (Atavistic Hind Limbs on Modern Whales)
http://edwardtbabinski.us/whales/
from
Edward T Babinski
http://edwardtbabinski.us/

Smooth Change in the Fossil Record
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/fossil_series.html
from
Don Lindsay Archive
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/

Transitional Fossil Species
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm
from
Darwinians and Evolution
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/indexpage.htm

Observed Instances of Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
from
The Talk.Origins Archive
http://www.talkorigins.org/

Some More Observed Speciation Events
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
(Homepage given above)

Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html
from
Action Bioscience.Org
http://www.actionbioscience.org/

There actually are fairly extensive fossil records, including a series of transitionals leading from fish to reptile, reptile to bird, reptile to mammal (passing through a double-jawed stage), and of course the transitionals leading from a land mammal to whales.

As for the oblique reference to the fact that punctuated equilibria theory often appears to describe the evolution of species more accurately than traditional gradualism -- this appears to be true with species which reproduce by sexual means. As such, I would take it, a more rapid form of gradualism with genetic drift and natural selection would describe the periods of rapid evolution. But given the pronounced trends and the numerous periods of stasis which exist along these trends, the trends themselves often appear fairly continuous to the untrained eye.

PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM AT TWENTY: A PALEONTOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
By Donald R. Prothero, Ph.D.
From Skeptic vol. 1, no. 3, Fall 1992, pp. 38-47.
http://www.skeptic.com/01.3.prothero-punc-eq.html

The following two articles deal suggest that humans may have undergone
evolution which would likewise be best described by the punctuated
equilibria theory through the analysis of the human genome.

(Non-Technical)
'Punctuated' evolution in the human genome
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=26283

(Technical)
Periodic Explosive Expansion of Human retroelements Associated with
the Evolution of the Hominoid Primate
Tae-Min Kim, Seung-Jin Hong, Mun-Gan Rhyu
J Korean Med Sci 2004; 19: 177-85
http://jkms.kams.or.kr/2004/pdf/04177.pdf

This message has been edited by TimChase, 12-06-2005 08:36 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by randman, posted 12-06-2005 6:45 PM randman has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3510 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 102 of 173 (266226)
12-06-2005 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by nwr
12-06-2005 7:44 PM


Re: ID is the Missing Link
nwr, Flew believes the scientific complexities (evidences) is the work of Intelligence. Origin of the Species is the issue, Professor Antony Flew is now supportive of ID not TOE.

Mr. Flew's change was consistent with his career-long principle of following the evidence where it led him. And his newfound theism is the product neither of a Damascus road experience nor of fresh philosophical arguments, but by his sustained analysis of scientific data.

Flew said :"What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together." "The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence."

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/converted-to-creation-antony-flew-former-atheist.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by nwr, posted 12-06-2005 7:44 PM nwr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by AdminAsgara, posted 12-06-2005 9:57 PM johnfolton has responded

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 221 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 103 of 173 (266228)
12-06-2005 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by johnfolton
12-06-2005 9:45 PM


Re: ID is the Missing Link
Hi Golfer

Antony Flew isn't on topic for this thread. What any one person believes does not make this belief true or false.

Maybe you could read up on what Flew actually did believe and what he does believe now.

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Flew


AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

    http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 102 by johnfolton, posted 12-06-2005 9:45 PM johnfolton has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 104 by johnfolton, posted 12-07-2005 12:36 AM AdminAsgara has not yet responded

        
    johnfolton 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3510 days)
    Posts: 2024
    Joined: 12-04-2005


    Message 104 of 173 (266288)
    12-07-2005 12:36 AM
    Reply to: Message 103 by AdminAsgara
    12-06-2005 9:57 PM


    Re: ID is the Missing Link
    Asgara, Nuggins in the opening statement begged the question. What is ID theory? Nuggins wanted to know what supporters of ID believed. What mechanics should be taught in public schools if ID was the only theory.

    Flew being a supporter of ID answered Nuggins question what is ID. I thought this qualified it to be on topic. Its not about the evidence of theology (religion) but the enormity of the scientific evidences supporting the mechanics of ID that should be taught in the public schools. Theological evidence is not scientific evidence and because of separation issues left to the church.

    nuff said...


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 103 by AdminAsgara, posted 12-06-2005 9:57 PM AdminAsgara has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 105 by MangyTiger, posted 12-07-2005 12:52 AM johnfolton has not yet responded
     Message 106 by nwr, posted 12-07-2005 12:56 AM johnfolton has not yet responded
     Message 141 by Nuggin, posted 12-22-2005 1:45 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

      
    MangyTiger
    Member (Idle past 4272 days)
    Posts: 989
    From: Leicester, UK
    Joined: 07-30-2004


    Message 105 of 173 (266300)
    12-07-2005 12:52 AM
    Reply to: Message 104 by johnfolton
    12-07-2005 12:36 AM


    Re: ID is the Missing Link
    Flew being a supporter of ID answered Nuggins question what is ID.

    Not too put to fine a point on it but that's clearly complete nonsense.

    How does somebody (no matter who they are) supporting a theory help to define what that theory says?

    From the Opening Post:

    • What is Intelligent Design's theory?
    • What would be tought in schools if ID was the only theory?
    • What are the "mechanics" of Intelligent Design?
    • How are designs done?
    • How are they implimented?
    • What constraints are put on Natural selection to assure that only the incorrectly designed species are killed?
    • Why are there incorrectly designed species at all?

    These are the sort of questions you need to be answering for us.

    Have at it - we've been waiting a while :)


    I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 104 by johnfolton, posted 12-07-2005 12:36 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

        
    Prev1
    ...
    56
    7
    89
    ...
    12Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018