quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
slp:
I would argue that that is not entirely true - we don't know exactly who built it, but we have a pretty good handle on the groups involved.
John Paul:
Yup sure we do. Let's see- we have the Druids, Beakers, Wessex people, Merlin, aliens and assorted Neolithic peoples. That sounds like a pretty good handle to me- NOT.
---------------------------------------------------------------
slp:
When unable to respond with substance, post fecetious nonsense, probably culled from some Erik von Daniken (sp?) book. http://www.britannia.com/history/h7.html has some actual information, albeit very brief. You can cross the druids, Merlin, and aliens off your list. The beaker folk and the 'assorted neolithic peoples' are the same thing.
John Paul:
First beaker folk and 'assorted neolithic peoples' are not the same thing. To say 'beaker folk' is to specify. Ya know, like differentiate between populations of people living in the neolithic period. This is from your link
"The best guess seems to be that the Stonehenge site was begun by the people of the late Neolithic period (around 3000 BC) and carried forward by people from a new economy which was arising at this time.
These "new" people, called Beaker Folk because of their use of pottery drinking vessels, began to use metal implements and to live in a more communal fashion than their ancestors. Some think that they may have been immigrants from the continent, but that contention is not supported by archaeological evidence. It is likely that they were indigenous people doing the same old things in new ways."
John Paul:
Yup there it is. We have a guess and it's a best guess at that. Woo-hoo, I feel better already. The problem is, was Stonehenge designed and built by these people or did they just live there because it was there?
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/blavatsky/123/stonebuilt.html
Of course, a best guess by knowledgible folk is a far better thing than speculative nonsense by those pontificating in areas well outside of their sphere of knowledge, no?
Better yet, and before you succeed in veering off into a tangent that you hope you can score points on, again, there is a 'paper trail' that can be followed as to the contruction. Over time.
And, again, where is similar evidence for ID in biology?[b] [QUOTE]
slp:
This appears to be one of those 'I must post SOMETHING!' posts...
John Paul:
Then why did you even bother? And what about your link makes it the all knowing authority on Stonehenge? [/b][/QUOTE]
Because I hate to see piffle unchallenged.
I never said, implied, or even slightly hinted at my link being the 'all knowing authority'. It was just one of several that came up on a simple Google search. Of course, at least I provided some objetive information...[b] [QUOTE]
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------
slp:
But more importantly, we have a history - a 'paper trail', if you will. Examining the site, it has been discovered that what we now refer to as Stonehenge isthe last in a series of modifications to earlier structures at that site. The history is fairly well documented - things such as the source of the bluestone used, the path taken in getting the larger stones to the site, etc.
John Paul:
The point is we don't have to know who designed it or why in order to deduce it was in fact designed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
slp:
If that was your point, it was an overly simplistic one (say - didn't someone start a thread about oversimplification and it being a bad thing?).
John Paul:
Actually, when taken in context (which I know is something you can't do), it is a simple point, but one you can't comprehend- so what does that tell us about you? It has absolutely nothing to do with oversimplifying anything. It's just the way it is. Good thing logic isn't required to obtain a phd.[/b][/QUOTE]
The best you seem to be able to offer are your laughably asinine attempts at insulting and mocking my superior education.
I did tkae it in context - the complete context, and not the overly simplistic way in which you had hoped. We do not need to know the exact designer to infer HUMAN design, no. But when HUMAN design is inferred, it is done based on a number of things - history, for one, and more importantly, and as I pointed out, EVIDENCE.[b] [QUOTE]
slp:
What analogous information do we have for Intelliegent Design in biological organisms?
John Paul:
Seeing that there isn't any evidence to substantiate the claim life, and therefore biological organisms, are the result of purely natural processes, it is safe to infer ID.
----------------------------------------------------------------
slp:
LOL! I wrote something similar before:
There is no proof that blue fairies push the sun through the sky, therefore, we should conclude that it is in reality pink fairies.
John Paul:
What's this "we" sh!+? YOU can infer whatever you want. Convincing others is a different story. How old are you and what is your level of education?[/b][/QUOTE]
Your response is completely unwarranted. 'We' is simply a word used in a sentence. I don't see what got you so upset. Let's look at what YOU wrote:
"...it is safe to infer ID."
Gee, YOU did not write that it is OK for YOU to infer ID. As written, it appears to be a blanket statement, that anyone should infer ID because the opposite has not been 'proven' (which is logically fallacious on its own).
I am 35 years old, and I have a doctorate in a relevant field.
You?[b] [QUOTE]
slp:
Surely, even YOU can recognize a logical (not to mention scientific) fallacy such as the one you just wrote?
John Paul:
So, tell me then. Why do I have to infer the same way and the same things evolutionists do when the evidence (obvious) tells me something different? You are not the Borg and I will continue to go with the
evidence.[/b][/QUOTE]
Your 'evidence' is that the opposite of your views has not been 'proven' to your personal satisfaction. That is not evidence. That is a logical fallacy. I, frankly, do not care one whit what you personally believe. Of course, I did not realize that this - or any - internet discussion forum was to discuss the personal beliefs of individuals and that the job of board participants is to convince individuals of the error of their ways.
My mistake.[b] [QUOTE]
OK, I should have posted this as an analogy, but you being a phd and all, I actually thought you knew of such-
Here is a great illustration by Julie Thomas:
quote:
**snip lengthy and irrelevant exposition by internet pseudoauthority 'Julie Thomas'**
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Describing this device, Science News makes it clear that it is not like a machine, it is one. [/b][/QUOTE]
And this is evidence that only ID can 'explain' it how?
And what does this have to do with, say, common descent, which is what these arguments are ultimately about?
If this was supposed to be a counter to the fact that the history of the construction of Stonehenge is indicative of 'natural' (i.e., human) causes, then it failed utterly.
[b] [QUOTE]
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Like the many IC systems Behe discusses, there seems to be nothing in the literature about the Darwinian evolution of the ATP synthase.
the above was taken from Behe answers his critics- Nelson Alonso responds
[/b][/QUOTE]
Nelson Alonzo is an incredibly gullible and ignorant ID proselytizer. I engaged him on the KCFS forum some time ago and he - like you and other creationists - simply focuses on minutia and casts aspersions.
What Nelson does not seem to admit i sthat the scientific literature has absolutley nothing - from Behe or anyone else - on the Intelligent Design of ANYTHING biological.
Gee - I wonder why?
Oh, wait - the conspiracy, of course!
But then why doesn't the publication of the Discovery Institute -
Origins & Design - have any SCIENTIFIC articles on the Design of anything?
Another post by John Paul devoid of anything substantive.
™ Version 4.2
