Dogs will be Dogs will be ???

How about who cares which God, how or when. The fact remains that we have design, very clever, very intricate, very organized -so that tells me that there has to be a designer. Random mistakes over I don't care how long isn't going to produce carefully integrated design. Genetic mistakes only produce our genetic load and very occasionally something that may be considered to be an advantage though, in those few cases, the advantage comes about by loss of pre-existing genetic information. By conceding that specified complexity and the genetic code needs a cause that is far from random. By realizing that a painting needs a painter, a bridge needs a designer and anything as intricately put together as the simplest of bacteria needs a designer.We don't need to see the painter to know that there is one. No, it's a law that can be repeatedly experimentally tested for and thus can be proven to exist, that is what science is supposed to be about -unlike the big evolution story, our modern creation myth. Or so you would like to believe. Microevolution or variation is a fact. Macroevolution is far from it -it is a supposition at best. It was hypothesised to do away with the need for a creator as an explanation for the creation. Until evolutionists can prove a mechanism for macroevolutionary change and tell us where the original genetic code came from, they are the ones doing the hand waving. ID proposes that an intelligence did it. Evolution proposes that nothing but random chance did it. I'll go with intelligence.

I can't wait, where shall we go?

The ones which are certainly related remain one kind with variations of a limited kind.The kind invariably arises suddenly and without provable precursors because they are fossils. But they start out as pelycodus and remain pelycodus much like bacteria show variation but only faith says they change into something that is not bacteria.The fossil record cannot be tested for interfertility and so relationship has to be assumed based on morphology. If you believe that one kind of creature can turn into a completely different kind given time and the selection of mutations, then you can imagine the links but it is a philisophical thing not science. But dog breeding requires intelligence to allow for that degree of variation. The kind of variation seen in dogs cannot be necessarily compared to that which occurs in the wild.Saying anything definate about relationships in the fossil record cannot really be science if no testing of assumed relationships can be done.Relationships can only be guessed at based on morphological and philisophical considerations.In general variation within a species in the fossil record is far less than that seen in dog breeding and any further connections between kinds can only be surmised. But punkeek is the rule and not the exception in the fossil record -if punkeek can be considered to have any credibility at all since it is really an excuse for lack of evidence of gradualism. As far as I can make out and having read practically everything he has written, Phillip Johnson is an extremely logical man that is questioning the gap between what is believed by evolutionists and their ability to prove scientifically that any such thing as large scale evolution has occurred.He is questioning their assumption that a creative intelligence had nothing to do with it and that natural law alone can account for what we see. He specialized in the logic of argument and shows how far science has stepped from the realm of true science and into the philisophical realm. He makes perfect sense to me and your assumption that he is a liar just shows what you prefer to believe and has no necessary connection to the man's true intentions at all. Is a lawyer always considered to be a liar? Do only people with no scruples go into law? I know that that is not true but it is clear that you have a prejudice. Unfortunately science tends to overstep the bounds of science and make pronouncements about what they 'believe is real and true and only later when it is proven to be false says well let's fix it up a bit and now this is true for sure. This usually happens when they make pronouncements that cannot be proven by repeatable experimentation and are in reality based on philisophical considerations.It's those pronouncements which make people less inclined to believe them when they come with their revised conclusions. But it still involves dead bones and morphological similarities and a good degree of guesswork with no prospect of ever being proven to be true -it may be possible but that doesn't mean that it is true. Nor does it make it provably true -it depends whether you 'believe' that it is possible or not.You're still outside the bounds of experimentally provable science since those 'horses' are all dead. By invalid concepts you mean old evidence that was not evidence after all? Which nonetheless doesn't make it provably true, only possible theoretically. Those are the things that 'science' should not be allowed to make fact pronouncements about. Well there is certainly a vast difference between the pronouncments that are possible about something like gravity and those that are historical and therefore not even vaguely testable. We know for a fact that plants require water and light for growth and that is something we can prove - on the other hand horse evolution belongs to the 'maybe, possibly, we believe so' type of science which is what makes it soooo questionable and so philisophically based. And thus should not be considered to be fact as evolutionists pronounce and should not be taught as truth in school rooms until such time as it is a proven fact.In the meantime lets just be honest with the younger generation and just say that this is what some scientists believe based on these facts and these are the objections other scientists have based on these facts, and this is what other scientists believe based on these facts and open the entire subject up to debate and open enquiry instead of the stifling of opposition which is happening in education at the moment. Instead of asking children to rehash certain beliefs as fact, they should be exposed to all the objections.

Unfortunately for evolution the appearance of the fossil record is far more supportive of de novo appearance. The complexity of what exists is also far more indicative of an outside intelligence than of random changes and selection without a plan.You only have to look at how nerve impulses work or at the complexity of the eye or the anatomical detail in the ear and the necessity to be able to convert wave stimuli into something elctrical which then proceeds to be understood in the brain and acted apon in an integrated manner, to logically conclude that random change and lack of planning,as well as selection of the best errors, are unlikely to have brought about such complexity and interconnectedness of all the bodily functions.The body is such a masterpiece of engineering that to me and all ID proponents it seems ludicrous to suggest that no intelligence and no plan was behind its obvious design, and the presence of the genetic code that makes it all possible.
The point is that 'science' should limit itself to suggestions in the absence of proof and should be less frightened of exposing the weaknesses of evolutionary theory.All philisophical pronouncements should be clearly stated and should not be relegated to the realm of fact as evolutionists insist on doing until such time as it becomes proven or disproven.
Children everywhere are being educated into the concept that they are here for no purpose with no plan and that would be fine if it were provably true but look at the relativism that is has produced and it's attendant lawlessness and purposelessness and the big picture is a disaster.Right and wrong no longer exists because who's to say what's right or wrong or whether there is such a thing? It's all about 'your truth' and 'my truth' -it's a destructive philosophy and it's not science. -nor to suggest that there are no limits. That's the more likely interpretation based on what the fossil record actually shows.Things appear fully formed and disappear just as suddenly or continue pretty much unchanged for hundreds of millions of hypothetical years.That looks pretty much de novo to a lot of people. The fossil record appears in part most everywhere and all the hypothetical ages appear nowhere in one place unless you refer to the textbooks which simplify the issue and create an impression that is unfounded. So why is so much 'time' missing in so many places? Evolution's standard of proof is not scientific either.So in the absence of proof, lets just go with what we can actually prove and stop 'science' from overextending itself.

Well it wouldn't -they are the most brain washed of all, I suspect and Gould and Eldredge must have been trying to explain away something (like a lack of gradualisitic evidence) when they dreamed up their punkeek story.Who desires to believe what is convenient, is what I ask?

No I think they've been brainwashed into seeing what they have to see to be a paleontologist -it's very human,you just look hard enough and you too can see what isn't there.
If we assume that Darwinism is basically true then its perfectly reasonable to adjust the theory as necessary to make it conform to the observed facts.
In Darwin's day all the most prominent paleontologists and geologists maintained the immutability of the species as a result of what they saw.Due to the shape of the fossil record, Darwin was also concerned that it failed to show gradualism to any significant extent but he had faith that time would solve that problem as the fossils that bridged those gaps were found. Darwin never lost faith in the theory, the only puzzle was how to account for the plainly misleading aspects of the fossil record.Species that were once thought to have turned into others turn out to overlap in time with their alleged descendants and the fossil record does not convincingly document one single transition from one species to another. Species remain fundamentally unchanged for an average of more than a million years before disappearing from the record.The fossils are unfortunately in every bit as bad a state today despite Darwin's hopes.Perhaps the comfort isn't in a father figure and eternal life -perhaps the comfort is total materialism, no plan, no big boss, nobody to tell you what's right and wrong, no guilt, choose whatever you prefer... The discontinuities between the major groups -phyla,classes, orders - are not only pervasive, but in many cases, immense.If you're a biologist, you point to the plaeontologist as having the best evidence for evolution; if you're a botanist, well you'll just have to point to human evolution as the best evidence available. How many specialists in any field actually choose the field they know the most about as having the best evidence available? - or we could have a common designer accounting for the genetic code present in all creatures.It would be a bit dumb not to design us all based on a pattern otherwise what would we eat? So don't worry for now about any ancient mythologies just concentrate on design alone and the chance of what we see falling into place all on its own due to random change in the genome that came from nowhere in particular and got more and more complex purely by chance and selection of the best copying errors. Science cannot tell you who God is, but it can give an indication whether the design hypothesis should be considered as an alternative to material processes as a potential causation of what exists. Well quite obviously I believe no such thing and nor is the 'evidence' as tidy as you suggest -in fact far from it. Well good question -and every new find is the one that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is true -it's to remind the people that it's not just hot air and wishful thinking. Funny that the people are not convinced.The debate is heating up not slowing down and it's due to the gaps between what is apparently proven and the actual evidence.

No I've just read too many quotes from paleontologists that give the game away -they're too sucked in to realize that they're playing the game not following the evidence and drawing real conclusions from what they really see. No I didn't even realize they were until a few years ago nor did I care - now I notice and I care. Yes it is and it should be against the scientific method as well -fortunately that is irrelevant here, it just suits you to imagine that I would have to be lying to mention the things I do. Perhaps but only those biologists not in genetics or anatomy. If I recall correctly, the reference you gave me didn't say much or explain anything of note, perhaps if you give me another reference so that I can look into it properly? I'd like to see how this conclusion was reached -any references? No, naturalistic evolution is dying after an illegitimate innings, due to the gap between the facts and the conclusions - paradigm shift coming, ship's going down - wake up or drown! I watch constantly and remain unimpressed. ...and evolutionists interpretations of the evidence. And intelligent and honest people are unconvinced -to make time to argue about an issue doesn't necessarily mean that you're right but it's unlikely to mean that you're intentionally dishonest. I know lots of decent people on both sides of this issue - I don't mistake their faith in evolution for dishonesty; blindness perhaps, inability to see outside the box possibly...

Hello Granny Magda, Well actually I'm not professing to be a better paleontologist than the paleontologists,I am saying that the comments of people like Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould give the game away -not intentionally but the things they say are very supportive of intelligent design even though they have kept the evolution faith despite what they know to be the facts. ...with preconceptions -with a worldview that renders them blind to the problems. You believe in evolution because everyone knows it's true; minor brainwashing as a child (if you had TV), little more intense in the high school years (where it's thoroughly convenient to believe that you are here by mistake and are accountable to no-one)and then the major mindbenders come in tertiary education where I personally remember a few outdated evolution myths being presented as fact -I also remember that no-one objected, everyone just believed what they were being told because they were taught by people believed to be far more learned than themselves. My respect for authorities' proclamations about reality no longer exists. I question everything. It's a very healthy turn of events.I like to see both sides of the picture and I find what I hear on the other side extremely interesting - my brain feels unlocked,fresher and happier and exhilerated by the possibilities.I also believe in God now, something that I found very difficult to do under the heavy hand of evolutionary indoctrination. Which doesn't make me less capable at assessing what comes out of the mouths of the 'experts' in any particular subject. Unfortunately 'science' has put itself on an undeserved pedestal due to its success with technology and the real repeatable experimental side of science and now holds forth about everything outside of its jurisdiction expecting to be believed on every front while sprouting philisophical nonsense.Outside of their speciality, they are laymen too.Obviously not every scientist is guilty of this practice but more than enough are not shy to wander from the confines of their jurisdiction. And there are other experts just as well qualified, just as capable of assessing the evidence who do not agree with the evolutionists' pronouncements -they are the ones that the 'Expelled' movie is designed to bring to the limelight. They are the ones saying "this is not necessarily the only possibility and this is why" and they are the ones being shut down and bullied into submission.It's hard to get a hearing when you're not following the party line.We now know what it must have been like in Communist Russia for the dissentors. Wear the right T-shirt or die.Vote for Mugabe and keep on voting until you get it right! ...or confident, it depends what side you're looking from as to what you would call it. Granny Magda, you sure are sounding like a school teacher now! Apparently, but they couldn't have been holding the microphone because I never heard one thing from them in all the time I was an evolutionist. I wonder how that could be? I never heard even a whisper of dissent nor a bit about the scientific evidence leading to dissent.How could all of that dissent remain smothered for so long? And each new one is just what we needed to prove evolution catagorically until it is discredited and quietly disappears or is found not to be as convincing as they once thought. Looking at 'transitionals' is what intelligent design proponents do to avoid being rude. It's for the most part utterly unconvincing. Belief in a creator -belief that no creator is necessary -belief in a creator again - still shifting, not necessarily limited to one per millenium so keep watching...the Berlin wall also eventually came down: no wall, wall, no wall again -the nature of change. Like finch beaks I suppose.

Sorry RickJB only went to check on it yesterday -maybe you started it while I was off line and not receiving mail. I really had no idea that we were trying to spot the designer.I have only managed to read your intro but none of the comments but I am interested to see what's happening there.

Gee granny, that reply is just a spot over the top isn't it -you must be having a bad day. Actually I was thinking more along the lines of 'no job and no food aid' -you know the sorts of things that happen in universities when you don't toe the party line, like as the movie 'Expelled' so aptly portrayed. Just because I used the word die doesn't mean you literally need to die in this instance- I was talking about oppression of opinion and stifling of free speech but I think,despite the tear jerker, you actually know what I mean.

Over the top no.2!More ridiculous that the last.
Excuse me, who's trying to score points here? Oh yes it's the morally superior,ethically exceptional evolutionary Granny Magda beating ID Beretta's reprehensible behaviour hands down."Please don't answer this Beretta, I'd like to have the last word."Give yourself a pat on the back, Granny -you deserve an oscar!

Hi Razd, By banally true, you must mean true according to how the evidence superficially appears but lacking any depth of insight because I have not come to the correct philisophical conclusions about this lack of evidence?
But surely by this you can see that everything beyond that is possibly, probably, maybe, perhaps...
So what I say gels with the evidence but is only apparently true and proves nothing? Hello? Well it is not for me to prove that it did not happen;
if this is science -then you must prove that it did in fact occur.
This is the problem, you cannot prove it, you can only imagine and suppose it. Show me that it is sufficient for the purpose of guessing and supposing. We're talking about dead things, no date attached, no historical records, no eyewitnesses...If you get buried on top of a cat, does that indicate that you and the cat may be related?For me it's a stretch to suppose that something may be your ancestor simply because you have some similarities in your genetic code especially if both you and the cat appeared suddenly in the record in separate strata and fully formed (as everything tends to do) at first appearance.
And on that note, why aren't fish today growing little legs, trying to adapt to land? Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers? Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
If organs take eons to build, why does every creature today have complete functioning parts instead of, at least some, semi-formed ones? That is what the living evidence shows and continues to show -any other extrapolation is not evidential, it is imaginary and although possibly, maybe, perhaps true, not the sort of conclusion one can draw directly from the evidence.

Really cute -I like that fish -but when I look at it, I instinctively know it is a fully functional creation.Every creature has to be able to carry out all the various functions -respiration (macro and cellular), metabolism, excretion, ingestion -you have to be able to do them all to survive -if you can ingest but not breathe, metabolize but not excrete, respirate but all the enzymes and parts are not there yet -you will die. Everything has to be there but they had to arrive piece by piece apparently - not very feasible if you look at the nitty gritty details. You really have to believe that that kind of thing is possible. Obviously evolutionists find that easy to believe but I don't and we certainly can't prove that it can happen that way. One function missing -bye bye fishy.

No, I'm arguing for the whole fish's irreducible complexity -all of it's biochemical systems must work together or the fish can't exist. Actually it is science=religion since you have philisophical assumptions -you believe that material processes alone could put this thing together -you don't evidentially know that it is possible. Well we can live with no eyes as well -I am referring to things like metabolism,excretion,respiration -those sorts of functions-can't have any one without all the others in place and functional. Pretty complex interactions to put together piece by mutational piece.

While you are only looking at evidence that cannot be proven to be true or false and then concluding that it is true in the absence of confirmatory evidence. So I can have a theory that the inside of an uncut melon is yellow until I cut it open at which point it's color is changed and that stands until you can prove that what I'm saying is false.Pretty dumb huh? Surely the wiser approach is for me to have some evidence before I hatch such a dumb theory.Your theory should be based on some kind of evidence. Evolution is neither proven nor based on facts -it is an interpretation of the facts, creation is the alternate interpretation of the facts. I say you have no proof that your theory is true so now you show me the mechanism. It doesn't help to say that small scale change extrapolates to large scale change if there is no proof that that is possible. In the absence of confirmatory evidence -we both have a theory and neither can prove the other one to be false. So which one is better supported by the evidence? I know your answer and you know mine. 'Possible'is not proof by any stretch of the imagination. You still need to prove it by showing me how. I say my theory is possible but it is better supported by the facts than is yours. If strata equal time periods than why is so much time missing from so many areas of the earth. Time, as laid out in the textbooks, only ever happened in the textbooks.It is theoretical 'time' and too many assumptions are made.What if many different strata are deposited simultaneously? What looks like millions of years may have been one particular time and what the strata contain has no bearing on age and evolutionary change. Unless you look at the usually contradictory molecular phylogenies which very often show a completely different tree from the morphologically based tree. We can still only prove living relationships not relationships between dead things. Exact and similarity are not words that should be used together - exact and same maybe, but exact and similar -I don't think so.