So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)

quote:

---

As a simple example, imagine there's a cell component that evolution believes is vestigial because it doesn't appear to have a function.
ID doesn't come along and say "oh goddidit, leave the poor thing alone!" -they say, well since we believe that everything is made with a function -this may no longer have a function (due to mutation perhaps) but chances are, if it's there it has a function or at least it certainly did have in the past -lets find out what it is.

---

So basically ID says the same thing as evolution on this point.However evolution would also go on and want to find out how the original, fully functional features had arrived. And how it had changed and adapted in different lineages. How much work would ID do after the original function had been successfully found ?

quote:

---

Ultimately what I'm saying is that different scientific possibilities result from different presuppositions if there's any truth in the non-reigning paradigm which I'm sure there is.

---

Then I suggest that you give an example where it does make a difference.The ID movement itself seems to be rather short of examples. Probably because ID is not science. There is no real attempt to build a theory. ID includes everything from Young Earth Creationism up to Behe's idea of God as a genetic engineer who occasionally fiddles with the genome for reasons he can't figure out. There's very little reason to expect those two views to agree with each other in any detail.

If we use cladistic terminology then birds ARE feathered dinosaurs and that may be the simplest approach to take.The alternative, ignoring cladism, is to point out that the bird/dinosaur distinction is binary and that any "intermediate" would be classified as a bird-like dinosaur or a dinosaur-like bird. Archaeopteryx is over the bird side off the line so it's classified as a bird - although it's close to the dinosaurs than any modern bird is. Just what we'd expect of an intermediate.(And then we get to the point that intermediates are not required to be direct ancestors of modern forms - my understanding is that archaeopteryx is considered a side branch)

You really need to keep up to date with the real facts. We have been finding predecessors to the Cambrian Explosions - some in the Ediacaran fauna others preserved in the Doushantuo FormationThe rest of your points are equally badly-informed - or worse. The transitional Seymouria between amphibians and reptiles is hardly a new discovery ! And how could you have missed the discovery that feathers evolved on dinosaurs ?Instead of relying on creationist sites why don't you actually try and find the real facts. Because you have been deceived.

quote:

---

Evolutionists seem so fond of depicting creationists/ID proponents as lying, deceiving, conspiratorial fools

---

Really, we'd rather not. It's forced on us by creationist dishonesty. Heard about this new film coming up, "Expelled" ? It's not only part of the big ID conspiracy to depict themselves as a persecuted minority (although they can't even come up with ONE good case !) - they also got interviews by pretending to produce a quite different film.

quote:

---

We truelly believe our supernatural creator model with fully formed kinds with loads of genetic variability available to begin with is so incredibly obvious. No jokes, no lies, no conspiracy -just plain logic unfettered by evolutionary indoctrination.

---

If it's so obvious, then why are creationists hiding all the evidence of transitional fossils from you ? I've given just a few examples that they're trying to deny, but there are lots more.

quote:

---

Ders are effectively eliminated. They cannot now even ask the questions, let alone discuss models in most schools.

---

IDer's are supposed to do the science BEFORE getting their ideas into schools like everyone else. They only way they could be "effectively eliminated" by that is if they can't do the science because their ideas are not scientific. (Which is true, I suppose)

quote:

---

A good starter would be for National Geographic's marine scientist/archeologist/explorer, Dr. Robert Ballard to at least go to the Gulf of Aqaba and explore the site marine biologist,

---

So a good start would be for someone to provide convincing evidence that there is something worth investigating there.

quote:

---

Dr. Lennart Moller has researched, witten about and produced videos of the underwater photographed corral encased debris which resembles chariot parts, in a region described in the Biblical record including corroborating evidence relative to the Exodus account and Red Sea crossing.

---

You mean coral formations - because it hasn't been established that there was significant debris within them i the first place. And in the wrong place because the "Sea of Reeds" in Exodus is almost certainly not the Red Sea.Moeller's association with the fraud Ron Wyatt (who provided a good deal of the "evidence") and his crazy rewrite of Egyptian history are also negative factors.

quote:

---

To my knowledge no secularist scientists have even shown any interest in this phenominal discovery. Why? Likely because it has supernatural implications which secular science purposfully avoids.

---

Or more likely because it is NOT a "phenomenal discovery", the "evidence" is extremely dubious and weak and it's tainted by fraud and incompetence.

quote:

---

And again, as it stands, secular science's goal is not really to 'teach the controversy', but rather it is to eliminate ID creationism and to pervert science into their own image, effectively killing science as well (applying some of your own phraseology).

---

Science is not about teaching manufactured controversies to preserve fallacious views - and it never has been. What you call a "perversion" of science is the heart of science itself. You want science to be a slave to your theological views - to distort and misrepresent the evidence to "prove" you right. And that truly would be a perversion of science.

quote:

---

This actually sheds the light of truth that there was no early animal evolution; animals were already there, fully formed and up to two meters long.

---

Except that these fossils are from BEFORE the Cambrian explosion. And - if you're referring to the fossils that I think you are - they probably aren't animals.

quote:

---

These fossils appear suddenly fully formed, then disappear, with no clear relationship to the Cambrian fossils that followed. As such, they are no help to explaining the Cambrian explosion.

---

That's not true. Some are unrelated - others have been identified as early members of groups found in the Cambrian Explosion. If you'd actually checked out the link I provided you'd have seen that.

quote:

---

“Dinosaur ”feathers’ are no such thing.” Instead, it’s just decayed dermal collagen, like that found on sharks and reptiles. A South African team came to this conclusion after analyzing the alleged feathers on Sinosauropteryx.

---

That's just one example - and there are others.

quote:

---

Or perhaps you're talking about 'archeoraptor' the made-in-China fraud retracted by National Geographic but first accepted by same due to wishful thinking and prior commitment to the theory of evolution.

---

It was identified as a fraud by people committed to the theory of evolution. Before formal publication in the scientific journals.

quote:

---

Or...I don't have your blind faith.

---

SInce you were wrong in every case, it's pretty clear which of us is relying on blind faith.

quote:

---

Yes actually -this weekend I heard about it and I must say I am very pleased.

---

So in fact you approve of dishonesty.

quote:

---

Unless they are actually the persecuted minority -watch the movie, it may have some educational value unless your evolutionary training has been to intense for your blinkers to be lifted.

---

They aren't. The DI has been going on about being "persecuted" for some time now. They just haven't come up with any cases. If the had a case as clear as the sacking of Chris Comer (forced to resign for informing people of a lecture critical of ID) they'd have produced it by now.

quote:

---

No, they had a different name for the film -'Crossroads' -Richard Dawkins was also in a movie in the past that changed its name at the last moment -it's apparently quite commonplace to do that -the content did not change however

---

A different movie with a different description - not just a change of name. And who knows what tricks they plan to do in the editing ?

quote:

---

I'm still waiting for you to show me some.

---

Talk about blind ! Did you not even notice the examples ?

I'd say that Buzsaw and Beretta have been demonstrating it for us.Supernatural "science" is twisting misrepresenting or ignoring the evidence in service to preestablished ideas which are taken as dogmatic fact. That and attacking anyone who sees through the charade as being "blinded" (for refusing to blind themselves).It's not a pretty sight.

quote:

---

As far as science is concerned, if something is real, it is by definition a natural thing within the confines, at least theoritically, of science though science is limited by technology and creativity.

---

That is more like scientism. Science does not deny the possibility of things that are beyond scientific investigation. Your claim is true only to the extent that science cannot say that such things ARE real. Which is very different from saying that they are NOT real.

quote:

---

Yah sure, PaulK, like citing the evidence of the Exodus in the region of Aqaba, questioning the properties of space capable of two ends of a perfectly straight rod connecting themselves without bending, questioning where and when the BB occured, having had no space nor time existing for the event to have happened etc.

---

In other words claiming to have evidence that you refuse to produce and attacking science you don't understand.

quote:

---

Who's going to bring up these things for debate if we don't?

---

Nobody, I hope. Since all three are complete wastes of time.

quote:

---

And when are we going to get substantive believable answers for some of these things?

---

When you set aside your prejudices and learn to accept truths you don't like.

quote:

---

When are the secularist archeologists and researchers going to go in and refute the Exodus evidence we've cited?

---

When you come up with some evidence worth investigating. See Message 116.And before you answer read Message 120.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

I

quote:

---

PaulK, if you understand how space has the ability to reconnect the two ends of an absolute straight bar without bending the bar, perhaps it's time for a new thread on just that one alleged property of space so that you can explain to the www what property of space allows for this to happen.

---

As several other people have informed you, the property in question is the curvature. In the scenario under discussion our space is curved in a higher dimension, such that a straight line in our three-dimensional space would eventually meet itself. For the hypothetical bar to fail to meet at the end would require it to either depart from that straight line (i.e. to be curved in our space) or for it to somehow leave our three-dimensional space, which would really be magic.

quote:

---

This segway began from PaulK's allegation in message 122 of this thread that Buzsaw and Berreta were demonstrating twisted "Supernatural 'science'."

---

That obscures the fact that my message was posted in December 2007. It was hardly necessary to reply now, 9 months later.

quote:

---

Imo, I've made the point that there are alternative debatable POVs and that some of these do not ignore the requirement for evidence, models, etc.

---

In fact you've proved my point. You produced no evidence, nor a model to rival that of General Relativity. All you've doen is to dogmatically insist that GR is wrong because it contradicts your ideas.The simple fact is that you have been given the answers and your only response is to deny that those responses even exist. You certainly didn't answer my points, or even attempt to.And of course you attack your opponents as being "blinded" because you refuse to accept the answer, just as I said.In reality all you've done is prove me right.