"Intelligent Design" figurehead = nutcase

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Dec 21 2006, 09:27 PM) [snapback]365553[/snapback]</div>

I post in these sorts of thereads, not to convince the creationists, who already have their mind made up and will never be changed (see my reply to F8L below) but for the benefit of people who may be lurking, who may hear nothing but creationist arguments at home, who are skeptical, but who think they are all alone in the world because their circle of acquaintances contains no scientists. I post so they will see they are not alone, and that reason supports science.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Dec 21 2006, 10:55 PM) [snapback]365574[/snapback]</div>

The reason creationists will not accept any of your explanations is that they do not understand them, so they will always reply "How do you know this is so?" and when you answer that question they will not understand the answers. Debate requires communication, and communication requires that each side understand what the other has said.

But there are others lurking who will be helped (see my reply to Godiva above). So keep it up even when folks like Wildkow keep repeating the creationist nonsense.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Dec 22 2006, 01:27 AM) [snapback]365553[/snapback]</div>

You are right.

If anyone has any questions about dating rocks or other materials read this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

If you have any questions that are not answered in that page come back here. When you are a contrarian the onus is on you to demonstrate that the interpretation of most experts and the data is wrong.

Cheers.

 

The use of fossil's to date the strata and the strata to date fossels is a well known fact and a method used by evoluntionary scientist.

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 53.

"It is a problem not easily solved by the classic methods of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular lithology [theory of rock strata] is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology."—*Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record (1973), p. 62.

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."—*Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism," Compass, May 1968, p. 216.

"It cannot be denied that, from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organism as has been determined by a study of theory remains buried in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain."—*R.H. Rastall, article "Geology," Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10 (14th ed.; 1956), p. 168.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 22 2006, 08:48 AM) [snapback]365612[/snapback]</div>

It's not so much "do not understand", but "don't want to understand".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Dec 22 2006, 12:19 PM) [snapback]365650[/snapback]</div>

All addresed in the link I provided. Its not that they date each other. They corroborate each other by independent methods. BTW, your references are decades old.

 

Evolution...if you did not see it happen...it can't be true. Come to think about it, I have never seen gravity. I bet that does not exist either. Damn tricky scientist. :angry:

 

i gave up arguing points with these folks because when i casually mention that the only arguments they have are supported by stuff written ages ago, they flip out and act as if this accounted for all current information. like science hasn't progressed any in 30-40 years...

someone shot back with

you can find lots of that in this thread: http://priuschat.com/index.php?showtopic=18434

 

There was a science teacher at the school I worked at who was a very intelligent man, but he had a problem with evolution. He told his students that the dinosaur bones , oil, and fossils were placed on Earth by the devil to test our faith. Most of the students did not buy this argument but I always wondered how a man as smart as he was could have boughjt into an idea as dumb as that. He is dead now...I suppose he knows the truth now??? :mellow:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Dec 22 2006, 12:58 PM) [snapback]365706[/snapback]</div>

When you're getting your "science" from a book written almost 2000 years ago, 30 to 40 years doesn't make that much difference.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Dec 22 2006, 02:11 PM) [snapback]365711[/snapback]</div>

That is an interesting question. Some people can achieve a pretty tight mind compartmentalization. Case in point, Francis Collins. I have some very intelligent friends with multiple degrees and achievements that are religious or *gasp*, republican.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Dec 22 2006, 09:55 AM) [snapback]365704[/snapback]</div>

Actually, gravity does not exist. It's just the name we give to what we feel as the Flying Spaghetti Monster presses down on us with His noodly appendages.

 

Evolution vs. Creationism: Irresistable force meets immovable object.

 

I bel.ieve it is a mistake to mix religious creationism with intelligent design. The concept that our plant, our solar system, the galaxy, universe, or whatever "could" be created cannot be proved or disproved. Heck, from a scientific standpoint we cannot cure the "common cold" so I sincerely doubt that science is capable at this point of providing any realistic answers as to how we truly began.

That said... The answers are even less likely to be contained within manuscripts that have been translated multiple time, written by many autors, and were pieced together out of sequence and in some cases written years after the events occurred relying on memory and hand me down stories.

The only items that I would contend are actually valid is that the likelihood of humans who would have been amazed at the concept of a book of matches accurately recording events in such a way to provide a repeatable basis (proof) of history is incredibly small. The likelihood of our current day science being able to provide any more than a framework of historical basis, chemical and physical theory, based only on information gleaned from our small world and limited areas of exploration is basically guesswork on a grandiose scale.

Atheists who refuse to consider intelligent design need to grow some brain cells. Creationists who refute what limited scientific standards we have, based on religious theory, need to grow some brain cells. Even Biblical scholars recognise two creation stories contained in Genesis and one of them is widely accepted as being constructed by king David to show proof of divine lineage to justify his pleasures.

Religion, in my humble opinion, needs to be separate from intelligent design. There is nothing about ID that in iteslf addresses spirituality and sin. These are inherently religious concepts. There is also nothing about being created by some being or entity that inherently demands that we worship that entity.

Just because something may be greater than us; just because something may have created us, does not mean that we should do anything more than say "thank you" and be on our way.

The likelihood that we evolved from a series of incidents, based on the number of opportunities is far greater than any other theory of how we have come to exist... In my opinion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ Dec 22 2006, 06:39 PM) [snapback]365849[/snapback]</div>

"Intelligent Design" is Creationism re-named, repackaged, and spun to attack evolution. After so many defeats trying to get Creationism into the public school curriculum, I'm sure it was felt that anything with "Intelligent" in the name would succeed.

As for removing religion from either, good luck. After all, they invented it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 22 2006, 04:02 PM) [snapback]365798[/snapback]</div>

Now, that makes sense!!! Thank you!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ Dec 22 2006, 03:39 PM) [snapback]365849[/snapback]</div>

The problem is that the Creationism - ID folks set themselves up by using boiler plate and changing the wording in textbooks from "creationism" to "intelligent design." The changes are so blatent that in several cases the "search and replace" changes were incomplete - clearly indicating that ID phrasing was substituted in place of creationism. This was clearly evident in the files obtained from publishers in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case. The creationism folks went one step further to lie in their testimony. This was clearly evident to a very conservative judge.

You can't fake science, peer review always catches up with you. Creationism - ID folks are clearly amateurs based on faith and a presumed endpoint, while science continues to follow the scientific method always striving for new evidence, often to show that previous evidence and findings are false and must be amended.

 

I comprehend how creationists have changed the intent of intelligent design, however by itself (outside of religious contamination), ID deserves to be considered as an actual possibility, in my opinion, as much as I may personally find it unlikely.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ Dec 22 2006, 07:47 PM) [snapback]365860[/snapback]</div>

I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory has to be taught in public schools, too, because that is also an actual possibility. People unwilling to consider the FSM theory need to grow some brain cells.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Dec 22 2006, 08:17 PM) [snapback]365869[/snapback]</div>

ARmen !!! :lol: