Fossils are indeed evidence. DNA is indeed evidence. They are however,
evidence of *what*? Throughout all of the debate, there has been no
"scientific" evidence provided by the "scientists" in the group which
refutes the notion of an intelligent design. There has been lots of
postulating and side track comments, but no real contradicting evidence.
For all that is said about the merits of science holding a value in
evidence, observation, etc., most of what has been said in the different
threads here is little more than faith on the part of the advocates on each
side. Oh yeah - and somewhat unique to the advocates of science-only, there
is the requisite insult to the intelligence of anyone who might hold to a
faith. You know - the ever present "ignorance" comment. For all of the
condescending comments, there has yet to be anything even remotely
persuading put forward by any of the advocates of either side.
I stepped a toe into these waters just out of mild interest. I had no
interest in influencing the beliefs of anyone else, nor did I really have
any interest in detailing what my own beliefs really are. Rather, it seemed
like there might be an interesting diversion from reality in some discourse.
Like all of these debates which preceded the current run of evolution -vs-
anything else, there proved to be little more than presumptuous attitudes
and condescending tones, all meant to make the author appear to be wiser and
more educated than he really is. The truth of that matter is that if the
author really were as enlightened as he/she would like to appear, there
would be more of sharing of the true knowledge that they hold and less of
Oh well, such is the nature of these debates. Hasn't changed over time, and
likely never will. Now that just might be the long sought argument against
in order for a theory to be any use to science, it has to be testable.
what sort of test do you propose to validate this theory of yours that
the universe was created by an invisible super-intelligent
supernatural (we can't use the word god here) being?
nothing wrong with intelligent design, but it doesn't belong in
science classes. it belongs in philosophy classes or in religous
no supporting evidence, either. in fact, nothing but a lot of talk and
political string pulling to get ID stuffed into grade school
curricula. no discussion in scientific fora, no open discussion, just
attempts to stuff it into kids heads under the radar.
for all of your claim of neutrality, you wear your creationist flag on
No more so though, than some of the stuff that's taught in science class
which isn't supportable by evidence, yet over the years has come to be
taught as "fact".
But - what *is* the problem with the concept of intelligent design? Science
itself does not specifically deny the possibility of inteligent design. The
sciences are filled with scientists who diligently perform their tasks,
honor the rules of science, add to the cumulative knowledge of mankind, and
yet they believe in inteligent design. The mere concept of inteligent
design seems to be a major hurdle for most of the evolution-only crowd here.
That depends on how you define the term "creationist". But - that's
irrelevant. As I said, I haven't had an interest in detailing what my own
beliefs are, I was only commenting on the nature of this debate. One only
has to hit the google archives to disprove my observations if one feels I'm
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 19:01:51 -0700, fredfighter wrote:
No, but any historian can dig up the references. The whole thing is a
mistranslation of "young woman" into "virgin," and running the thing
through a couple of cultures. Wackos who can't string two thoughts
together have been around for a long, long time. Check out the
incorporation of Teutonic culture into dogma during the latter Roman
Empire. I don't remember the dates; was maybe 200 or 300 CE. Frigga got
Her day, more or less.
Pity that the present day wackos can't understand literature or the
concept of "allegory." They can't even get their own religion right.
Sounds just like some other wackos who can't get _their_ religion right
either, doesn't it?
"He can't even run his own life,/I'll be damned if he runs mine"
On 10/9/2005 12:43 AM Australopithecus scobis mumbled something about
Sunna - Sunna's Day - Sunday, Mani - Mani's Day - Monday, Tyr - Tyr's
Day - (in Old English, Tiw, Tew or Tiu) Tuesday, Odinn (Germanic Woden)
- Woden's Day - Wednesday, Thor - Thor's Day - Thursday, and Frigga
(Frigg) - Frigg's Day - Friday, all got their day. Then there's
Saturn's Day - Saturday. So, 6 out of 7 days are from the Teutonic
culture (brought about after the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Rome), and one
I can't think of a single religion who's members get their religion right.
ID and solid data? That's unlikely. The basic philosophy behind ID is that
it is an alternative to solid data -- that using data is a non-starter
because they don't conform to the ID preconcept.
In addition, there is no agreed-to actual hypothesis for ID, so there is no
point in trying to argue individual points. The statements on ID that I've
The universe was created 6,000 years ago.
Man and dinosaurs coexisted.
Noah's flood was worldwide.
Noah included the dinosaurs in the complement of animals on the ark.
The "Big Bang" is false because it doesn't explain what was before the Bang,
. . . etc.
But -- there is fossil evidence that is more than 6,000 years old
There is no fossil evidence to support the concept that man and dinosaurs
existed at the same time.
The "worldwide flood" has some obvious logical contradictions (e.g., when
the waters receded, where did they go??)
How did Noah get the dinosaurs onto the ark (the rationale, Noah sought out
In comparison to the "Big Bang," which is supported by observation -- it's
disingenuous to ignore that arm of science because it doesn't account for
what was before the big bang, but insist on an intelligent designer, without
worrying about who/what created the designer!
Intelligent design as it has been presented is incompatible with more than
Darwin, it is incompatible with astronomical observations, calculations of
interstellar distances, Einstein's theories of relativity, the tested
relationships between time, space and energy, geology, particle theory,
Brian Greene's "Arrow of Time" and almost any science that seeks to
understand the world around us.
Now if someone were to come out with an ID theory which hypothesized that an
intelligent designer created the precursor to the Big Bang and everything
after that has been a testable consequence, there might be some converts.
But it's impossible to calibrate any current ID theory with the real world
of observation of our universe. For one example, read Brian Greene's "The
Fabric of the Cosmos," and try to figure out how intelligent design as now
described could calibrate with the variety of experiments which have gone
into space, time, energy, Higgs Fields, etc.
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 02:53:51 +0000, World Traveler wrote:
Even better, Roger Penrose _The Road to Reality_. It covers the math you
need to understand cosmology. OK, I graduated from MIT. My head almost
exploded reading that book. (So I wasn't a physics major, but
still.) I challenge any creationist to get past the first couple of pages.
That book is tougher than MTW.
Oh, and I second the recommendation of TFOTC. Greene is an engaging author.
"Keep your ass behind you"
vladimir a t mad scientist com
That would be one interpretation. Yet another would be that all known
societies have explanations for the "creation" of the universe and the
origin of life. Jews of the 6th century BC had a couple (yep, read
Genesis), the societies with who the coexisted had others. I presume you
use Jewish creation stories as a tacit acknowledgement that this nation was
created by people who shared their beliefs? Or is it because you're
unfamiliar with Hindu creation?
It's important to consider and teach that most all societies consider the
human as the highest form of life, the one the gods love, unlike the modern
types who claim a snail darter species coequal to a human. Teachings to
provide perspective and background for understanding, not right, wrong, or
even in final form, just like scientific investigation.
We're the ones with a sense of self and species, though. Imagine a dog
turning down the last cookie because there are pups starving in Ethiopia?
"If it's good for the survival of the species, it's 'right.' If it's
bad for the survival of the species, it's 'wrong.' " Let's be consistent.
That would not be an ID belief, that would be a Institute for Creation
Research position. There is a big difference.
Now, I've been to museums that portray that very thing, have read about
fossilized footprints of man and dinosaur (one inside the other).
That's a fundamental Bible teaching - not unique to ID or to followers of
Institute for Creation Research.
This is a fundamentalist position. Though fundamentalist are believers in
ID, they do not represent ID.
ICR again - not an ID issue.
Hmmmmm. You can allow for long stretches of the imagination to accomodate a
scientific theory that is too big to comprehend, but you can't allow for a
world wide flood simply because you can't imagine where the water went?
ICR again - not ID.
The big bang is not supported by observation. Recent observations via
Hubble have brought about new theories that conflict with big bang. No
matter though - once again you are confusing ICR and fundamentalists with
You obviously do not understand ID. In your attempt to discredit by any
means, you've lumped several different religious beliefs under the heading
of ID. You have no compelling argument.
ID does allow for exactly that. ID simply attempts to explain where it all
began. Why then the issue with it?
Better yet, since you brought it up - please explain how the principal of an
intelligent design conflicts with these.
Fair question. I've seen museum displays that positioned man and dinosaur
in NYC, and Albany, NY years ago. Don't know what they display now as that
was many years ago. Can't tell you where I've read about the superimposed
footprints. Seems it might have been National Geographic or similar. If my
memory serves me correctly (which is a big assumption sometimes...), I
believe the find might have been down in Texas or in that area.
Not very convincing reference, but it's the best I can do.
On 10/9/2005 1:47 PM Mike Marlow mumbled something about the following:
Taylor Trail, Turnage Trail, Ryan Trail, and Giant Trail at Paluxy River
near Glen Rose, Texas have even been abandoned by most creationists as
proof that man and dinosaur existed together
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.