ID/Creationism challenge

[randman]

If by theory you mean 'taking pot shots at evolution', then I guess you are right. This entire discussion was intended to discuss the evidence for ID/C theory. Instead you have only done more of what Davison does.

You don't understand sciency language and so don't get his hypothesis. That's all.

 

[fishbob]

It's not "if" as you read it. If the idea is true, which is that theory, then it's ID. The "if" refers to the whole idea not whether the idea entails selection of a past history to contain life.

Oh. Well thanks for clearing that up.

 

[fishbob]

You don't understand sciency language and so don't get his hypothesis. That's all.

Be aware that scientific and sciency are 2 different things entirely.
Look up 'truthiness' as described by Steven Colbert.

 

[BadBoy]

There's a continuum between living and non-living chemistry, and that continuum is still represented today. There was no spontaneous jump, but rather a gradual increase in complexity.

Is that kinda true for say a virus? which I heard somplace are not really alive in the same way we are.

"Viruses straddle the definition of life. They lie somewhere between supra molecular complexes and very simple biological entities. Viruses contain some of the structures and exhibit some of the activities that are common to organic life, but they are missing many of the others. In general, viruses are entirely composed of a single strand of genetic information encased within a protein capsule. Viruses lack most of the internal structure and machinery which characterize 'life', including the biosynthetic machinery that is necessary for reproduction. In order for a virus to replicate it must infect a suitable host cell".

randman, I think you are nuts. You are doing whats commonly termed cherry picking. Used alot by deniers. The creationist movement are just after your money and your body. You need to wke up and be a man and stop shrugging your responsibilities as a human being off onto some imaginary friend.

There is no evidence at all to suggest dinosaurs existed 5000 years ago. There are many different ways to date fossiles, all of which were developed after the physics was understood. Take the development of semi conductors or the H-bomb, they were developed after Science uncovered/discovered the physics that enabled ideas for application to start. Spin offs if you like. People didnt research Quantum Mechanics in order to develop a transistor.

So the dating of Fossils is based on a mountain of scientific fact andbout the physical world. To try to undermine the dating mechanisms is to try to undermine the fundamentals and the science is so far along on this one it would be like trying to reinvent the laws of gravity. Good luck, even if you were super bright it would probably take you a lifetimes worth of work.

So the many dating mechanisms of fossils, which are independent and non contradictary and based on physical principles, show how old things are. And Dinosaur fossils aint a few thousand years either.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I would also predict, though not a YECer, that other dinosaurs will large bones will be discovered buried in different soil that shows a similar lack of decomposition, though not all.

This is a prediction of yours, not evidence for ID.

The only reason anyone thinks the fossils are old is due to evolutionist dating methods. If it were not for that, they would be assumed to be young as it was not envisioned such soft tissue and organic molecules of formerly living tissue could survive more than 10,000 yrs and certainly not 65 million years.

Take out any evo rebuttal and it's a slam dunk for creationists in terms of the age of the fossils not being millions of years old.

Nope, sorry, this isn't evidence for ID, it's you attempting to debunk evolution again. Remember, this thread is for positive evidence for ID, not evidence against evolution.

 

[randman]

So I give you an ID mechanism and you say it cannot be one because I provided it. Things are only true if evos say them, I suppose.

 

[fishbob]

btw, here's a paper from 1978 making some of the same claims as Davison, and of course using the term neodarwinism which I also have used here and have been blasted for it.

We argue that the basic neo-Darwinian framework—the natural selection of random mutations—is insufficient to account for evolution. The role of natural selection is itself limited: it cannot adequately explain the diversity of populations or of species; nor can it account for the origin of new species or for major evolutionary change. The evidence suggests on the one hand that most genetic changes are irrelevant to evolution; and on the other, that a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary advance.

Contrary to the neo-Darwinian view, we point out that the variations of the phenotype, on which natural selection could act, do not arise at random; they are produced by interactions between the organism and the environment during development. We propose, therefore, that the intrinsic dynamical structure of the epigenetic system itself, in its interaction with the environment, is the source of non-random variations which direct evolutionary change, and that a proper study of evolution consists in the working out of the dynamics of the epigenetic system and its response to environmental stimuli as well as the mechanisms whereby novel developmental responses are canalized.
We postulate that “large” evolutionary changes could be the result of the canalization of novel developmental responses which arose from environmental challenges under conditions of relaxed natural selection, and moreover, that the canalization of novel developmental responses might involve cytoplasmic inheritance or maternal effects at least in the initial stages./QUOTE]

Paragraph 1 - An argument that natural selection of random mutations is insufficient to account for evolution must be a pretty weak argument. Too bad I am unwilling to cough up $39.95 to catch all the bodice-ripping details.

Paragraph 2 - Postulating a mix of LaMark and directed variation based on inheritance (canalization) is just playing pedantic games with the definition of random. See my post regarding dishonesty.

 

[randman]

btw, here's a paper from 1978 making some of the same claims as Davison, and of course using the term neodarwinism which I also have used here and have been blasted for it.



Paragraph 1 - An argument that natural selection of random mutations is insufficient to account for evolution must be a pretty weak argument. Too bad I am unwilling to cough up $39.95 to catch all the bodice-ripping details.

Paragraph 2 - Postulating a mix of LaMark and directed variation based on inheritance (canalization) is just playing pedantic games with the definition of random. See my post regarding dishonesty.

Yea, they published it because it was dishonest. That explains everything.

 

[fishbob]

So I give you an ID mechanism . . . . .

That would be nice.

 

[randman]

sigh . . .
Pull up the original article.
Read all the words.

I did already.

 

[PixyMisa]

Is that kinda true for say a virus? which I heard somplace are not really alive in the same way we are.

Yep.

 

[sphenisc]

I don't know if this has been done yet, but I'd like to dedicate a thread to all of the "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism" theory out there. This is for scientific evidence to support these "theories." There are only a couple of rules I would impose.

1. Cannot reference evolution, or any evolutionary processes.
2. Cannot reference the Bible or other mythologies, unless there is a scientific link.

That's it. Now, let's see the scientific evidence to support ID and Creationism!

The existence of organisms.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Coconuts are really easy to open and they fit into the mouth exactly. Thus creation.


Did I get that right?

 

[PixyMisa]

The existence of organisms.

Please explain how that is evidence for ID or Creationism.

 

[Varanid]

Yes, but that's illegal to talk about on this thread.

I understand, and apologies for the uber-quick derail, but that is evolution. You seem to be characterizing yourself as being of a different paradigm.

 

[Varanid]

I would report you for being off topic, if I weren't too lazy to do so.

Yeah, I know. I don't meant to digress, just trying to understand where Randman is coming from.

 

[sphenisc]

Please explain how that is evidence for ID or Creationism.

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.
If life were created, then life would have to exist or at least would have had to exist at some time.

Organisms exist.
Organisms are alive.
Life exists.

This matches one of the conclusions drawn from Creationism, thus it is evidence for Creationism.

 

[BadBoy]

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.
If life were created, then life would have to exist or at least would have had to exist at some time.

Organisms exist.
Organisms are alive.
Life exists.

This matches one of the conclusions drawn from Creationism, thus it is evidence for Creationism.

There is a hole in my tree at the end of my garden, thus proof that pixies exist!

Wow, this is easy. Who needs science....

 

[BadBoy]

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.
If life were created, then life would have to exist or at least would have had to exist at some time.

Organisms exist.
Organisms are alive.
Life exists.

This matches one of the conclusions drawn from Creationism, thus it is evidence for Creationism.

We, all know that life exists. We are looking for the scientific evidence that it was created by a creator.

There is mounds of self supporting evidence to support the current scientific and universally excepted process for the development of intelligent life.

Where is your evidence or experiment that shows God did it?

 

[BadBoy]

We, all know that life exists. We are looking for the scientific evidence that it was created by a creator.

There is mounds of self supporting evidence to support the current scientific and universally excepted process for the development of intelligent life.

Where is your evidence or experiment that shows God did it?

"IF" some dinosaur remains were discovered that still had organic remains attached it would be the biggest find of the last 1000 years. We would ALL KNOW ABOUT IT.

AND EVEN if this was discovered, its doesn't prove God did it. It would mean a bunch of researchers would spend probably the rest of there career working out where it came from - scientifically speaking.

But, I suggest, that you would be hard pressed to find any organic flesh attached to any remains after 100 years being buried.

BTW, were these remains dated using the currently accepted methods of dating once living things? Oh sorry, you dont agree these dating methods work. So Randman you have

1. Current carbon based dating methods dont work
2. We have found Dinosaurs with flesh still attached

Looks to me like you are on a desparate mission to try and convince yourself that the world was created in the last 5000 years using psudo science and wishfull thinking.

Wake up and smell the coffee.