• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ID/Creationism challenge

The fossil record showing species generally appearing and certainly all within the concept of "kinds" abruptly without any evidence of the immediate ancestral kind and always staying within that "kind" (stasis).
 
randman said:
Here's one for example. Dinosaur bones found with red blood cells and soft tissue as evidence for a young earth based on biochemistry. Also the bold prediction once found, we'd find others with the same situation.
Click to expand...

That's quite a claim, but that does not really support ID or Creationism. I supports a claim that the Earth is young.
 
Information science: the nature of how language systems come about, higher level ordering of information, etc,...
 
randman said:
The fossil record showing species generally appearing and certainly all within the concept of "kinds" abruptly without any evidence of the immediate ancestral kind and always staying within that "kind" (stasis).
Click to expand...

That's hardly scientific, it seems to be based on the assumption of creation. Can you show scientific evidence that these "kinds" were created?
 
randman said:
Here's one for example. Dinosaur bones found with red blood cells and soft tissue as evidence for a young earth based on biochemistry. Also the bold prediction once found, we'd find others with the same situation.

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.

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.
Click to expand...

This still just seems to be making a case by reversing the findings of 'evo's. Play along. Can't you think of anything, just for the sake of the question?
 
randman said:
Information science: the nature of how language systems come about, higher level ordering of information, etc,...
Click to expand...

WTF does this have to do with creation or ID? Did you have any peer-reviewed science, or are you just going to shotgun a bunch of nonsense?
 
I don't think I am going to agree with where Randman is going, but I don't think that ID and Evolution are mutually exclusive.

All that aside, evolution is observable fact. Natural selection (etc.) is the theory for the mechanism, which is what should be argued for/against.

(I stipulate that reasonable minds have different interpretations of the use of the term evolution, but pedantic troll is pedantic). (And by pedantic troll, I mean myself).
 
The evidence of "kinds" is that living biota is organized in a way that there is a separation between groupings that can reproduce among themselves and those that cannot.
 
randman said:
Well, that's part of one creationist model, isn't it?
Click to expand...

That's hardly the "creation" part of it. It would be as stupid as saying "I know evolution is real because the earth is several hundred thousand of years old."
 
Mr. Purple said:
I don't think I am going to agree with where Randman is going, but I don't think that ID and Evolution are mutually exclusive.

All that aside, evolution is observable fact. Natural selection (etc.) is the theory for the mechanism, which is what should be argued for/against.

(I stipulate that reasonable minds have different interpretations of the use of the term evolution, but pedantic troll is pedantic). (And by pedantic troll, I mean myself).
Click to expand...
I agree that we should not take ID theories that embrace common descent off the table. Just showing off the top of my head some "positive evidence" of other models.
 
randman said:
The evidence of "kinds" is that living biota is organized in a way that there is a separation between groupings that can reproduce among themselves and those that cannot.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's evidence of taxonomy. How about evidence of creation or ID?
 
Halfcentaur said:
Language and order is too complicated to not be created by something that was already complicated. God did it.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HACkykFlIus
Click to expand...
No, Intelligence did it. You could argue aliens or the universe as a living thing as Spinoza did, or you could posit Hawkings theory that past histories were selected by the universe via fine-tuning. He put that forward according to wiki at least (I know wiki is dubious) but yet is an atheist.

You could also present each of those concepts as positive evidence for Intelligent Design without a creator.
 
randman said:
I agree that we should not take ID theories that embrace common descent off the table.
Click to expand...

Common descent is not important to this discussion. I'd like to see evidence that life was created by an intelligent designer. You can say that "evolution" was started by such a creator, but that hardly answers the question. Show me evidence that intelligence was behind the origin of life.
 
randman said:
Here's one for example. Dinosaur bones found with red blood cells and soft tissue as evidence for a young earth based on biochemistry.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand the implications (please correct me if I misunderstand you).

You are referring to the density and distribution of blood vessels in the bones of non-avian dinosaurs, correct? The big deal there is that it implies high metabolic rate, which throws out the old "cold, dumb, slow" image of dinosaurs.

This has zero to do with when they lived, but has plenty (very interestingly indeed) to do with how they lived. It also speaks to the fact that homeothermy/bradycardia/endothermy has either evolved (in terms of a major radiation) twice, or it evolved before mammals diverged from the ancestral branch.
 
randman said:
No, Intelligence did it. You could argue aliens or the universe as a living thing as Spinoza did, or you could posit Hawkings theory that past histories were selected by the universe via fine-tuning. He put that forward according to wiki at least (I know wiki is dubious) but yet is an atheist.

You could also present each of those concepts as positive evidence for Intelligent Design without a creator.
Click to expand...

This seems to explain systems on Earth alone, but not language and ordered systems everywhere, without an issue of infinite regression cropping up. But if you're only talking about the Earth, yeah, I can see that.
 
randman said:
The evidence of "kinds" is that living biota is organized in a way that there is a separation between groupings that can reproduce among themselves and those that cannot.
Click to expand...

Where do neotenic species fit into your model? Especially the environmentally plastic varieties?
 
Mr. Purple said:
I think you misunderstand the implications (please correct me if I misunderstand you).

You are referring to the density and distribution of blood vessels in the bones of non-avian dinosaurs, correct? The big deal there is that it implies high metabolic rate, which throws out the old "cold, dumb, slow" image of dinosaurs.

This has zero to do with when they lived, but has plenty (very interestingly indeed) to do with how they lived. It also speaks to the fact that homeothermy/bradycardia/endothermy has either evolved (in terms of a major radiation) twice, or it evolved before mammals diverged from the ancestral branch.
Click to expand...

No.. The claim is that when split open, dinosaur bones bled out, and had soft tissue, implying they were fr far younger than 65+ millions years old.

Of course, it isn't true, but it doesn't stop the creationists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom