ID/Creationism challenge

[Slimething]

randman, I'm sorry. Your interpretation of facts developed in physics experiments is not valid evidence of ID, creationism or any other preternatural construct you happen to favor. The paradigms of quantum mechanics do not evidence preternatural intelligence. Sorry. That's out of the question.

As for your mistaking cosmology for quantim mechanics, that' OK. Common mistake. However, your error there is for using semantics to try to argue what a certain person said vs what they meant. Also not allowed in science. Sorry.

Let's put it more simply. For you to make a claim that something you want to believe is scientific evidence of your theology, you must demonstrate how such an interpretation is falsifiable. Word games don't count. You must show by positive statement or inference that whatever evidence you are citing must unequivocably support your view at the exclusion of competing hypotheses. All you've offered is your "interpretation" but it's fairly obvious that you favor mechanisms that can't be tested. That alone renders your claims and "interpretations" unscientific.

As far as your claim that dating methods exist simply because they are "evolutionist". Bunk. Total fail. Many of those methods are based on thermodynamic principles that exist outside of any biological construct. Fact.

 

[randman]

randman, I'm sorry. Your interpretation of facts developed in physics experiments is not valid evidence of ID, creationism or any other preternatural construct you happen to favor. The paradigms of quantum mechanics do not evidence preternatural intelligence. Sorry. That's out of the question.

Who said anything about preternatural? Just because you don't get the concept of quantization and entanglement does not mean you are free to dismiss someone's views of what is going on.

Quantum mechanics is falsifiable. You may not like it but it is.

Answer my questions: without invoking a trillion alternate universes and more, in what manner are 2 particles entangled, a direct observation, in respect to time and distance.

If you cannot answer it, just say so and let someone else talk about the subject.

 

[randman]

The way they did it is childish, still is. Gould addressed real questions, their idiocy was of little concern.

If you think that you are making a serious argument you have a lot to learn about punctuated equilibrium.

So they were childish to say the fossil record was characterized by stasis and sudden appearance but when an evo says it, that's Ok.

This is something indicating evos perhaps generally only accept facts and data when they think it agrees with them.

 

[respect]

So they were childish to say the fossil record was characterized by stasis and sudden appearance but when an evo says it, that's Ok.

This is something indicating evos perhaps generally only accept facts and data when they think it agrees with them.

Creationist: There are gaps in knowledge about the fossil record, therefore god.

Gould: I have an idea that might explain some of what we see in the fossil record, let's investigate.

Do you understand the difference?

 

[randman]

Creationist: There are gaps in knowledge about the fossil record, therefore god.

Gould: I have an idea that might explain some of what we see in the fossil record, let's investigate.

Do you understand the difference?

The creationist argument and Goldschmidt's (who rejected NeoDarwinism) did not argue there were gaps in the fossil record. That's something Gould and Niles Etheridge addressed in their 1972 paper when they talked basically of how theory affected how the fossil record was viewed. They even begin quoting Darwin's lament that we don't see what he termed as "fine-grained" gradual transitions in the fossil record. We still don't by the way, at least not of macroevolution. We see some fine-grained change that often then evolves back the other way creating a situation of stasis within a range.

That was a large part of what their paper was addressing. They were challenging the concept we didn't see these things because the fossil record was incomplete, but the very idea that these transitions would be there in the first place. It's a pretty simple concept; they said smaller populations evolved fairly quickly in a punctuated fashion so as not to leave those fossils.

In large part, they were attempting to explain the fossil record's dominant aspects of stasis and sudden appearance.

Creationists and others had already pointed out for decades that stasis and sudden appearance were the dominent aspects of the fossil record. Those are definite attributes of the fossil record.

The claim there are gaps predisposes acceptance of a theory, namely that the pieces were connected through evolution. It's basically a dishonest tactic to say creationists were pointing out "gaps" when what they were pointing out is the nature of the evidence on it's face, and they were entirely correct which is why evos came up with PE in the first place.

Edit: both creationists and Goldschmidt offered reasons for stasis and sudden appearance. Evos just didn't like them.

 

[respect]

The creationist argument and Goldschmidt's (who rejected NeoDarwinism) did not argue there were gaps in the fossil record. That's something Gould and Niles Etheridge addressed in their 1972 paper when they talked basically of how theory affected how the fossil record was viewed. They even begin quoting Darwin's lament that we don't see what he termed as "fine-grained" gradual transitions in the fossil record. We still don't by the way, at least not of macroevolution. We see some fine-grained change that often then evolves back the other way creating a situation of stasis within a range.

That was a large part of what their paper was addressing. They were challenging the concept we didn't see these things because the fossil record was incomplete, but the very idea that these transitions would be there in the first place. It's a pretty simple concept; they said smaller populations evolved fairly quickly in a punctuated fashion so as not to leave those fossils.

In large part, they were attempting to explain the fossil record's dominant aspects of stasis and sudden appearance.

Creationists and others had already pointed out for decades that stasis and sudden appearance were the dominent aspects of the fossil record. Those are definite attributes of the fossil record.

The claim there are gaps predisposes acceptance of a theory, namely that the pieces were connected through evolution. It's basically a dishonest tactic to say creationists were pointing out "gaps" when what they were pointing out is the nature of the evidence on it's face, and they were entirely correct which is why evos came up with PE in the first place.

Edit: both creationists and Goldschmidt offered reasons for stasis and sudden appearance. Evos just didn't like them.

Amazing. Creationists look at the fossil record and impose god onto it. Grownups look at it and try to explain it. Like I said.

You do realize that not everything that dies leaves a fossil for us to study today right? Because it sure seems like you don't.

 

[randman]

Amazing. Creationists look at the fossil record and impose god onto it. Grownups look at it and try to explain it. Like I said.

You do realize that not everything that dies leaves a fossil for us to study today right? Because it sure seems like you don't.

So Goldschmidt was a child too?

Why is it you guys pretend you originated some fact when others actually did? The claim is stasis and sudden appearance were originated through PE, but the facts were known and standard creationist criticism since the time of Darwin.

In evo's minds then, does a fact not exist until an evolutionist uses it to argue for evolution?

The evidence suggests that may be the case. And you call that science?

 

[respect]

To put it another way, you seem to think that creationists are aware of "problems" with the fossil record (or any other issue in science) that grown ups are not aware of. This is of course not the case, creationists would not even be aware of such "problems" if grown ups did not discuss them. Creationists just latch on and assign one or more gods as the explanation, grown ups look at them as questions that need answers and look for the answers.

 

[respect]

So Goldschmidt was a child too?

Why is it you guys pretend you originated some fact when others actually did? The claim is stasis and sudden appearance were originated through PE, but the facts were known and standard creationist criticism since the time of Darwin.

In evo's minds then, does a fact not exist until an evolutionist uses it to argue for evolution?

The evidence suggests that may be the case. And you call that science?

Assigning god as the answer to a question is not science.

 

[randman]

To put it another way, you seem to think that creationists are aware of "problems" with the fossil record (or any other issue in science) that grown ups are not aware of. This is of course not the case, creationists would not even be aware of such "problems" if grown ups did not discuss them. Creationists just latch on and assign one or more gods as the explanation, grown ups look at them as questions that need answers and look for the answers.

No, the facts of the fossil record are not "problems" for creationists and IDers. They are just problems for you guys.

Also, your pretense only evolutionists discover new facts is indicative of a major problem with evos. On another thread, we talked about Haeckel's drawings being forged, something creationists had known of and shown for over 130 years and some evos too.

But you guys acted like Richardson discovered they were fakes in 1997.

 

[respect]

No, the facts of the fossil record are not "problems" for creationists and IDers. They are just problems for you guys.

Right, because you have predetermined the answer to every question without any evidence that your answer is correct.

Punctuated equilibrium answered questions. You intellectual failures had just assigned an explanation without evidence, no different than the people who used to think that thunder and lightning were an angry god throwing a temper tantrum.

 

[fishbob]

Not really, especially as many ID theories involve alternative means of evolution from either a common ancestor or multiple common ancestors. Part of that evidence, of course, is the limitations of allelic mutation along with the nature of microevolution to produce the existence of similar repeated designs and so forth. There is positive evidence as well to explain potential mechanisms, and of course, the evidence that macroevolution seems to be no longer occuring.

You are gonna have to show at least a few of those many ID theories, otherwise I might conclude that you are just making stuff up.

 

[fishbob]

Evos here cannot even define evolution?

Change over time.

 

[fishbob]

For example, creationists have presented well-preserved, large whale fossils buried in sediment that evos say were laid down over hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of years.

Provide details or this is just more hot air.

 

[randman]

You are gonna have to show at least a few of those many ID theories, otherwise I might conclude that you are just making stuff up.

Here's some ID papers going back to 1984.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/documentation/Semi-Meiosis.pdf

http://www.uncommondescent.com/dr-j...eny-and-the-origin-of-biological-information/

http://www.uncommondescent.com/dr-john-davison-biologist/a-prescribed-evolutionary-hypothesis/

http://www.uncommondescent.com/documentation/Davison_IsEvolutionFinished_022204.pdf

larger list from same author at link below

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/collected-evolutionary-papers-of-john-a-davison/

Davison is considered and considers himself an Intelligent Design theorist who accepts common descent but not necessarily from one source.

 

[randman]

a little snippet

Schindewolf suggested that we might as well stop looking for missing links as they never existed! If they are not present in contemporary species, why should they have been present during their evolution? Any hypothesis for evolution must recognize and offer an explanation for these morphological gaps. The semi-meiotic hypothesis, which I first proposed in 1984, does exactly that (Davison, 1984, 1998). Based as it is on the reorganization of the chromosomes, such events cannot be considered gradual since they are all-or-none events for which intermediate states are inconceivable.

I will end with what I regard as one of the most significant and prophetic comments in all of the evolutionary literature. In 1924, shortly before his death, William Bateson, the
father of modern genetics, confided to his son Gregory, “that it was a mistake to have committed his life to Mendelism, that it was a blind alley which would not throw any light on the differentiation of species, nor on evolution in general.” (Davison, 1998). I wholeheartedly agree.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/documentation/Davison_IsEvolutionFinished_022204.pdf

 

[fishbob]

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 recall this incident. Fossils were found with preserved soft tissue. Key word is preserved. The tissue was not soft, there were no red blood cells, and IDers just made up the rest.

This is additional evidence supporting my observation that the two types of creationist and IDers dishonesty are intellectual and factual. Factual dishonesty is basic misrepresentation of fact (see previous paragraph). Easy to identify. Also includes making stuff up, redefining words, and other intentional weaselry.

Intellectual dishonesty is a little harder to spot - purposeful refusal to look at evidence (also known as deliberate ignorance). This provides ignorance as an excuse, which is fine for people who keep their uninformed opinions to themselves or people that just don't care. However, making claims based on deliberate ignorance is dishonest and should be pointed out whenever identified. See quote above.

 

[randman]

Front loaders predict basically the creation of a super genome in the earliest, first creatures that evolved all of life today, but not through accumulation of genetic complexity over time.

As far as the 1st genomes, they say "God did it."

Evos say inorganic material spontaneously generated biological life.

Which one sounds more reasonable to you?

 

[randman]

there were no red blood cells,

Wrong.

Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.”

What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells.

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz1GvzZ7JgS

 

[fishbob]

Here's some ID papers going back to 1984.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/documentation/Semi-Meiosis.pdf

http://www.uncommondescent.com/dr-j...eny-and-the-origin-of-biological-information/

http://www.uncommondescent.com/dr-john-davison-biologist/a-prescribed-evolutionary-hypothesis/

http://www.uncommondescent.com/documentation/Davison_IsEvolutionFinished_022204.pdf

larger list from same author at link below

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/collected-evolutionary-papers-of-john-a-davison/

Davison is considered and considers himself an Intelligent Design theorist who accepts common descent but not necessarily from one source.

2 points:

1 - Davison presents no theory, just takes pot shots at evolution.
2 - The articles contain a whole bunch of sciency language that says very little (probably in order to intimidate readers and reviewers).
3 - The conclusions drawn from the data presented (none of which were generated by the author) are not exclusive. In other words, other conclusions could be drawn from the same data - which Davison failed to acknowledge or discuss.

You got nuthin.