Intelligent Design: Viable Theory or Religious Rewording?

• BCSbunk

  CenterBHSFan wrote: Maybe when science can create life from non-life, we'll be able to better define spirit or soul.
  
  What is the spark that creates actual life from non-life? Is it comparable to the big bang, only on a minute scale?

  We have already created RNA in the lab. There are no spirits or souls that is from a dualists position which has long been debunked.
• jmog

  Squirmydog wrote:
  
  Young Earthers have to either justify dinosaurs co-existing with humans or explain how fossils got there.

  Not that hard, I've already poked many holes in the radiometric dating techniques used to date dino-fossils on this thread.
  
  There is no real proof that dinosaurs and humans did NOT co-exist at one point.
  
  Matter of fact, dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible quite a few times, well before anyone dug up the first dinosaur fossil in the 1800s.
  
  Now, of course the word dinosaur was created to describe these fossilized animals in the 1800s while the Bible was first translated into English in the 1600s. So yea, the word dinosaur doesn't show up in the Bible since the word didn't exist in English yet.
  
  However, when you look at the descriptions given to specific "animals" in the Bible, like bohemoth and leviathon, its pretty obvious they are talking about bohemoth being a land dinosaur and leviathon being a dinosaur that lives in the water.
  
  So, even if you believe that the Bible was just a book written by humans and is not from God, the mere description of these animals in the book gives credence to dinosaurs and humans living together at one point.
  
  About fossils...
  
  It isn't only "millions of years" that causes bones to fossilize, bones can also be fossilized by tramatic (very high pressure) events. There have been some cases where a humans leg bone was instantly fossilized by jumping out of a plane and the parachute not opening and landing wrong on the leg (jumper was dead obviously).
  
  It takes either very long times under the earth with the pressure/heat of the earth, or a very quick very high pressure event.
• Squirmydog

  ^^^^The Creation Museum in Cincinnati talks about some of this I believe?????
• jmog

  Squirmydog wrote: ^^^^The Creation Museum in Cincinnati talks about some of this I believe?????

  Yeah, there is a good one in Texas as well.
  
  I didn't go into a ton of detail with regards to a Biblical/religious explanation of what killed off the dinosaurs, but there is one theory described at these museums as well.
• ManO'War

  

  You just said it takes a very long time under the pressure of the earth..but you don't believe the earth was here for a very long time!
• jmog

  ManO'War wrote: You just said it takes a very long time under the pressure of the earth..but you don't believe the earth was here for a very long time!

  Did you actually READ my post?
  
  I said it takes a very long time under the pressure of the Earth OR takes a high pressure tramatic event.
• ManO'War

  

  So EVERY dinosoar bone is from "tramatic" event??? What planes were the dinos jumping out of?? Also, I guess you think the Sun is 6,000 years old too??
• bigmanbt

  You know what's kinda sad about all of this discussion. It seems like jmog is an intelligent person who can think complexly, but his search to justify his irrational belief has made him a conspiracy theorist against the scientific community. Just another one lost to religion now.
  
  Edit: Before everyone gets their panties in a bunch let me qualify my last statement. It's not that being religious makes someone "lost", it's when it compels you to believe that dinosaurs and people walked together, that Earth is only thousands of years old, that radio-active dating is a farce, and all of the other conspiracy like things he has stated on this thread, then it has become a problem. Hope that clarifies some.
• jmog

  ManO'War wrote: So EVERY dinosoar bone is from "tramatic" event??? What planes were the dinos jumping out of?? Also, I guess you think the Sun is 6,000 years old too??

  So cynical yet so closed minded at the same time.
  
  Think for one second, if someone was a believer in the Bible, what tramatic event in Biblical history would create extremely high pressures on land animals.
  
  About the sun, you can give me no more proof that the sun is billions of years old than I can give you that it is 6000 years old.
• majorspark

  

  bigmanbt wrote: You know what's kinda sad about all of this discussion. It seems like jmog is an intelligent person who can think complexly, but his search to justify his irrational belief has made him a conspiracy theorist against the scientific community. Just another one lost to religion now.
  
  Edit: Before everyone gets their panties in a bunch let me qualify my last statement. It's not that being religious makes someone "lost", it's when it compels you to believe that dinosaurs and people walked together, that Earth is only thousands of years old, that radio-active dating is a farce, and all of the other conspiracy like things he has stated on this thread, then it has become a problem. Hope that clarifies some.

  Not all who believe in the Bible subscribe to "young earth". Though the bible dates human history on this earth, there are passages in the Bible that make it clear to me that the existance of the earth predates human beings.
• jmog

  bigmanbt wrote: You know what's kinda sad about all of this discussion. It seems like jmog is an intelligent person who can think complexly, but his search to justify his irrational belief has made him a conspiracy theorist against the scientific community. Just another one lost to religion now.
  
  Edit: Before everyone gets their panties in a bunch let me qualify my last statement. It's not that being religious makes someone "lost", it's when it compels you to believe that dinosaurs and people walked together, that Earth is only thousands of years old, that radio-active dating is a farce, and all of the other conspiracy like things he has stated on this thread, then it has become a problem. Hope that clarifies some.

  1. Show me proof that they didn't walk the Earth at the same time. I'm not saying I'm 100% correct and I know everything, I'm just saying that the evolutionary biologists don't either.
  
  2. If there is one subject you listed I understand VERY well as a master degree'd chemical engineer, its radioactive dating. Trust me, there are MANY assumptions/mistakes/bad data in these systems. Some intentional to sell the science, some unintentional because they just didn't know. For instance on the U-Pb dating, the assumption of all the Pb came from U was intentional, but the mistaken halo burns was not as the technology to examine the halos is relatively new.
  
  3. Show me a "conspiracy" theory I came up with. I said that many scientists will manipulate data to fit their claims. That is a fact, look at how many of the "missing links" have been shown to be hoax's, people filing down jaw bones and matching human skulls with orangatang jaws to make it look like a "missing link". There's a difference in a "conspiracy theory" and manipulation of data. Heck, look at the scientists behind global warming, you can't tell me they haven't manipulated data to fit their claims.
• Squirmydog

  jmog wrote:

  bigmanbt wrote: You know what's kinda sad about all of this discussion. It seems like jmog is an intelligent person who can think complexly, but his search to justify his irrational belief has made him a conspiracy theorist against the scientific community. Just another one lost to religion now.
  
  Edit: Before everyone gets their panties in a bunch let me qualify my last statement. It's not that being religious makes someone "lost", it's when it compels you to believe that dinosaurs and people walked together, that Earth is only thousands of years old, that radio-active dating is a farce, and all of the other conspiracy like things he has stated on this thread, then it has become a problem. Hope that clarifies some.

  1. Show me proof that they didn't walk the Earth at the same time. I'm not saying I'm 100% correct and I know everything, I'm just saying that the evolutionary biologists don't either.
  
  2. If there is one subject you listed I understand VERY well as a master degree'd chemical engineer, its radioactive dating. Trust me, there are MANY assumptions/mistakes/bad data in these systems. Some intentional to sell the science, some unintentional because they just didn't know. For instance on the U-Pb dating, the assumption of all the Pb came from U was intentional, but the mistaken halo burns was not as the technology to examine the halos is relatively new.
  
  3. Show me a "conspiracy" theory I came up with. I said that many scientists will manipulate data to fit their claims. That is a fact, look at how many of the "missing links" have been shown to be hoax's, people filing down jaw bones and matching human skulls with orangatang jaws to make it look like a "missing link". There's a difference in a "conspiracy theory" and manipulation of data. Heck, look at the scientists behind global warming, you can't tell me they haven't manipulated data to fit their claims.

  What do you know about the stalactites under the Washington Monument. I have a fuzzy memory on the details, weren't they dated at some tens of millions of years old? There really isn't a conspiracy theory against science, the problem is teaching theory as fact.
• pmoney25

  

  BCSbunk wrote:

  CenterBHSFan wrote: So I guess that the scientists/archeologists who have studied and then verified that some of the Biblical occasions could very well have happened according to the realm of science... that those people have no "cognitive dissonance"?
  
  How do the bashers reconcile that? Or is it something that they just ignore?

  Please be more specific what bible occasions could have very well happened? That there was a Jerusalem? That places in the bible were real places? Sure there are just like in Anne Rices novel of Lestat New Orleans is a real place, does that make Lestat real? Does that make Vampires real?
  
  There are many outragous claims in the bible that are hand waved away by the oh so meaningful god works in mysterious ways non answer.
  
  Joshua did not stop the sun in the sky so he could continue to slaughter. First off the sun does not go around the earth which that absolutely implies.
  
  A world wide flood does not have the evidence to back it up.
  
  A man (jonah) was not swallowed by a giant fish and survived for 3 days in its belly.
  
  Virgin births with humans do not happen. Zombies do not happen. There are many made up mythological tales in the bible.

  You do realize that this discussion is about Intelligent Design, not Christianity or any religion for that matter. So you poking holes in the Bible does not really do anything to poke holes in the Intelligent Design debate or theory.
• HitsRus

  

  Way to put it in perspective.
• 74Leps

  FatHobbit wrote:

  FatHobbit wrote:

  74Leps wrote:Natural selection can only choose from a subset of what is already present, mutations are copying errors. NEVER is observed a truly beneficial mutation - one that increases qualitative sophistication - NEVER.
  
  Or would you like to provide a valid example . . .

  Sickle cell anemia provides resistance to malaria. That's one mutation that is beneficial.

  74Leps wrote: As to the previous poster on Sickle Cell anemia being 'proof' of evolution. Typical evolutionist claptrap. Evos continue to use deception/misinformation to confuse the public about their RELIGIOUS bias.

  Nobody said sickle cell anemia is proof of evolution. You asked for an example of a beneficial mutation.

  And you miss the point again: beneficial mutations aren't the result of new information that increases the complexity of a system; in fact, it's the result of decay.
  
  And again, evolution is the religious belief as it has NO empirical evidence to back it up, only fairy tales told by those who don't want to believe in a creator, for various reasons.
  
  AGAIN here's the LATEST on the subject of whether micro-evolution can lead to macro evolution - THE ANSWER IS NO - Darwin was WRONG.
  
  Scroll down to the list of references at the end - both secular and 'non'
  
  in the beginning there was information
  
  Those who believe in evolution are highly religious - they believe that life can come from non-life - even though empirical evidence shows that is impossible) - note to the person commenting about rna - those guys are CHEATERS - taking dna and rna apart a bit then playing with it to try to get it to reassemble. Again, there's a 1 million dollar reward out there just waiting since 1998 - google Origin of Life Prize and 'advise' them.
  
  There's NO empirical evidence to show 'macroevolution' is possible - None. Even the nylon bug fails under scrutiny.
  
  ALL the 'real' evidence for evolution is based on interpretations based on assumptions - the assumption that evolution is real, then the data is made to fit the assumption - one of the sillier examples - rocks are dated by fossils and fossils by rocks. Radiometric dating is full of outright fraud.
  
  Even the backers of evolution 'policy' - humanists - admit they are a religion - a belief. Evolution does have a basis in religion, as much (I'd say much more!) than Christianity does.
  
  
  Just trying to stay on topic.
  
  PROVIDE a single valid example of empirical science that proves evolution is true. Come on, humor me.
• cbus4life

  I wouldn't say that radiometric dating is full of outright fraud...i mean, people use it to make observations and claims about things that are anything but controversial, and in the grand scheme of things rather meaningless.
  
  I've read a lot on both sides of it, seems like people can use it to either fit their agenda, or can use it truthfully to enhance their studies/research in a number of different areas.
  
  But, Jmog probably knows more on this subject than I do.
• BCSbunk

  74Leps wrote:

  FatHobbit wrote:

  FatHobbit wrote:

  74Leps wrote:Natural selection can only choose from a subset of what is already present, mutations are copying errors. NEVER is observed a truly beneficial mutation - one that increases qualitative sophistication - NEVER.
  
  Or would you like to provide a valid example . . .

  Sickle cell anemia provides resistance to malaria. That's one mutation that is beneficial.

  74Leps wrote: As to the previous poster on Sickle Cell anemia being 'proof' of evolution. Typical evolutionist claptrap. Evos continue to use deception/misinformation to confuse the public about their RELIGIOUS bias.

  Nobody said sickle cell anemia is proof of evolution. You asked for an example of a beneficial mutation.

  And you miss the point again: beneficial mutations aren't the result of new information that increases the complexity of a system; in fact, it's the result of decay.
  
  And again, evolution is the religious belief as it has NO empirical evidence to back it up, only fairy tales told by those who don't want to believe in a creator, for various reasons.
  
  AGAIN here's the LATEST on the subject of whether micro-evolution can lead to macro evolution - THE ANSWER IS NO - Darwin was WRONG.
  
  Scroll down to the list of references at the end - both secular and 'non'
  
  in the beginning there was information
  
  Those who believe in evolution are highly religious - they believe that life can come from non-life - even though empirical evidence shows that is impossible) - note to the person commenting about rna - those guys are CHEATERS - taking dna and rna apart a bit then playing with it to try to get it to reassemble. Again, there's a 1 million dollar reward out there just waiting since 1998 - google Origin of Life Prize and 'advise' them.
  
  There's NO empirical evidence to show 'macroevolution' is possible - None. Even the nylon bug fails under scrutiny.
  
  ALL the 'real' evidence for evolution is based on interpretations based on assumptions - the assumption that evolution is real, then the data is made to fit the assumption - one of the sillier examples - rocks are dated by fossils and fossils by rocks. Radiometric dating is full of outright fraud.
  
  Even the backers of evolution 'policy' - humanists - admit they are a religion - a belief. Evolution does have a basis in religion, as much (I'd say much more!) than Christianity does.
  
  
  Just trying to stay on topic.
  
  PROVIDE a single valid example of empirical science that proves evolution is true. Come on, humor me.

  This is the worst post ever on this site.
  
  Evolution is not a religion unless of course you want to twist definitions around and white is really black and black is really white.
  
  Evolution is fact. You do not even know what evolution is so until you know that you know nothing.
  
  Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
  
  As far as macroevolution goes it comes from common descent to which there is evidence.
  
  Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba
  
  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1
• jmog

  BCSbunk wrote:
  
  This is the worst post ever on this site.
  
  Evolution is not a religion unless of course you want to twist definitions around and white is really black and black is really white.
  
  Evolution is fact. You do not even know what evolution is so until you know that you know nothing.
  
  Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
  
  As far as macroevolution goes it comes from common descent to which there is evidence.
  
  Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba
  
  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1

  You might want to clarify.
  
  Microevolution is fact.
  
  Macroevolution is theory.
  
  Huge difference.
• BCSbunk

  jmog wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:
  
  This is the worst post ever on this site.
  
  Evolution is not a religion unless of course you want to twist definitions around and white is really black and black is really white.
  
  Evolution is fact. You do not even know what evolution is so until you know that you know nothing.
  
  Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
  
  As far as macroevolution goes it comes from common descent to which there is evidence.
  
  Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba
  
  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1

  You might want to clarify.
  
  Microevolution is fact.
  
  Macroevolution is theory.
  
  Huge difference.

  I posted a link with evidence of macroevolution, great amounts of evidence that is vastly superior to any other theory out there.
• jmog

  BCSbunk wrote:
  
  I posted a link with evidence of macroevolution, great amounts of evidence that is vastly superior to any other theory out there.

  Evidence or conjecture does not equal fact, so like I said, you might want to clarify.
  
  Just because one theory is favored or has more evidence than another, it doesn't even come close to making said theory fact.
  
  I can post many philosophical and logical "evidences" that a "god" or "supreme being" does in fact exist, but I guarantee you wouldn't accept that evidence as "fact", and I wouldn't present it that way.
  
  Evidence and a scientists interpretation of that evidence does not make it fact (or in scientific terms a "law", difference between theories and laws).
• BCSbunk

  jmog wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:
  
  I posted a link with evidence of macroevolution, great amounts of evidence that is vastly superior to any other theory out there.

  Evidence or conjecture does not equal fact, so like I said, you might want to clarify.
  
  Just because one theory is favored or has more evidence than another, it doesn't even come close to making said theory fact.
  
  I can post many philosophical and logical "evidences" that a "god" or "supreme being" does in fact exist, but I guarantee you wouldn't accept that evidence as "fact", and I wouldn't present it that way.
  
  Evidence and a scientists interpretation of that evidence does not make it fact (or in scientific terms a "law", difference between theories and laws).

  You have zero empirical evidence a god of any sort exists and further you cannot even tell me what one is. You are making up nonsense and until someone can provide a complete ontology of whatever a god is supposed to be it will be remain nonsense.
  
  It is like you are comparing evidence of bigfoot or the lochness monster and trying to compare that to the vast amounts of evidence in favor of macroevolution.
• jmog

  BCSbunk wrote:
  
  You have zero empirical evidence a god of any sort exists and further you cannot even tell me what one is. You are making up nonsense and until someone can provide a complete ontology of whatever a god is supposed to be it will be remain nonsense.
  
  It is like you are comparing evidence of bigfoot or the lochness monster and trying to compare that to the vast amounts of evidence in favor of macroevolution.

  You might want to read what I typed once again, because its quite clear from your response you did not understand what I wrote.
  
  I said evidence does not equal proof which is how you were trying to use it to say macroevolution is fact.
  
  I used the idea of philosophical/logical evidence of an existence of a supreme being wouldn't prove one to exist, just like the evidence you stated for macroevolution doesn't prove it happens.
• BCSbunk

  jmog wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:
  
  You have zero empirical evidence a god of any sort exists and further you cannot even tell me what one is. You are making up nonsense and until someone can provide a complete ontology of whatever a god is supposed to be it will be remain nonsense.
  
  It is like you are comparing evidence of bigfoot or the lochness monster and trying to compare that to the vast amounts of evidence in favor of macroevolution.

  You might want to read what I typed once again, because its quite clear from your response you did not understand what I wrote.
  
  I said evidence does not equal proof which is how you were trying to use it to say macroevolution is fact.
  
  I used the idea of philosophical/logical evidence of an existence of a supreme being wouldn't prove one to exist, just like the evidence you stated for macroevolution doesn't prove it happens.

  I do not need to reread it I understand it well. You are attributing Philosophical/logical evidence is equal to empirical evidence.
  
  You see there is empirical evidence of macroevolution lots and lots of evidence. Proof? no, proofs are for mathematics There is not lots and lots of empirical evidence for any sort of gods (whatever they are).
  
  I would also like you to scan back and please repost where I stated macroevolution is fact? Evolution is fact and it follows with microevolution combined with the tons of fossils showing the transitions that macroevolution is a fact.
  
  That still does not account for teaching non-science in a science classroom which not one single person has reasonably demostrated why we should.
  
  Want to teach myths and fantasys? Then have a myths and fantasy class where all the creation stories are all taught with equal validity.
  
  We can call it Creation myths 101.
• O-Trap

  

  BCSbunk wrote: Want to teach myths and fantasys? Then have a myths and fantasy class where all the creation stories are all taught with equal validity.
  
  We can call it Creation myths 101.

  Actually, and forgive my hiatus from this thread, but I don't believe jmog supports the teaching of any form of ID in the science classroom.
  
  Just sayin'.
• jmog

  BCSbunk wrote:
  I do not need to reread it I understand it well. You are attributing Philosophical/logical evidence is equal to empirical evidence.
  
  You see there is empirical evidence of macroevolution lots and lots of evidence. Proof? no, proofs are for mathematics There is not lots and lots of empirical evidence for any sort of gods (whatever they are).
  
  I would also like you to scan back and please repost where I stated macroevolution is fact? Evolution is fact and it follows with microevolution combined with the tons of fossils showing the transitions that macroevolution is a fact.
  
  That still does not account for teaching non-science in a science classroom which not one single person has reasonably demostrated why we should.
  
  Want to teach myths and fantasys? Then have a myths and fantasy class where all the creation stories are all taught with equal validity.
  
  We can call it Creation myths 101.

  I swear you either have not read what I have posted carefully or you have reading comprehension issues.
  
  1. I don't support ID in a science classroom and have said it over and over again on this thread.
  
  2. You say "show me where I said macroevolution is fact" and then in the same sentence say "macroevolution is a fact". You don't make my search very hard.
  
  3. I am not saying that logical/philosophical evidence is equal to empirical evidence. I have said that just like I wouldn't use logical proofs to say that the existence of god is a fact, you can't use evidence of a theory to say the theory is fact.
  
  4. Also, you might want to look up the definition of empirical since you keep saying we have empirical evidence of macroevolution. Empirical evidence is evidence by observation or testing a hypothesis and watching the results. The last I checked no one has ever seen macroevolution happen in front of us. So no, while there maybe some scientific theories and ideas that support macroevolution through bone structure variations in different species (namely reptiles and birds), there is zero empirical evidence of it. However, these are just hypothesises and theories of how things evolved, not empirical evidence. There is a ton of empirical evidence of microevolution, but not macroevolution.
  
  5. Proofs aren't just for mathematics, proving something is fact is used in science as well (hint: math and science are intertwined). That's how scientific theories, once they've been proven, become scientific laws.