RE: ?empirical evidence? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

unclemonkey -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/9/2008 2:55:42 AM)

ORIGINAL:drj11
quote:

I can count at least 3 or 4 times in this thread or the last where you called me a bigot.

You have made numerous personal slanderous attacks on people, myself included, simply because they are creationists. That is the actions of a bigot. As they say, if the shoe fits…

quote:

But yea, I must not know much because I'm not familiar with frog anatomy.

You championed the nonsense that folds in skin mislabeled as “gill slits” is empirical evidence we have fish in our family tree. Are you an expert on fish anatomy?
I think what you do is blindly defend whatever talkorigins promotes and are afraid to commit on anything you can’t find an article about at talkorigins.

quote:

You still just don't get it. I haven't studied the digits on a frog hand I cant say one way or the other.

You HAVE studied the “gill slits” on human embryos? You are familiar enough fish anatomy to declare that the folds in human embryos, which are neither gill nor slit is empirical evidence of fish in our family tree?
It is pretty obvious that what you mean by “haven’t studied” is you haven’t been able to find an article about it on talkorigins.



Real_Solitude -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/9/2008 8:07:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nothingman
the memetic theory is garbage.

Justify your statement, please.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/9/2008 10:19:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

Please familiarize yourself with memetic theory, then reply again. Memetic theory has to do with the transmission and change of ideas, and the competition of sets of ideas against other sets of ideas.


Please explain the relevance and how this argues against anything I said.



drj11 -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/11/2008 1:51:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

quote:

But yea, I must not know much because I'm not familiar with frog anatomy.

You championed the nonsense that folds in skin mislabeled as “gill slits” is empirical evidence we have fish in our family tree. Are you an expert on fish anatomy?
I think what you do is blindly defend whatever talkorigins promotes and are afraid to commit on anything you can’t find an article about at talkorigins.


No, its empirical evidence because fish and human embryo's have identical structures called pharyngeal pouches, or "gill slits" in laymen's terms. They arent actually gills in either organism. I don't think frog digits and human digits are identical.

quote:


quote:

You still just don't get it. I haven't studied the digits on a frog hand I cant say one way or the other.

You HAVE studied the “gill slits” on human embryos? You are familiar enough fish anatomy to declare that the folds in human embryos, which are neither gill nor slit is empirical evidence of fish in our family tree?
It is pretty obvious that what you mean by “haven’t studied” is you haven’t been able to find an article about it on talkorigins.


You know talk origins is a succinct compilation of research on evolution, right? It's not talk origins making the claims, they are just documenting the evidence and information from actual research.



unclemonkey -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/11/2008 5:17:13 PM)

ORIGINAL:drj11
quote:

No, its empirical evidence because fish and human embryo's have identical structures called pharyngeal pouches, or "gill slits" in laymen's terms.

Calling them ”identical" structures is a lie. In fish they are the beginnings of gills, whereas in mammals they are nothing more than folds in the skin. All they share is a similar superficial appearance. Calling a similar superficial appearance empirical evidence of evolution is outright FRAUD because it is based in the Haekleian LIE.

Also, even if pharyngeal pouches in fish and humans were identical rather than simply having a similar superficial appearance it would still NOT be empirical evidence for evolution. It can ONLY be considered evidence for evolution if you ASSUME evolution to begin with. I.e. your “empirical evidence” is nothing more than circular reasoning.
Circular reasoning does not constitute empirical evidence.

quote:

You know talk origins is a succinct compilation of research on evolution, right?

ROFLOL!!! Talkorigins is nothing more than an atheist propaganda machine. The fact that they are pushing frauds that you so readily accept as “empirical evidence” is proof of their real nature.

quote:

It's not talk origins making the claims, they are just documenting the evidence and information from actual research.

How much is talkorigins paying you? Such blind loyalty ought to be rewarded.



Real_Solitude -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/12/2008 4:54:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Please explain the relevance and how this argues against anything I said.

"Memetic theory has to do with the transmission and change of ideas, and the competition of sets of ideas against other sets of ideas."
It is about the 'mental evolution' of ideas through various hosts. I was saying that cars evolved through memetic transmission in a parallel manner to how species evolve in genetic transmission. Through mutation and natural selection.



drj11 -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/13/2008 9:34:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
Calling them ”identical" structures is a lie. In fish they are the beginnings of gills, whereas in mammals they are nothing more than folds in the skin. All they share is a similar superficial appearance. Calling a similar superficial appearance empirical evidence of evolution is outright FRAUD because it is based in the Haekleian LIE.


You willfully deny reality once again. They are identical. In almost all vertebrate's actually, not just human and fish. They are not fish gills in fish embryo's. They are pharyngeal pouches.

quote:


Also, even if pharyngeal pouches in fish and humans were identical rather than simply having a similar superficial appearance it would still NOT be empirical evidence for evolution. It can ONLY be considered evidence for evolution if you ASSUME evolution to begin with. I.e. your “empirical evidence” is nothing more than circular reasoning.
Circular reasoning does not constitute empirical evidence.


Its not circular reasoning. Similar/identical structures between organisms is a prediction of evolution. When those predictions are proved to be accurate, this constitutes evidence.

An example of circular reasoning is saying that the Bible is the inerrant word of god, because the bible say its the inerrant word of God. You're whole belief system is built on circular reasoning. But hey... since the Bible is involved, circular reasoning is A-OK!!

quote:


ROFLOL!!! Talkorigins is nothing more than an atheist propaganda machine. The fact that they are pushing frauds that you so readily accept as “empirical evidence” is proof of their real nature.


Talk origins was created to document evolutionary evidence to combat creationism, not theism. You regularly link to AiG, which is a source of so many frauds and mistruths its nearly impossible to keep track.



unclemonkey -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/13/2008 10:22:24 PM)

ORIGINAL:drj11
quote:

Its not circular reasoning. Similar/identical structures between organisms is a prediction of evolution.

It is also a prediction of creation science. Does that mean it is empirical evidence for Biblical creation?

quote:

An example of circular reasoning is saying that the Bible is the inerrant word of god, because the bible say its the inerrant word of God.

Yes, that would be an example of circular reasoning. However, I don’t make that claim nor have I ever seen that claim made anywhere other than as an atheist’s strawman argument.

quote:

You're whole belief system is built on circular reasoning.

You are speaking for yourself here.

quote:

Talk origins was created to document evolutionary evidence to combat creationism, not theism.

As I have pointed out over and over, from talkorigins own articles, their function is to promote atheism. It is a shame that your devotion to atheism has blinded you to the obvious.

quote:

You regularly link to AiG, which is a source of so many frauds and mistruths its nearly impossible to keep track.

I am sick and tired of your slander. “AIG has so many frauds I can’t even point any of them out” is par for your character assassination attacks. On the other hand I HAVE pointed out frauds promoted by talkorigins.

Your entire argument is nothing more than baseless slander.



drj11 -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/13/2008 10:26:12 PM)

quote:


I am sick and tired of your slander. “AIG has so many frauds I can’t even point any of them out” is par for your character assassination attacks. On the other hand I HAVE pointed out frauds promoted by talkorigins.

Your entire argument is nothing more than baseless slander.


I could point out the frauds of AiG but youd just accuse me of character slander. How convenient.



drj11 -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/13/2008 10:43:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

As I have pointed out over and over, from talkorigins own articles, their function is to promote atheism. It is a shame that your devotion to atheism has blinded you to the obvious.



Just saw this and couldn't let it stand... Lets see the articles then, monkey.



unclemonkey -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/14/2008 10:05:09 AM)

ORIGINAL:drj11
quote:

I could point out the frauds of AiG but youd just accuse me of character slander.

You can’t support your bogus claim so you try to deny your inability by accusing me of not having an appropriate response. How convenient.

quote:

Just saw this and couldn't let it stand... Lets see the articles then, monkey.

I DID point out frauds in the talkorigins article you cited. I should point them out again so you can again deny that I pointed them out?

The fact remains that you haven’t provided the least bit of empirical evidence supporting evolution. The reason for that is because there isn’t any.



DanJames -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/14/2008 1:51:03 PM)

Let's bring this back around, gentlemen. Pharyngeal arches are only present in vertebrates and they have absolutely zero to do with respiration in any animal. There are many things that develop from different parts of these arches to include the parathyroid They are highly complex in their development. They only appear to look like gills because they are actually segmented pouches. Why a pouch? I gather from this article that the purpose is to populate distinct regions of endoderm (from which the arches form) with hormones from the neural crest (the brain basically). When they don't form into pouches, as the article tells, developmental problems arise. I get the feeling that if we weren't trying to prove evolution with embryo development, we never would have concluded that vertebrates have gill slits.

Here's some further reading on the development of the pharyngeal arches: Link action.
The abstract of this article talks a bit about gill slits.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/14/2008 2:20:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude
"Memetic theory has to do with the transmission and change of ideas, and the competition of sets of ideas against other sets of ideas."
It is about the 'mental evolution' of ideas through various hosts. I was saying that cars evolved through memetic transmission in a parallel manner to how species evolve in genetic transmission. Through mutation and natural selection.


Cars were designed through designers who were familiar with each others work. They didn't evolve. The ideas may have evolved, but that's because different designers were familiar with each others work. You even argued

quote:

It's not like, without ever having seen a car before, some engineer said, "Hey, want to make a Merkur XR4Ti today?"


You seem to be arguing that their commonalities are due to the fact that the different designers were familiar with each others work. As I stated before, "this suggests that cars were either designed by a common designer or a group of designers who worked together or different designers who were familiar with each others work." It does not suggest independent designers who were unfamiliar with each others work. The same thing can be argued for living organisms. I also already gave reasons why this does not suggest that organisms evolved.

There is a difference between cars evolving and ideas evolving. The car does not evolve (other than breaking down over time) on its own, it needs a designer to create new designs and improve upon existing ones. So when I refer to car evolution, I am not referring to the evolution of ideas and designs created and improved by a designer, I am referring to the evolution of a car on its own. Cars do not share a common ancestor unless you are arguing that they are able to give birth to new cars. A design may share a common ancestor, but not the car. Designs are created and changed by designers. Yet different cars and bikes do share similarities and this is not evidence that they share a common ancestor. There is no reason why similarities are evidence of common ancestry. How similar something is is a matter of degree. Computers and humans are both made of matter, antimatter and matter both impact the universe, the sun and a car both have energy. The fact that commonalities exist within the universe and among different entities is no reason to suggest they share a common ancestor. How common do organisms have to be in order to determine they share a common ancestor and why that common? How different must they be in order to determine that they don't share a common ancestor and why that different? If one organism is made of matter, must another be made of something else? If one organism contains water, must another organism contain no water whatsoever? Similarities and differences are relative and just because similarities exist does not mean that cars and bikes share a common ancestor and neither does it mean all organisms share a common ancestor.

Also, don't confuse different meanings with similar words and sentences where you try to make one sentence mean something it shouldn't mean such that it would take more words to describe what I am really referring to. There is a difference between organisms evolving (ie: mutating and giving birth to new organisms or creating new organisms on their own without outside intervention from a designer) and ideas/designs evolving (ie: in the case of cars where designers create new designs and improve upon existing ones). Confusing the language is not an argument against my arguments and most people on these forums probably know what I am referring to when I say that cars and bikes don't share a common ancestor despite their similarities (so it doesn't help your arguments to confuse the language).



cognitivemagic -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/15/2008 8:33:55 PM)

quote:

You believe it should be interpreted from an evolutionary worldview and I believe It should be interpreted from a Biblical worldview.


First of all, you misuderstood my point.

Second of all, this "world-view" dependent understanding of reality leaves you in the quagmire of epistemic relativism; because "facts" only derive meaning that are relative to the observer's own metaphysical nexus.

For instance, you say:

quote:

The interpretation is dependent on worldview


Well, this claim is, itself, dependent on your worldview. Yet, like Icarus, it wants to to soar high above. And like Icarus, the sun melts away the pretense. For how can you rise out of your own world-view to assert a meta-worldview statement?

Therefore it's fair to say to you, "that's just your interpretation."

You might be tempted to reply with:

"No, this isn't just my interpretation. This is the way it is"

But now you will have left your presuppositionalism in the dust.

quote:

If you want to question the existence of “empirical evidence” supporting the existence of God you need to start a thread for that purpose.

However, I will state at this point that there is in fact “empirical evidence” not only supporting the existence of God, but that He is the God of the Bible. If you wish to learn of that evidence start a new thread for that purpose as this thread is about the lack of empirical support for evolution.


From your presuppositional apologetic methodology, it's absurd to speak of "empirical" evidence since you believe in theory-dependent observation. From your point of view, there is no "empirical" evidence for any world-view; rather, the "facts" only become such when an agent selects a metaphysical position, which in turn allows the raw data of experience to be molded into a coherent and meaningful picture.

And so, according to your perspective, we cannot even begin to formulate a meaningful debate regarding existential and factual claims since we cannot agree on any "empirical" phenomena as a starting point for debate. Furthermore, we can't even begin to debate questions regarding presuppositional starting-points either, since our assessment of them (i.e. presuppositions) are already tangled up in those very starting-points we are debating. And so, we must first start with the same "presuppositions", not only in order to see the "facts" (i.e. empirical experience) in the same way, but to even agree that we agree on what the "interpretation of the facts" (i.e. presuppositions) rightly is. In other words, we have to agree in order to agree. Therefore, your thread runs like a lame-horse right out of the starting gate.

Van Til, Bahnsen and Frame are in the same epistemic boat as Immanuel Kant, Richard Rorty and Hilary Putnam.

So lest you, in turn, claim that I'm off your topic, answer me this:

What's the bottom line with you? Is "empirical" evidence irrelevant in light of metaphysical positivism/voluntarism? Were you more interested in philosophy and metaphysics than actual science, since you brought up "world-view" questions?

quote:

Simply calling your worldview based interpretation “indirect empirical evidence” does not make it empirical evidence. E.g. you see the fossil record as a record of new life. I see the fossil record as a record of catastrophic death.
You believe it should be interpreted from an evolutionary worldview and I believe It should be interpreted from a Biblical worldview. The difference is that I don’t have the audacity to call it “empirical evidence” for my worldview.


I was making a distinction that Norman Geisler and J. Kirby Anderson make between "operation science" and "origin science"; or Stephen Meyer makes between "observational" science and "historical" science. Apparently, you are unfamiliar with these authors.

Furthermore, you jumped the gun and failed to address my main point:

God is not an "empirical" being. Therefore, you cannot "directly" perceive Him in the same way that you do chairs and tables. That's what my point was. But I suggested that God could be known in a non-direct way; like numinous/religious experience (for example). This is a similar approach that J.P. Moreland takes in his debate with Kai Nielsen in "Does God Exist?: A Debate" (Prometheus Books).

The problem that you have, sir, is that you overstated your case. And when I offer a counter-example to your overstatement, you then want to cry that I'm off topic. I was, in fact, very on topic. But if being "on topic" means completely agreeing with you then, "no", I wasn't "on topic".

And finally, you have completely misrepresented my views and treated me as if I was an atheist antagonizer because I was doing my level best to be fair with equal weights and measures (Deut. 25:13-16, Prov. 20:10).
I was helping you to be fair to your opponent as a matter of practicing the "golden rule" of apologetics, in order to be a fair and honest "Christian".

The Golden Rule Apologetic

But you seem to want to club adversaries without due consideration of their own arguments or beliefs. I suggest that if you are a Christian, that you read this before you go for the "shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later" strategy.



unclemonkey -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/15/2008 11:12:37 PM)

ORIGINAL:cognitivemagic
quote:

From your point of view, there is no "empirical" evidence for any world-view

You have either severely misunderstood my posts or have gone to great lengths to build a strawman. I am not sure which and it really doesn’t matter. Your mischaracterization of my argument is easy enough to refute.

E.g. a fossil of an extinct organism IS empirical evidence that organism once lived and can provide empirical evidence for some aspects of its life. However, whether one believes that fossil is evidence of a common ancestor or a common creator is determined by worldview rather than any evidence the fossil provides.



Real_Solitude -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/16/2008 1:56:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

I agree, individual cars do not evolve on their own. I wasn't attempting to argue that cars are products of biological evolution. What I was suggesting is that ideas are to cars as DNA is to biological life. Since cars don't have reproductive organs (and thank goodness for that), we have to use the closest analogous thing we can. Since cars don't have DNA, the DNA of a car can't mutate, combine, or be transmitted. However, if we use thoughts as the basis of 'car reproduction' instead, then it works. Ideas mutate, combine with similar ideas, and can be transmitted (imperfectly) by words and action. Since the way that cars are 'born' is thought the fruition of thought+action, just as the way animals come about is by DNA+action, the way in which a car has an ancestor is that the idea that originated that car was the process of thought evolution from previous models. This is why there are similarities in cars, because their designs do have common origins. Bikes and care both have tires because, somewhere, there was a transportation vehicle with wheels, and by the transmission of thoughts, both cars and bikes came about as a result of that idea changing to suit different needs.

quote:

Also, don't confuse different meanings with similar words and sentences where you try to make one sentence mean something it shouldn't mean such that it would take more words to describe what I am really referring to. There is a difference between organisms evolving (ie: mutating and giving birth to new organisms or creating new organisms on their own without outside intervention from a designer) and ideas/designs evolving (ie: in the case of cars where designers create new designs and improve upon existing ones).

There are differences in which the way organisms and ideas evolve, but they are close enough analogies to be easily comparable. Organisms evolve because DNA is imperfectly transmitted, and is selected against based on viability. Any given object evolves because ideas are imperfectly transmitted, and are selected against based on viability (in most cases, the ability to be purchased). Creatures are simply expressions of DNA in the same way that cars are simply expressions of ideas. It's not really any given creatures that changes, but the genetic pattern behind it. Cars don't really evolve, but the ideas behind them do. That's the point I was trying to make.
Again, I recommend reading up on memetic theory. It's quite interesting.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/16/2008 11:36:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude
This is why there are similarities in cars, because their designs do have common origins.


The same could be true for living organisms. One could argue that their similarities are because their designs (being the product of designers) do have a common origin.

quote:


There are differences in which the way organisms and ideas evolve, but they are close enough analogies to be easily comparable. Organisms evolve because DNA is imperfectly transmitted, and is selected against based on viability.


It's supposedly selected for based on fitness. However, it is the evolutionists that argue that a very different organism is capable of surviving just as well as the organisms we currently have.

quote:


Finally, many molecules besides ATP could serve equally well as the common currency for energy in various species (CTP, TTP, UTP, ITP, or any ATP-like molecule with one of the 293 known amino acids or one of the dozens of other bases replacing the adenosine moiety immediately come to mind). Discovering any new animals or plants that contained any of the anomalous examples proffered above would be potential falsifications of common ancestry, but they have not been found.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Talkorigins_refutation

So if life is just as able to use something other than ATP, evolution does not care to maintain ATP. Given all the morphological differences we do see in life, if they all did evolve it seems unlikely that a relatively small change from ATP to something else would never ever take place, especially since it would not hinder the organisms survival. If you were to argue for the lack of observable mechanism, no one has ever observed a mechanism by which the flagellum evolved or by which molecules evolved to man. Since the lack of observable mechanism is not a problem for UCD in other respects, if organisms were more different than they are now, I see no reason why lack of observable mechanism would pose a problem here.

Some evolutionists argue that life could posses vast genetic differences that would enable it to survive just as well as it does now. If that is the case, given all the morphological differences that are supposedly the result of evolution, there is no reason why evolution should care to maintain genetic similarities among organisms when it doesn't have any survival advantages. This isn't something UCD should predict (it could accommodate it with excuses, like I described in Post 50, but there is no reason it would predict it). There is no reason to believe similarities are evidence for UCD. If you would like to argue that they are then why not argue that the huge morphological differences between bacteria and humans are evidence against UCD.

quote:


However, if we use thoughts as the basis of 'car reproduction' instead, then it works.


If life wasn't designed, then there is no reason to suggest thoughts are the basis of their evolution, so your analogy does not work. Your analogy works because cars and bikes were designed and the designers had something in common (they were working with a similar design because they were aware of one another's designs).

The point here is that cars and bikes share similarities yet they do not share a common ancestor. Instead, they share designers who mostly had something relevant in common, most were familiar with one another's work. Since cars and bikes share commonalities and do not posses a common ancestor, there is no reason to suggest similarities are evidence for UCD.

In fact, where we do see such similarities and the origins are known, those similarities are the product of a common design (a design being the product of a designer. For example, cars and bikes have similar, but not identical, tires. Both tires were designed for different purposes and that's why they are different). Evolution does not care to maintain similarities that do not give the organism a survival advantage (ie: in the case of ATP).



essentialsaltes -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/16/2008 12:37:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude
This is why there are similarities in cars, because their designs do have common origins.


The same could be true for living organisms. One could argue that their similarities are because their designs (being the product of designers) do have a common origin.


This is why homologous structures and vestigial structures are so interesting. Why would an intelligent designer design a creature with finger bones and finger muscles, but no fingers? leg bones, but no legs?

These and many other examples bespeak unintelligent design. It's as though an unintelligent designer has 'copied' a design element from one animal to use in another animal, where it is not at all ideal or sensible.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/16/2008 12:45:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
This is why homologous structures and vestigial structures are so interesting. Why would an intelligent designer design a creature with finger bones and finger muscles, but no fingers? leg bones, but no legs?


Or maybe it is a broken down version of an organism that previously existed. Designs break down over time, if my car breaks I do not assume it wasn't designed. Otherwise, why would evolution evolve finger muscles and no fingers when it doesn't produce a survival advantage?

quote:


These and many other examples bespeak unintelligent design. It's as though an unintelligent designer has 'copied' a design element from one animal to use in another animal, where it is not at all ideal or sensible.


Even if the designer did this, intelligent design does not try to deduce the purpose of the designer. In order to know why a designer might have done something one needs to know the purpose behind his design. The ford pinto isn't the best design in the world (there are better designs) yet no one would argue that it is not designed.



essentialsaltes -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/16/2008 4:21:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Or maybe it is a broken down version of an organism that previously existed.


Is a whale broken down?

Anyway, does this mean you believe in the existence of 'macrodevolution'?



Bettawrekonize -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/16/2008 4:34:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Is a whale broken down?


It's possible. Perhaps earlier whales had more diversity than later ones (as in the case of trilobytes) and over time they lost some of it.

quote:


Anyway, does this mean you believe in the existence of 'macrodevolution'?


Macroevolution is an ambiguous term. Otherwise, I think "macro devolution" is more accurate. At the very least, I think it's no more unreasonable to conclude that all living organisms do not share a common ancestor than it is to conclude that they do. The alleged evidence for evolution that you do point out does not seem to be evidence for UCD anymore than it is for ID or Creationism. It doesn't tell us how these whale characteristics originated and such a thing can reasonably be interpreted within different paradigms.



unclemonkey -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/16/2008 4:43:31 PM)

ORIGINAL:essentialsaltes
quote:

These and many other examples bespeak unintelligent design. It's as though an unintelligent designer has 'copied' a design element from one animal to use in another animal, where it is not at all ideal or sensible.

Check the OP of this thread. This is not empirical evidence for goo to you evolution.

Consider starting a “it’s too stupid to have been intelligently designed” thread.



drj11 -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/16/2008 5:09:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Or maybe it is a broken down version of an organism that previously existed. Designs break down over time, if my car breaks I do not assume it wasn't designed. Otherwise, why would evolution evolve finger muscles and no fingers when it doesn't produce a survival advantage?


So what your saying is God isnt omniscient? He makes mistakes? This reminds me of this little video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw


quote:


Even if the designer did this, intelligent design does not try to deduce the purpose of the designer. In order to know why a designer might have done something one needs to know the purpose behind his design. The ford pinto isn't the best design in the world (there are better designs) yet no one would argue that it is not designed.


It says it doesn't, but it does. Jhud seems smart so I don't know why he continuously falls for the doublespeak of the ID movement. Just look at the freaking wedge document. And again, its really puzzling how much sympathy creationists have for the ID movement, and vice versa. On paper, creationists should be just as vehemently against ID as they are evolution, yet they arent. This speaks volumes to the intentions of biggest proponents of ID. Its incrementalism to bring creationism back to mainstream.

Allow me to post another youtube video... I encourage everyone to watch the whole thing (its long), but especially check out the video at 76 minutes and 29 seconds. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg



Jhud -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/16/2008 5:19:23 PM)

quote:

It says it doesn't, but it does. Jhud seems smart so I don't know why he continuously falls for the doublespeak of the ID movement. Just look at the freaking wedge document. And again, its really puzzling how much sympathy creationists have for the ID movement, and vice versa. On paper, creationists should be just as vehemently against ID as they are evolution, yet they arent. This speaks volumes to the intentions of biggest proponents of ID. Its incrementalism to bring creationism back to mainstream.


I am not sure why my name keeps getting brought up, but I was an IDist of sorts long before there was an 'ID movement' - not because of a particular group, but because I understood biology and I was willing to look crtically at the evidence.

It really has nothing to do with movements and labels.



drj11 -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/16/2008 5:29:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

It says it doesn't, but it does. Jhud seems smart so I don't know why he continuously falls for the doublespeak of the ID movement. Just look at the freaking wedge document. And again, its really puzzling how much sympathy creationists have for the ID movement, and vice versa. On paper, creationists should be just as vehemently against ID as they are evolution, yet they arent. This speaks volumes to the intentions of biggest proponents of ID. Its incrementalism to bring creationism back to mainstream.


I am not sure why my name keeps getting brought up, but I was an IDist of sorts long before there was an 'ID movement' - not because of a particular group, but because I understood biology and I was willing to look crtically at the evidence.

It really has nothing to do with movements and labels.


Interesting. Your name gets brought up because youre more studied on biology than anyone else here (I think) and ID proponent.

And you invoke arguments from Behe, the ID poster boy, quite frequently. Thats why I would assume you would be influenced by his movement.. which we know is disingenuous in its motives.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI