Dissecting ID

[Floortom]

LOL, why in God’s name would you waste your time debating with someone who actually thinks that the earth is 6,000 years old?? Do you realize the sheer magnitude of his self-deception?? Maybe you can argue with some flat earthers when you’re done with them…

It’s very simple, unitl they present testable scientific hypotheses that can be peer-reviewed, the entire scientific community can continue to marginalize them as the nuts that they are. They can continue to convince themselves that they are the vicitms of an evil humanist atheist plot forcing them to conduct their “reasearch” (LOL) at dumps like the Discovery Institute.

These are the kind of people you’re trying to reason with.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/pdf_notice.asp?pdf=/radio/pdf/noahsflood.pdf

Read AIG’s “scientific” dissection of Noah’s Ark.

Aside from offering a series of sheerly absurd explanations of how they fit that many animals on board (they took babies), fed them all (a lot of them hibernated, so they didn?t eat), ventilated the ark (without smelling like their heads were shoved into a gorilla?s armpit), and shoveled up all the poop (probably done by undocumented workers, hence not mentioned in Genesis for tax purposes), Ham also wrote a short section regarding the building of the Ark.

On page 4 under the heading ?How could Noah Build the Ark,? we read that ?there is no reason to believe that they could not [Noah and his sons]? build the Ark between themselves in just a few years.?

Okay, let?s see how?

First we learn that ?[t]he physical strength and mental processes of men in Noah?s day was at least as great (quite likely even superior) to our own.? So Noah was stronger and smarter than us, although no physical evidence is offered in support of this claim.

Now things start to get truly loopy.

?if one or two men today can erect a large house in just 12 weeks, how much more could three or four men do in a few years?? Um? three or four men with bulldozers, forklifts, cement mixers and nail guns, or burlap-clad ancients with a mule and a few hammers?

Ah, but wait. AiG has the answer! ??their tools, machines and techniques were not inferior to the ones we have today.? (The sound you just heard was your own eyes snapping open to the size of dinner plates.)

So Noah & Sons had electricity? Internal combustion engines? Lasers and all the other tools we use today? Where is the physical evidence of this?

The truly ironic thing about this is how closely it mimics claims I?ve heard Kent Hovind make in presentations he gave at UC Berkeley during my time in the Bay Area. Hovind once showed a Power Point slide of a clay or stone carving resembling a birdlike thing, and claimed that ancient civilizations may have had aircraft.

I say ironic because AiG regards Hovind as one of those ?one-man band? creationists who go around the country spouting ?evidences? for creationism so absurd that AiG felt compelled to publish a section on their web page urging supporters to stop using them and making the whole movement about as credible as perpetual motion, alchemy, and Jayson Blair.

The exchange between Hovind and AiG was so entertaining it reminded me of Jane Curtin and Dan Aykroyd doing their Point-Counterpoint bit on the old SNL. I was just waiting for Ham to say, ?Kent, you ignorant slut!?

The tract goes even further than just claiming stronger, smarter and better-equipped Ark builders. Subject your sense of reason to this little dandy.

?It is evident from examining the ?mysteries? of earlier civilizations that the human race has likely lost just as much (maybe even more) knowledge from before the Flood as it has gained since that time. The idea that ancient generations were more primitive than ours is an evolutionary concept.? (Italics in the original)

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/more_zany_young.html#more

[IagoMB]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
IagoMB wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
IagoMB wrote:
Then you understand how macroevoluion be examined. Just like you wrote “indirectly in the present.” That’s what I’ve been apparently failing to get across to you all along.

You misunderstood me. I’m not trying to be sarcastic here but read the following sloooooooowly. Things that occur in the present can be examined directly AND indirectly.

Macroevolution has occurred in the past and cannot be examined in the same sense as the things you mentioned. Even if your position is that macroevolution is occurring in the present it is doing so in such a slow manner that it cannot be examined directly or indirectly.

Does that mean things that happened in the past can not be observed indirectly? Is there evidence left behind?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Absolutely.

The evidence left behind can be observed. Differing scientific theories can then draw conclusions from it based on the tenets of the theory. Now those conclusions can be radically …different…especially when they have been arrived at by examining them through different sets of eyeglasses. The fact that this evidence was produced in the distant past amplifies the difficulties of repeated testability which is a such an important and integral part of good science.

"The validity of a hypothesis does not stand or fall based on just a few confirmations or contradictions, but on the totality of the evidence. Often, data that initially may seem to be inconsistent with a theory will in fact lead to new important predictions. The history of Newtonian physics gives a clear example. The abnormal movement of Uranus was initially considered a potential falsification of Newton’s new theory.

However, by claiming the existence of an unseen planet, the anomaly was explained within Newton’s paradigm. In general, an explanation for anomalous behavior should be considered ad hoc unless it is independently verifiable. Positing a new, unseen planet might be considered hedging if there were no independent way to detect if a new planet actually existed.

Nevertheless, when technology had advanced enough to reliably test the new prediction, the unseen planet was found to be Neptune."
See 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method

(I love it when they use Newton - that dirty dog of a creationist.)
[/quote]

I really don’t get this. You’re proving my point about testing and observing. That’s science, not ID.

[IagoMB]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
IagoMB wrote:

…Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact…

Sorry, no do-do.

Wow! Instead of reaching for a lifeline you dig yourself in deeper.

"What is meant by scientific evidences and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish “truth” or “fact” in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to reevaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. “Proof”, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics.

That said, we often hear “proof” mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes “strongly supported by scientific means”. Even though one may hear “proof” used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term" See 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method

You might need a pressure washer instead of a shower.[/quote]

I can only conclude that you do not know how to use those words as they pertain to science. You’er quoting the same page but it’s evident you don’t get their meaning. As in the Gould quote that you took that line from “Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome.” Do you see?

[IagoMB]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Here we go again. Gravity can be observed in the present, tested in the present, and re-tested in the present. Macroevolution has theoretically occurred in the distant past, cannot be observed in the present, cannot be tested in the present, and cannot be re-tested in the present.

Honestly, if you are equating a theory about what happened in the past with the law of gravity…you talk about losing credibility…Holy Cow Man! You might better edit your post before the rest of the T-Nation faithful log on and view that horrendous implication.
[/quote]

And then back to the fossil record and the scientific method. It can be tested indirectly in the present as the evidence I presented shows. Do you want to refute the scientific method?

"Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for things that really matter…The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, though no one has ever observed the process to this day and in spite of the fact that direct observation indicates the very opposite.

All of these “invisible” inferences were elucidated using the scientific method. When the term “evidence” is used in this article, it is used strictly in the context of this scientific method."

[IagoMB]

You have to read the Dover Transcripts. I just finished the last day. I didn’t even know this, but the leaders of the ID movement refer to it as religious by nature and a form of creationism. Also, the founder does not have a science background.

The Foundation for Thought and Ethics is behind the famous “Of Pandas and People” (the text book for ID in school, which is not published by a science publisher). There are documents from the founders that go on the explain the reason for the push of creationism into school because they wanted to stop the teaching of evolution from undermining the moral values of the youth.

This does not belong in a science class.

[anon3031855]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Floortom wrote:
LOL, why in God’s name would you waste your time debating with someone who actually thinks that the earth is 6,000 years old?? Do you realize the sheer magnitude of his self-deception?? Maybe you can argue with some flat earthers when you’re done with them…

It’s very simple, unitl they present testable scientific hypotheses that can be peer-reviewed, the entire scientific community can continue to marginalize them as the nuts that they are. They can continue to convince themselves that they are the vicitms of an evil humanist atheist plot forcing them to conduct their “reasearch” (LOL) at dumps like the Discovery Institute.

These are the kind of people you’re trying to reason with.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/pdf_notice.asp?pdf=/radio/pdf/noahsflood.pdf

Read AIG’s “scientific” dissection of Noah’s Ark.

Aside from offering a series of sheerly absurd explanations of how they fit that many animals on board (they took babies), fed them all (a lot of them hibernated, so they didn?t eat), ventilated the ark (without smelling like their heads were shoved into a gorilla?s armpit), and shoveled up all the poop (probably done by undocumented workers, hence not mentioned in Genesis for tax purposes), Ham also wrote a short section regarding the building of the Ark.

On page 4 under the heading ?How could Noah Build the Ark,? we read that ?there is no reason to believe that they could not [Noah and his sons]? build the Ark between themselves in just a few years.?

Okay, let?s see how?

First we learn that ?[t]he physical strength and mental processes of men in Noah?s day was at least as great (quite likely even superior) to our own.? So Noah was stronger and smarter than us, although no physical evidence is offered in support of this claim.

Now things start to get truly loopy.

?if one or two men today can erect a large house in just 12 weeks, how much more could three or four men do in a few years?? Um? three or four men with bulldozers, forklifts, cement mixers and nail guns, or burlap-clad ancients with a mule and a few hammers?

Ah, but wait. AiG has the answer! ??their tools, machines and techniques were not inferior to the ones we have today.? (The sound you just heard was your own eyes snapping open to the size of dinner plates.)

So Noah & Sons had electricity? Internal combustion engines? Lasers and all the other tools we use today? Where is the physical evidence of this?

The truly ironic thing about this is how closely it mimics claims I?ve heard Kent Hovind make in presentations he gave at UC Berkeley during my time in the Bay Area. Hovind once showed a Power Point slide of a clay or stone carving resembling a birdlike thing, and claimed that ancient civilizations may have had aircraft.

I say ironic because AiG regards Hovind as one of those ?one-man band? creationists who go around the country spouting ?evidences? for creationism so absurd that AiG felt compelled to publish a section on their web page urging supporters to stop using them and making the whole movement about as credible as perpetual motion, alchemy, and Jayson Blair.

The exchange between Hovind and AiG was so entertaining it reminded me of Jane Curtin and Dan Aykroyd doing their Point-Counterpoint bit on the old SNL. I was just waiting for Ham to say, ?Kent, you ignorant slut!?

The tract goes even further than just claiming stronger, smarter and better-equipped Ark builders. Subject your sense of reason to this little dandy.

?It is evident from examining the ?mysteries? of earlier civilizations that the human race has likely lost just as much (maybe even more) knowledge from before the Flood as it has gained since that time. The idea that ancient generations were more primitive than ours is an evolutionary concept.? (Italics in the original)

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/more_zany_young.html#more

Whoosh!

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=752494[/quote]

Push, this is typical of the Floortom/Xvim/lothario m.o. The college boy, frat house ridicule your opponent approach. Glad you posted “The Whooshing Sound” link. It appropriately describes the actions and rationale for their actions, IMHO.

[anon3031855]

[quote]IagoMB wrote:
You have to read the Dover Transcripts. I just finished the last day. I didn’t even know this, but the leaders of the ID movement refer to it as religious by nature and a form of creationism. Also, the founder does not have a science background.

The Foundation for Thought and Ethics is behind the famous “Of Pandas and People” (the text book for ID in school, which is not published by a science publisher). There are documents from the founders that go on the explain the reason for the push of creationism into school because they wanted to stop the teaching of evolution from undermining the moral values of the youth.

This does not belong in a science class.[/quote]

I confess. I did not read the Dover transcripts. BTW, did read all the links I supplied you with?

[anon3031855]

[quote]throttle132 wrote:
IagoMB wrote:
I have faith in God…

In all sincerity, does your God play any part at all in the origins of the universe and biology?

throttle132 wrote:
IagoMB wrote:
There has been a great amount of evidence presented to show this and you have not responded to it other than ignoring it.

Before you run hog wild with your pot calling the kettle black take careful measure of all the evidence presented that you have ignored.

I’ve repsonded to everything you’ve sent.[/quote]

Ummmmmmm…I’ll try this again, Iago. In all sincerity, does your God play any part at all in the origins of the universe and biology?

[anon3031855]

Iago (and I do address it to you not the frat boys…they just aint worth being addressed), the Floortoms and the Loatharios of this world, bless their hearts, remind me of what the Catholic bishops and cardinals of Copernicus’ time must have been like. They are members of a church that allows no dissension from the creed. Yes, many of those uniformitarianism and macroevolution evangelists are dogmatic to the core.

Their idealogy has permeated every nook and cranny of modern society. It is rabidly preached. Critical thinking that deviates from the norm is scoffed at and derided. In some circles, you could candidly say it (the evolutionist idealogy) is practically enforced. I honestly believe that if some of them had the power, they would use it to some if not all of the great lengths that the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages and Renaissance did.

Mistakenly representing “evidence” of evolution as “facts” and “proof”, shoving it down society’s throats, and insisting there is no acceptable alternative that can be entertained in any shape, form or fashion is dictatorial and authoritarian in the least. The totalitarian regime demands obedience, by God…ummm…I mean, 'scuse me…by Darwin.

Maybe you too are a member of that church? Your little “slip-up” with the article title is typical of what many believe. Maybe it was an honest mistake. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt because you have been a noble warrior!

Circa 1530: "Hear! Hear! Let us quash the heretical view that suggests a spherical earth that rotates around the sun.

Circa 2005: “Hear! Hear! Let us quash the creationist view that suggests a young earth or intelligent design.”

Ah, but they say, “You can have your crazy ideas in YOUR churches”, but nothing else belongs in the science classroom but what we espouse". Sure. That’s because the science classroom has become their sanctuary, at least on this issue.

The hypocrisy is striking.

[anon3031855]

BTW, I have frequently referred to the “theory” of evolution. I retract that designation.

Some of you have correctly identified a theory as a well-substantiated explanation of data.

Evolution does not meet that criteria so therefore it should be deemed a hypothesis.

Sorry.

[anon3031855]

Another point I want to emphasize: when I refer to evolution or macroevolution I am referring to goo to you evolution.

Remember, speciation, microevolution and adaptation are observable and substantiated.

[ToShinDo]

This is obviously a religious thread. Just when you think it’s dead, three days later it’s up and running around again!

[CaptainLogic]

[quote]Floortom wrote:
LOL, why in God’s name would you waste your time debating with someone who actually thinks that the earth is 6,000 years old?? Do you realize the sheer magnitude of his self-deception?? Maybe you can argue with some flat earthers when you’re done with them…

[/quote]

I agree, Iago, you’re wasting your time. I’ve never seen such a concerted effort at willful ignorance by two people in my life.

I really just think you should let this thread die. You and many other people have presented good solid evidence for evolution, while refuting WAY to many of throttle’s posts. Meanwhile these two crackheads you’re arguing with have been attacking macroevolution with the zeal of a dog humping the leg of an uncomfortable dinner guest, playing semantics games and acting downright childish and insulting. I’m not saying that I haven’t been any of these things, but Iago certainly hasn’t.

Iago, unless you for some sick reason enjoy this, I implore you stop responding to these people. Honestly, I think they’re just trying to annoy you with the ridiculous number of posts and absurd arguments that the earth is 6000 years old. Anyway this thread ceased to have a point to it well over 100 posts ago.

Have a good day boys, and remember, just because a book claims to be non-fiction, doesn’t mean it is.