BF2S Forums Intelligent Design

Kniero wrote:

To believe or not believe in a supernatural force is simply stupid.

Quite correct, however it's equaly valid to say:

To believe or not believe in a scientific force is simply stupid.

Science doesn't have anything to do with belief - everyone is free to 'believe', 'not believe' or 'neither believe nor disbelieve' whatever they want - science deals with facts and proofs.

=Robin-Hood= wrote:

That we would post any of the above on a game forum is a significant proof of sacrilege against the science religion.

Well, I've got a rabbit in my sig...

atlvolunteer wrote:

So that's what that is...  I thought it was a devil with a bowtie.

Don't ask me - it just appeared there one day... <*shrug*>

too... many... big.... words....

Scorpion
I got a chance to check out your link about the transitional fossils.  The usual suspects were there, as were a couple of common themes that you will see when evolutionists discuss them.  The first is that at first glance it would appear that there actually are several transitional examples, until you realize that many of these animals are 'constructed' from literally fragments of bone, fossils, etc.  The other theme is that there are still no transitional examples given.  Each example is a seperate species, often with very distinct anatomical features that cast doubt on any progression from one to another.  The following site does a pretty good job of discussing each example given: 

http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Fish     (you should be able to navigate around the site to find the discussion of each section)

One of my favorite lines from your article shows not only what little pieces of evidence some scientists will construct their theories around but also the tendency to look at evidence and make it fit the conclusion they have  already made.  This is from the from a section proposing fish developing 'feet.'

     " Coates & Clack (1990) also recently found the first really well- preserved feet, from Acanthostega (front foot      found) and Ichthyostega (hind foot found). (Hynerpeton's feet are unknown.) The feet were much more fin-like than anyone expected. "

The limited evidence they have found suggests that these structures were fins, but where they want to see feet they see feet.  The third creature they admit to not knowing what structures, if any, they had yet they give it as an example!

There are many more examples of this - Ambulocetus, which is a supposed whale transition comes to mind - where the entire creature has been constructed from a few bones and fragments.  The great thing is that the parts of the skeleton that most scientists point to as proof of whale evolution, such as the pelvis and hind limb/tail structures, WERE NOT FOUND but rather were filled in after the fact!  There is a great article and illustration here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp  (Check out the illustration!)


With work and storms going on around here today that's all I've had time to dig up.  I'll try to look more into the frameshift mutations tomorrow.   Hopefully I'll have something more to contribute then.   : )

I notice anything christian must be Taken down Barred or blocked but anything Else Hebrew muslim Etc. is a Celebration of Diversity. we never take down Manoras SP on civic buildings.

ever notice Particularly NYC Why is this ?

But what if you proved the facts were true?  Does the fact they are true prove anything?  The evidence lies in the faith of science.  Did I get that right? 

nzjafa wrote:

i still can't hack this goddamned rubiks cube. i got one side and i cant get any others.

There are two methods to defeating the rubiks cube.
1. Pry it apart and put it back together with all of the colors matched up
2. Pull off all the stickers and put them back on so all of the colors match up

atlvolunteer wrote:

nzjafa wrote:

i still can't hack this goddamned rubiks cube. i got one side and i cant get any others.

There are two methods to defeating the rubiks cube.
1. Pry it apart and put it back together with all of the colors matched up
2. Pull off all the stickers and put them back on so all of the colors match up

Actually, there are three.

3. Don't mess it up in the first place.

Actually, do they still sell them 'done' - I always thought that was a little odd - the point being to try to achieve the state it starts in - so why not just leave be - it's not going to spontaneously rearrange itself (well, actually it might, but lets not go off in yet another off-topic direction, not just yet anyway)!

thurdawg wrote:

Scorpion
I got a chance to check out your link about the transitional fossils.  The usual suspects were there, as were a couple of common themes that you will see when evolutionists discuss them.  The first is that at first glance it would appear that there actually are several transitional examples, until you realize that many of these animals are 'constructed' from literally fragments of bone, fossils, etc.  The other theme is that there are still no transitional examples given.  Each example is a seperate species, often with very distinct anatomical features that cast doubt on any progression from one to another.  The following site does a pretty good job of discussing each example given: 

http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Fish     (you should be able to navigate around the site to find the discussion of each section)

One of my favorite lines from your article shows not only what little pieces of evidence some scientists will construct their theories around but also the tendency to look at evidence and make it fit the conclusion they have  already made.  This is from the from a section proposing fish developing 'feet.'

     " Coates & Clack (1990) also recently found the first really well- preserved feet, from Acanthostega (front foot      found) and Ichthyostega (hind foot found). (Hynerpeton's feet are unknown.) The feet were much more fin-like than anyone expected. "

The limited evidence they have found suggests that these structures were fins, but where they want to see feet they see feet.  The third creature they admit to not knowing what structures, if any, they had yet they give it as an example!

There are many more examples of this - Ambulocetus, which is a supposed whale transition comes to mind - where the entire creature has been constructed from a few bones and fragments.  The great thing is that the parts of the skeleton that most scientists point to as proof of whale evolution, such as the pelvis and hind limb/tail structures, WERE NOT FOUND but rather were filled in after the fact!  There is a great article and illustration here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp  (Check out the illustration!)


With work and storms going on around here today that's all I've had time to dig up.  I'll try to look more into the frameshift mutations tomorrow.   Hopefully I'll have something more to contribute then.   : )

Uhm, it may just seem like bias to me, but doesn't it matter that all your examples supporting your side are from websites that are pro-creation/intelligent design?

Last edited by Kniero (2005-11-16 14:25:16)

Kniero wrote:

Uhm, it may just seem like bias to me, but doesn't it matter that all your examples supporting your side are from websites that are pro-creation/intelligent design?

LOL - Uhm, any more 'bias' than his previous link being a website that was pro-evolution?  Did you read the articles? 

To be honest, I'm not that familiar with the first site that I referenced - but listed it because it provided solid arguments against the specific article scorpion had supplied.  However,  I am familiar with www.answersingenesis.org  and would recommend it to anyone. The folks that contribute to the site are well-qualified and respected Dr.'s in many different scientific fields.  The arguments you will find there are very sound.

You bring up an interesting poing, though.  I don't believe that it is actually possible to be completely un-biased when it comes to this topic.  We are dealing with events that took place long ago under potentially very different circumstances and conditions than exist today, and as such many assumptions have to be made.  This is where it gets interesting.  Evolutionists, creationists, and ID-ists all deal with the same facts, but interpret them according to a framework of assumptions.  You'll find that the same facts evolutionists will point to as proof of evolution actually make more sense in a creationist framework.

To support the claim that evolutionists are not always as unbiased as they may claim, here's a quote from an anti-creationist writer:

"Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses.  As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is.  Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position."
     Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works (NY: William Morrow 1986), p.17-18.

Unbiased?

Kniero wrote:

Saying that "holding a number of facts to be true" isn't "believing" in the logic of proofs and supposed facts is contradictory, as anything and everything is a belief.

I think where we disagree is in the meaning of 'belief'. For me belief requires 'faith' - for any statement that we wish to judge as 'true' or 'false' we have a dilema - we, as finite beings, can never know everything about all things, therefor there is always room for doubt - we can do our best and weigh up the evidence both for and against a given statement and declare that "based on the weight of the limited evidence available to us, statement X is subjectively true" (or false), but we can never say with absolute certainty that "statement X is absolutely true" (or false) - so, here's the dilema - you either take the statement "statement X is true" as a matter of faith based belief, or you accept that all we can ever say about anything is "statement X may be either true or false, but based on the weight of the limited evidence available to me, I hold statement X to be subjectively true" (or false).

Kniero wrote:

Both statements of yours regarding the validity of "statement X" are heavily involved in belief. Read deeper into the initial description I made about logic and belief.

No, they're not - you are absolutely right to say that logic is applicable to everything and is one of the few dependable certainties - the two statements derive from applying logic to the problem "Can we state, with absolute certainty, whether 'Statement X' is True or False?"

If my memory serves me correctly, you should read "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time" - most of it's not applicable to this discussion, but, as I said, if my memory serves, it gets discussed some towards the back - and the rest of the book's a must read for anyone that considers themselves 'intelligent'.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2005-11-19 19:41:53)