Evolution And I.d. Evidence Arguments

[The Voice of Reason]

Well, it would appear that the ID side of the aisle has now taken a new direction.

It would appear that Mr. Dembski's most passionate subscriber (Vash) has now put Deut and I on his "Ignore List". I can't speak for Deut, but you can imagine my dismay.

Dejected,
TVOR

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I'm sorry Steve, but quoting from Answers In Genesis has slightly less credibility than the inimitable Dr. Dembski. It is part of Gospelcom.net - just how unbiased and scientifically sound would you say their sources are? Do you think that most of the articles they publish on their website have been peer reviewed, and accepted by the National Academy of Sciences?

By the way, since the "Neutral" Vash cannot (and/or will not) answer my question, perhaps you could step up to the plate and tell me what the NAS has against ID? Why would they dismiss it as pseudoscience?

I'm just curious. I'm sure there must be some sort of conspiracy, or is it that the NAS is some liberal thinktank, with the hidden agenda of sending the rest of us in the world to Hell, keeping us from a "Godly" life?

TVOR

 

[Steve]

I'm sorry Steve, but quoting from Answers In Genesis has slightly less credibility than the inimitable Dr. Dembski. It is part of Gospelcom.net - just how unbiased and scientifically sound would you say there sources are? Do you think that most of the articles they publish on their website have been peer reviewed, and accepted by the National Academy of Sciences?

This is amazing, you all demand an answer, one is provided and you resort to yet another tactic. AnswersInGenesis is indeed in support of ID but that does not mean the evidence they use to support their claims is corrupt. Instead of refuting the claim they make you instead say their claim is inadmissable because they might have used dodgy information with no proof of your claim whatsoever. Would you like me to start bringing up the various corrupt evidences that have been used in the past to support evolution? How unbiased do you think National Academy of Sciences is?
You yourself know that evidences in support of ID would not be recieved the same way that evidences against it are in the scientific community. Of course the scientific community would be reluctant to change its stance on issues such as the age of the earth etc Their reasons arnt to do with science though, i think many scientist have ego's to protect, noone likes to admit they have been wrong. Therefor contradictory theorys arnt given the same amount of "credibility" even when evidence is presnent to support them. Just how openminded are you really?

 

[painted wolf]

Actually that explanation for the presance of vegestials only accounts for the pelvic gurdle, not the legs themselves. They are not part of the reproductive system.

Why the legs? Did the designer simply forget to not add them?

wa:do

 

[Pah]

AnswersInGenesis is indeed in support of ID but that does not mean the evidence they use to support their claims is corrupt.

You will find, in your travels in Answer in Genesis that they are NOT in favor of ID. They support some of the arguments ID uses but the are adament that the creation from Genesis is the only answer. (hence the name of the site)

 

[Steve]

AnswersInGenesis is indeed in support of ID but that does not mean the evidence they use to support their claims is corrupt.

You will find, in your travels in Answer in Genesis that they are NOT in favor of ID. They support some of the arguments ID uses but the are adament that the creation from Genesis is the only answer. (hence the name of the site)

Actually they are in favor of an ID. You mean to tell me that this group dosnt support an Inteligent Designer? As you said they use ID arguments. You really think they are not in favor of Inteligent Design? And yes your right they do base their theory of creation on the book of Genesis.

 

[Steve]

Actually that explanation for the presance of vegestials only accounts for the pelvic gurdle, not the legs themselves. They are not part of the reproductive system.

This explaination is refereing to the so called "legs".
"Many evolutionists support whale evolution by alleging that there are vestigial hind legs buried in their flesh. However, these so-called ‘remnants’ are not useless at all, but help strengthen the reproductive organs—the bones are different in males and females. So they are best explained by creation, not evolution."

 

[painted wolf]

First of they arn't 'so called' some have recognizable tibia, femur and so on:
http://daphne.palomar.edu/ccarpenter/whale_legs.htm
Some eaven have toes: http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/orig/oceanlife/t&fans3.htm
some are just pelvic gurdles: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/HMPBK02.JPG

Only the pelvic area is used in anchoring the reproductive organs, and not in all species.

so why the form of legs, why do they have knees?
Why don't whales have special bones that arn't leggy?
Did the Designer just really like toes and knees?
Also not all Whales have remnant legs, if legs are so vital to the design why didn't creator give them to everyone? If they arn't nessisary why do some have them?
Why do more primitve whales have longer legs?

All Male and Female mammals have different shaped bones in the reproductive area. Females need space to squeeze out young. Evolution best explains this not ID.

wa:do

 

[Steve]

First of they arn't 'so called' some have recognizable tibia, femur and so on:

http://daphne.palomar.edu/ccarpenter/whale_legs.htm

Some eaven have toes: http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/orig/oceanlife/t&fans3.htm

some are just pelvic gurdles: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/HMPBK02.JPG

Only the pelvic area is used in anchoring the reproductive organs, and not in all species.

so why the form of legs, why do they have knees?

Why don't whales have special bones that arn't leggy?

Did the Designer just really like toes and knees?

Also not all Whales have remnant legs, if legs are so vital to the design why didn't creator give them to everyone? If they arn't nessisary why do some have them?

Why do more primitve whales have longer legs?


wa:do

Who do you think named these bones a tibia, femur and so on? the whale? If they were indeed desiged to aid in the anchoring the reproductive organs these would imply designer. You say they arnt used for anchoring the reproductive organs, their are many scientists that say they are.


What proof do you have these bones ever were used for walking? Your telling me they were once legs, im showing they have a purpose as they are and even if they did seem a bit like legs is that the only proof you have that whales once walked on land?

"It is argued that whales have the remnants of legs in the posterior region of their massive bodies. There are certain cartilaginous bones (six to ten inches long) in the rear area of the whale, but there is absolutely no proof that these were once “legs.” These bones serve wonderfully well as anchors to support certain muscles in this region of the sea monster’s great body.
Actually, though, this “leg” argument presents more of a problem, than it does a proof, for the evolution theory. If the whale has the remnants of legs, that must mean it once lived on land. This would suggest that the ancestors of these creatures first lived in the sea (as fish), eventually crawled out on land (where they evolved legs), and then, at some point, went back into the sea, where their legs shriveled into the vestiges now observable. This is ridiculous."
http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/uselessArgument.htm

Besides ive already posted evidence that suggests that the earth is young anyway, so their wouldnt have been time for this thing to even happen.

 

[Pah]

...Besides ive already posted evidence that suggests that the earth is young anyway, so their wouldnt have been time for this thing to even happen.

Evidence is not proof - especially poor evidence

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Who do you think named these bones a tibia, femur and so on? the whale? If they were indeed desiged to aid in the anchoring the reproductive organs these would imply designer.

There is no body of argumentation, no matter how extensive or how well researched, capable of defeating willful ignorance.

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

The link above deals with this information:

One of the most celebrated examples of transitional fossils is our collection of fossil hominids (see Figure 1.4.4 below). Based upon the consensus of numerous phylogenetic analyses, Pan troglodytes (the chimpanzee) is the closest living relative of humans. Thus, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees. Over the past century, many spectacular paleontological finds have identified such transitional hominid fossils.

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

And lets not forget the Miller-Urey experiment that proves without a doubt that Abiogenesis (life ffrom lifelessness) is, in fact, a very established theory.
http://tidepool.st.usm.edu/crswr/millerurey.html
Recent data now points toward abiogenesis through lower extremeophile conditions, instead of darwins "warm pudle" speculation. But even being a specualation as it was, it still deserves merit throught the Miller-Urey experiment.

 

[Steve]

And lets not forget the Miller-Urey experiment that proves without a doubt that Abiogenesis (life ffrom lifelessness) is, in fact, a very established theory.
http://tidepool.st.usm.edu/crswr/millerurey.html
Recent data now points toward abiogenesis through lower extremeophile conditions, instead of darwins "warm pudle" speculation. But even being a specualation as it was, it still deserves merit throught the Miller-Urey experiment.

Im really suprised anyone would genuinley try to use the Miller-Urey experement as proof that "without a doubt that Abiogenesis (life ffrom lifelessness) is, in fact, a very established theory."
Im sure most of the other posters on this thread who support evolution wouldnt even go any where near that far as to make a claim like that.
This particular experiment is regarded even by many evolutionist scientists these days to be far from a success.

 

[Vash]

And lets not forget the Miller-Urey experiment that proves without a doubt that Abiogenesis (life ffrom lifelessness) is, in fact, a very established theory.
http://tidepool.st.usm.edu/crswr/millerurey.html
Recent data now points toward abiogenesis through lower extremeophile conditions, instead of darwins "warm pudle" speculation. But even being a specualation as it was, it still deserves merit throught the Miller-Urey experiment.

Miller-Urey proves nothing without a doubt.

http://evolutionoftruth.com/evo/millerurey.htm

 

[The Voice of Reason]

AnswersInGenesis is indeed in support of ID but that does not mean the evidence they use to support their claims is corrupt.

You are correct - the "evidence" they provide is not accepted because it is a load of horsedung, not because I don't like it, but because the entire scientific community rejects it, on the grounds of it being nothing more than a claim from religious fundamentalists.

Instead of refuting the claim they make you instead say their claim is inadmissable.

What do you think everyone has been doing for the last 16 pages of this thread, and the entire breadth of the "Premise of ID" thread? Are you unable to even admit that all of these posts rebutting the garbage known as ID has occurred? We can, and have been, rebutting the argument for ID. We cannot rebut the evidence, as NONE has been forthcoming.

How unbiased do you think National Academy of Sciences is?

This may be the single most inane statement I have seen on this site - and that is covering a LOT of ground. If I were Vash, or the rest of the ID squad, I would ask you to refrain from posting again. Your side of the aisle is getting humiliated as it is, and with statements like this one, it's no wonder why.

You yourself know that evidences in support of ID would not be recieved the same way that evidences against it are in the scientific community. Of course the scientific community would be reluctant to change its stance on issues such as the age of the earth etc Their reasons arnt to do with science though, i think many scientist have ego's to protect, noone likes to admit they have been wrong. Therefor contradictory theorys arnt given the same amount of "credibility" even when evidence is presnent to support them. Just how openminded are you really?

Stunning - absolutely stunning. This goes beyond willful ignorance. Just out of curiousity, how old do you think the earth is?

TVOR

 

[painted wolf]

The pelvis is involved Steve, not the legs! Your source only discusses the pelvis, not whales with pronounced atavistic legs. (toes and kneees) :banghead3

why toes and knees?
Why not all whales rather than the less advanced ones?
Why don't all whales need it if its an Intelligent Design?

Vash-
Urey-Miller proves the possiblilty is genuine. It is more solid evidence than any for god snapping his fingers.

wa:do

 

[Vash]

Urey-Miller proves the possiblilty is genuine. It is more solid evidence than any for god snapping his fingers.

'If the extrapolation from the Urey-Miller experiment to the viability of abiogenesis were sound, one could still ask: 'What accounts for the existence of a "primal soup" with the correct "recipe" for life?' The answer would track back to the finely-tuned laws of nature that characterize cosmic evolution, and hence, one could argue, track back to design: 'Since biological evolution depends on stellar evolution - where else would all the necessary chemical elements to make those incredibly complex molecules come from? - the necessity of fine-tuning for biological evolution has already been proven. Even now, Darwinism cannot claim to be designer-free.'A finely tuned 'primal soup' suggests an intelligent 'Primal Cook'!

 

[painted wolf]

not nessisarily... no cook is needed for a natural process.
hence it is natural.

please define 'fine tuneing' for me... I don't seem to be grasping what fine-tuned laws you are refering to.

Is there any evidence of natural law ever being tuned?
Has any Darwinist/evolutionist ever clamed that the 'primordial soup' was tuned at all?

wa:do