Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[FearGod]

Fossils don't realize anything - they've no cognitive ability whatsoever. But a mind can consider what the fossils mean when trying to determine what might be "truth"


If nobody had ever told you that there was such a thing as writing, you'd never seen a book, paper, or anything which might make you consider making permanent marks, do you think you'd have come up with writing? Almost everything we know & do is because others have done these things first. I wouldn't consider not writing "irrational" if nobody has ever written before; I also wouldn't consider it relevant.


That's pure hubris - mankind gave himself the name "Homo sapiens" (in much the same way as man decided that he had been made in a god's image)

Again, I can't see any relevance to the post of mine that you quoted.

It has with your post that i quoted.

We found bones, but we didn't find any civilization which is much stronger than bones to tell us that there was a wise human at one specific time.
If we can't even have details about the pharaohs then how can we know what was going on 50000 years ago.

How the world was before 4000 years ago, how many humans were living, what about before 10000 years, how many people were living on earth.
In the last 6000 years we became 7 billions whereas humans spent 200,000 years and we can't see them reproducing, did they leave earth to another planet ?

 

[philbo]

It has with your post that i quoted.

We found bones, but we didn't find any civilization which is much stronger than bones to tell us that there was a wise human at one specific time.
If we can't even have details about the pharaohs then how can we know what was going on 50000 years ago.

How the world was before 4000 years ago, how many humans were living, what about before 10000 years, how many people were living on earth.
In the last 6000 years we became 7 billions whereas humans spent 200,000 years and we can't see them reproducing, did they leave earth to another planet ?

Your point is?

..that because there were far fewer people - perhaps they'd not started farming & cultivating enough food to sustain large populations, whatever, therefore they couldn't have been alive a few dozens of millennia ago?

..that because civilization, industrialization and farming have enabled massive population growth there couldn't have been mankind all those years ago?

Oddly enough, without books, writing and numbers, nobody was taking any census information 50,000 years ago, so I'm afraid I can't answer how many humans were around.

..and I still don't see the relevance to a post which called evolution the best explanation we have for the different kinds of observed evidence.

 

[Deidre]

Evolution was put forward in opposition to creationism; the latter preceded the former.

Facts were 'put forward' in opposition to fiction. Yes, the latter preceded the former.

 

[leibowde84]

It has with your post that i quoted.

We found bones, but we didn't find any civilization which is much stronger than bones to tell us that there was a wise human at one specific time.
If we can't even have details about the pharaohs then how can we know what was going on 50000 years ago.

How the world was before 4000 years ago, how many humans were living, what about before 10000 years, how many people were living on earth.
In the last 6000 years we became 7 billions whereas humans spent 200,000 years and we can't see them reproducing, did they leave earth to another planet ?

Why is the knowledge of these things relevant to this conversation?

 

[dust1n]

Can I get the opinion of the evolution supporters here on these statements please......
Do you have reason to disagree with any of this?

"The fossil record is incomplete. This incompleteness has many contributing factors. Geological processes may cause confusion or error, as sedimentary deposition rates may vary, erosion may erase some strata, compression may turn possible fossils into unrecognizable junk, and various other means by which the local fossil record can be turned into the equivalent of a partially burned book, which is then unbound, pages perhaps shuffled, and from which a few pages are retrieved. Beyond geology, there remains taphonomy -- the study of how organisms come to be preserved as fossils. Here, there are further issues to be addressed. Hard parts of organisms fossilize preferentially. The conditions under which even those parts may become fossilized are fairly specialized. All this results in a heavily skewed distribution of even what parts of organisms become fossilized, and that affects which features of morphology are available for use in classification. The issue of geography enters into all this, as a consequence of the fact that living lineages occupy ecological niches, and those niches are bound to certain features of geography.

Paleospecies, then, have to be recognized as species from morphology alone, where the available morphological characters are drawn from a skewed distribution, the pattern of fossilization is skewed, and the geographic correlates of fossilization are limited in extent." If this is true, what does it mean for the truthfulness of fossil evidence?

That very few fossils survive and that this is well known?

 

[Bunyip]

Funny thing is I tried a lot of pages and couldn't find a single whale shark fin that demonstrated its structure.

Please feel free to provide one of you know where to access an illustration or bone diagram.

Sharks don't have bones mate.

 

[David M]

My friend, in the ignore list.
Good luck

Welcome to the growing club of people whose counter-arguments and facts poor old FearGod cannot refute.

 

[FearGod]

Your point is?

..that because there were far fewer people - perhaps they'd not started farming & cultivating enough food to sustain large populations, whatever, therefore they couldn't have been alive a few dozens of millennia ago?

..that because civilization, industrialization and farming have enabled massive population growth there couldn't have been mankind all those years ago?

Oddly enough, without books, writing and numbers, nobody was taking any census information 50,000 years ago, so I'm afraid I can't answer how many humans were around.

..and I still don't see the relevance to a post which called evolution the best explanation we have for the different kinds of observed evidence.

Fossils show that there were life and the same elements of life is related to our recent life, it's a chain of organisms starting from bacteria all the way to humans and nature is the raw material for it, God said that he made us by the nature and he'll return us to the nature.

This is how it was programmed by God from start to end and even some events were foretold to happen and it happened, you may believe it happened by chance or by God.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Or muscular dystrophia. Because our intelligent designer really loves making dying children.

Are atomic bombs not designed, because they kill people?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Food for thought. I eagerly await your flimsy excuses.

Just look at the evidence. If you had infinite intelligence and designed life from scratch, would you come up with what we actually see? I think not.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Are atomic bombs not designed, because they kill people?

So cancer was designed too? Well, gee, thanks God.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So cancer was designed too? Well, gee, thanks God.

Cancers do not appear to be, as far as I know, an efficient, functional, integrated whole, like an atomic bomb.

 

[FearGod]

Welcome to the growing club of people whose counter-arguments and facts poor old FearGod cannot refute.

Which facts, my argument is about the word "create" which means in all the languages on earth to bring something new to existence, whether idea, project, device ...etc
But being fanatic and to refuse to accept even the actual meaning and to say it works only in English then i have to end the argument because i don't like dishonesty which makes me feel disgusting the same way of my feeling toward your silly and stupid comment.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Cancers do not appear to be, as far as I know, an efficient, functional, integrated whole, like an atomic bomb.

But if you were an intelligent designer cancer seems like a nasty disease to build in. Why would an intelligent designer do that unless they were a sadist?

 

[Revoltingest]

For ref, sharks do have jaw bones.....

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But if you were an intelligent designer cancer seems like a nasty disease to build in. Why would an intelligent designer do that unless they were a sadist?

I don't believe cancer is a genetically programmed certainty. It is more of a generic, things break down issue. There are lethal viruses which appear designed. That something is designed does not therefore mean God designed it.

 

[FearGod]

But if you were an intelligent designer cancer seems like a nasty disease to build in. Why would an intelligent designer do that unless they were a sadist?

Smoking will lead to cancer and will affect the born child, so who's the sadist ?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't believe cancer is a genetically programmed certainty. It is more of a generic, things break down issue. There are lethal viruses which appear designed. That something is designed does not therefore mean God designed it.

Cancers have a large genetic component. In any case you'd think that a infinitely intelligent designer would be able to protect the human body from all these nasty diseases, so are you suggesting that God messed up?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Smoking will lead to cancer and will affect the born child, so who's the sadist ?

An infinite intelligence would have designed humans not to develop addictions to harmful substances, surely?

 

[philbo]

Fossils show that there were life and the same elements of life is related to our recent life, it's a chain of organisms starting from bacteria all the way to humans and nature is the raw material for it, God said that he made us by the nature and he'll return us to the nature.

This is how it was programmed by God from start to end and even some events were foretold to happen and it happened, you may believe it happened by chance or by God.

True, the fossil record is unable to tell apart what one might term as competing theories of God-instigated-evolution and natural evolution. But a god isn't necessary, and without something to show the existence of a god, and the part he played in setting the ball rolling, it's just another unevidenced hypothesis.

For ref, sharks do have jaw bones.....

That ain't bone, though - I've got three shark jaws around here somewhere, a little one, a middle-sized one and a great big one (passed on by a friend who many years ago had one of them fixed to the bonnet of his Land Rover, until it took a chunk out of his arm when the bonnet closed. He reckons he must be the only person to be savaged by a dead shark, halfway up a mountain)