Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[jonathan180iq]

"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."

Provide sources for the blue. The only place I was able to find this copy pasted from was a from a website talking about creationism and evolution as if they were equals. The context of such statements are highly important

Punctuated Equilibria

Subsection #2 titled " The Problem of Paleospecies"

Was the information in and of itself correct...regardless of the source? You are trying to destroy the credibility of what was said by who said it.....this is a common ploy used by evolutionists to cancel out any conflicting "scientific" evidence that might paint their findings in a bad light. Call the source into question in order to destroy their credibility, regardless of the accuracy of their statements......Nice try.

An entry level geology class would teach you why layering distribution problems aren't really problems at all.
The reason that we evil evolutionists often employ this vile tactic is so that we can read the article for ourselves in order to better understand context and content.

The fact that you would not openly reveal the source is quite telling.

Macro-evolution is NOT a fact.
I will never believe that it is,

Well that's all there is to it then right, Ken Ham?

Based on what I have already posted, there is clear evidence that science has contributed much to the misery and suffering experienced by many people, in many nations. For everything they have produced, the planet and its inhabitants have paid for it in some way.

You're getting so desperate that you have to try and disparage the whole of science in this way?
Perhaps you're forgetting, possibly that you're typing on a computer, using the internet to spread the good news of your lord and savior?
Forgetting, possibly, that the printing of ink onto paper so that you can read your latest copy of the Watchtower is science?
Forgetting, possibly, that a seed planted in soil, and reared by a farmer into a crop for harvest is science?
Forgetting, possibly, that without genetic modification to foods that vast swaths of the human population would starve to death?

Is that really what it's come down to?

 

[jonathan180iq]

I only have to show evolutionists reject freedom is real. To a reasonable audience that is sufficient proof that evolution theory is corrupt, because reasonability requires acknowledgement that freedom is real.

Exactly how things are decided, that was dicussed elsewhere previously. There is a dna world just as like a computersimulation etc.

In other words, you've got nothing?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

In other words, you've got nothing?

....I don't like entering into useless debates with people who deny free will is real. Evidence was already provided in other threads, the response was just ridicule obviously, because evolutionists cannot reason about decision making. They only do force, cause and effect, not freedom. That is their level of understanding.

 

[dust1n]

Yes creationists don't believe about medicine, only atheists can think about science.

Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Avicenna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't mean to insinuate that all creationists don't believe in medicine, only that there are a few out there that don't.

 

[dust1n]

The assertion that people don't understand evolution theory is mostly bogus. It is just authoritarian huffing and puffing by evolutionists of their supposed expertise. There are weaknesses in evolution theory, and whenever a weakness is mentioned, then evolutionists simply reply that the critic does not understand evolution theory.

Evolutionists quite openly wallow in ignorance about how things are chosen in the universe. I mean they go out of their way to talk about what nonsense it all is, and they congratulate each other on the level of denial of the reality and relevance of freedom in the universe that they have achieved.

Irony.....

 

[jonathan180iq]

....I don't like entering into useless debates with people who deny free will is real. Evidence was already provided in other threads, the response was just ridicule obviously, because evolutionists cannot reason about decision making. They only do force, cause and effect, not freedom. That is their level of understanding.

So we're just supposed to accept that "freedom" exists, with no other substantiating evidence other than you saying that it does, and/or bias towards the acceptance of freedom?

I'm not in other threads, so evidence posted there doesn't really apply here, does it? If you have it, let's see it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Anyway, evolution has made God redundant, so he will get his severance package but not a very good reference I'm afraid, too many unexplained absences from work.

 

[philbo]

I only have to show evolutionists reject freedom is real. To a reasonable audience that is sufficient proof that evolution theory is corrupt, because reasonability requires acknowledgement that freedom is real.

I still fail to see the relevance - maybe you'd liek to explain, or link to where you have given appropriate explanation, exactly what your definition of "freedom" and "choosing" is and why this in any way relates to the evidence for evoution?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The assertion that people don't understand evolution theory is mostly bogus.

To go back to the example of Marx, when someone mentions Marxism as being ultra conformist, and everyone having to act and be the same, or that Marxism is inherently violent, or that it's misogynist, it is very obvious that such claims can only come from someone who has never read Marx.
Creationist go on about things that make it equally obvious they do not understand what they are trying to attack. They're trying to say it's night time time when even the blind can feel the warmth of the sun. It's like trying to say you know about and understand comedy movies, and you present Nightmare on Elm Street as a comedy.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Creationist go on about things that make it equally obvious they do not understand what they are trying to attack. y.

I have the impression that creationists often get their information from other creationists, rather than studying the source material properly themselves. They view evolution as a threat to be undermined, rather than as a science to be understood.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Creationist go on about things that make it equally obvious they do not understand what they are trying to attack.

I have the impression that creationists often get their information from other creationists, rather than studying the source material properly themselves.

Well isn't one of the main premises of this thread based on the fact that the posters have gotten their information from the Watchtower (or other non-scientific databases) as opposed to getting their information from scientific journals, or even a basic textbook?

It's a question that I asked a long time ago that has yet to be answered...

For example:

1. If I read only Christian apologetic journals on the folly and failure of polytheism, would you trust me to give you an unbiased, scholarly, report on polytheism?
2. If I read only antisemitic blogs, would you come to me to teach you about the merits of Judaism?
3. If I read a few biased magazine articles about the flaws of Jehova's Witness' religious beliefs, would you consider me an expert on the JW faith?

Only someone entrenched in the act of confirmation bias would trust me to guide them on issues of Polytheism, Judaism, or JWs... Yet that's what most Creationists and IDers are doing, time and time again.

Now, to turn that around and be fair to the sciences, I assume that the creationist can make the same argument against science., claiming that people who accept evolution are simply looking for studies that confirm their acceptance of natural origins. But that's just not how it works. That's not how science works. The beauty of science is that the only thing required to rewrite the entire story-line is evidence. Evidence is everything. If there were something substantial from the creationist and ID fields which actually provided evidence, then it would take its rightful place alongside all of the other fields of study. The fact that there is nothing at all to support their position says a great deal about their position, and their claim that they are approaching science scientifically.

The argument has often been made in this thread, and others, that scientists are simply trying to validate their preconceived conclusions about naturalistic origins. I can only view these attacks as being projectionist, since the very premise of something like creationism or Intelligent Design requires the presupposition that there is a creator or designer to being with. The fact that ID proponents are seemingly blind to this logical fallacy in their arguments says a lot about the corresponding arguments that they make. As sincere as they want to be, they simply don't realize that they've started three steps ahead and then attempt to call the kettle black.

You cannot assume a known without first providing evidence that it is a known.
The entire ID and Creationist theory starts like this:

"Everyone knows there is a god, so obviously everything is made by god. Here's how he did it..."

Well, right there, you have a huge flaw in your premise. Before you can even take the next step, you have to provide evidence that there is a god (or a creator or designer)

The History of evolutionary biology evidences that speciation based on natural selection is an understating that developed out of the presuppositional argument that god was the origin of all things. Science has spent the last 400 years coming to the conclusion of natural origins, beginning with the presupposition that god was priori; not because evil scientists wanted to jettison the idea of god, but because it's the only study of origins that is evidenced in the scientific method. Evolutionary science It's an expansive study and the theory of it is supported in every discipline of science, by studies that have nothing at all to do with evolution. The predictions made in evolutionary biology have been supported by the data and proven to be true time and time again, again, over a very broad field of study. The development of the naturalistic understandings of origins arose from the overall societal belief that god(s) made everything. It is not directly threatening to the idea of god or of the supernatural. It is only threatening to a literalist and presuppositional view of fundamentalist dogmas.

 

[Skwim]

The History of evolutionary biology evidences that speciation based on natural selection is an understating that developed out of the presuppositional argument that god was the origin of all things.

Well, Darwin certainly wasn't the genesis of it.

Inevitably, the more Darwin convinced himself that species had originated by chance and developed by a long course of gradual modification, the less he could accept not only the Genesis account of creation, but also the rest of the Old Testament as the divinely inspired Word of God. In his Autobiography, Darwin wrote,

“I had gradually come by this time, [i.e. 1836 to 1839] to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian.”​

When Darwin came to write up the notes from his scientific investigations he faced a choice. He could interpret what he had seen either as evidence for the Genesis account of supernatural creation, or else as evidence for naturalism, consistent with Lyell's theory of long ages. In the event, he chose the latter—that everything in nature has come about through accidental, unguided purposelessness rather than as the result of divinely guided, meaningful intention, and, after several years, in 1859 his Origin of Species was the result.
source​

I assume you have some evidence that speciation based on natural selection was an understating that developed out of the presuppositional argument that god was the origin of all things. Care to share?

The development of the naturalistic understandings of origins arose from the overall societal belief that god(s) made everything.

Actually, not. It arose in spite of the widespread belief that god had a direct hand in creating earth's diversity of life.

 

[Sapiens]

Yes creationists don't believe about medicine, only atheists can think about science.

Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Avicenna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice, big contributions a thousand years ago ... what's gone on since then? Does Hippocrates validate all of western science?

The assertion that people don't understand evolution theory is mostly bogus. It is just authoritarian huffing and puffing by evolutionists of their supposed expertise. There are weaknesses in evolution theory, and whenever a weakness is mentioned, then evolutionists simply reply that the critic does not understand evolution theory.

Evolutionists quite openly wallow in ignorance about how things are chosen in the universe. I mean they go out of their way to talk about what nonsense it all is, and they congratulate each other on the level of denial of the reality and relevance of freedom in the universe that they have achieved.

You have yet to show that people's views on what you call "choosing" has any relationship to Evolution. It's like saying that since you don't know how to make a milk shake you're a poor auto mechanic.

You can just see by your attitude in the way you write that it is probably true that evolutionists wallow in ignorance about how things are chosen in the universe.

complete non sequitur.

I only have to show evolutionists reject freedom is real. To a reasonable audience that is sufficient proof that evolution theory is corrupt, because reasonability requires acknowledgement that freedom is real.

Exactly how things are decided, that was dicussed elsewhere previously. There is a dna world just as like a computersimulation etc.

You think that's the case, but you've never actually made the case that 'evolutionists reject freedom." Even if you did, you would still have to make a case for the connection between your views on freedom and and Darwinism.

In other words, you've got nothing?

Less than nothing.

....I don't like entering into useless debates with people who deny free will is real. Evidence was already provided in other threads, the response was just ridicule obviously, because evolutionists cannot reason about decision making. They only do force, cause and effect, not freedom. That is their level of understanding.

No, evidence has never been provided, all you do is claim that thus and so is a fact and that that means some other thing, you have yet to actually make anything resembling a case.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Well, Darwin certainly wasn't the genesis of it.

Inevitably, the more Darwin convinced himself that species had originated by chance and developed by a long course of gradual modification, the less he could accept not only the Genesis account of creation, but also the rest of the Old Testament as the divinely inspired Word of God. In his Autobiography, Darwin wrote,

“I had gradually come by this time, [i.e. 1836 to 1839] to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian.”​

When Darwin came to write up the notes from his scientific investigations he faced a choice. He could interpret what he had seen either as evidence for the Genesis account of supernatural creation, or else as evidence for naturalism, consistent with Lyell's theory of long ages. In the event, he chose the latter—that everything in nature has come about through accidental, unguided purposelessness rather than as the result of divinely guided, meaningful intention, and, after several years, in 1859 his Origin of Species was the result.
source​

I assume you have some evidence that speciation based on natural selection was an understating that developed out of the presuppositional argument that god was the origin of all things. Care to share?

Actually, not. It arose in spite of the widespread belief that god had a direct hand in creating earth's diversity of life.

We agree, you've just beat me to my next post, which I was saving for a response from the creationists.

As you've cited, Darwin had to come to terms with his evidence in light of his personal presuppositions, as well as those of the greater culture around him. He followed what the data inferred, rather than what was presupposed. His understanding of origins developed out of (ie, superceded) the presuppositional argument that god was the origin of all things.

 

[FearGod]

Nice, big contributions a thousand years ago ... what's gone on since then? Does Hippocrates validate all of western science?

It isn't about east and west but that creationists contribute in the field of science, so it's stupid to think that religion opposes or works against science.

 

[Sapiens]

It isn't about east and west but that creationists contribute in the field of science, so it's stupid to think that religion opposes or works against science.

Science and religion were hand in glove up until recent times (well, there was no "science" per se, and most "learned" work was carried on within religious societies) because the differences had not come to the fore. Heliocentrism was the first major schism and evolution has all but pounded the last nail into the coffin of religionists being taken seriously in the arena of science, which grows every day at the expense of religion's circus.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have the impression that creationists often get their information from other creationists, rather than studying the source material properly themselves. They view evolution as a threat to be undermined, rather than as a science to be understood.

My experiences as a former creationist support this idea. If it doesn't come from approved sources (and I did see them discard information solely based on the fact it was from an author or source they didn't agree with), they don't study it or learn about. To them, the strategy of "know thy enemy" does not exist. Very few in that church, who so fiercly insisted evolution came to be because the devil was working through Darwin, do not even know that the idea of evolution existed before Darwin, nor do they realize Darwin used to be a member of the clergy, that he was not opposed to religion, and that he was not an atheist.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

and evolution has all but pounded the last nail into the coffin of religionists being taken seriously in the arena of science, which grows every day at the expense of religion's circus.

And so this is what evolutionists do, childishy brutalizing everybody's emotions, and rejecting all knowledge about how things in the universe are chosen. Who really takes an evolutionist seriously anymore as a scientist? It is quite clearly just an ideologically corrupt pursuit.

 

[jonathan180iq]

and rejecting all knowledge about how things in the universe are chosen.

If you can show how it was chosen, then it wouldn't be denied, would it? Just show us the evidence for how things are chosen.

 

[FearGod]

Science and religion were hand in glove up until recent times (well, there was no "science" per se, and most "learned" work was carried on within religious societies) because the differences had not come to the fore. Heliocentrism was the first major schism and evolution has all but pounded the last nail into the coffin of religionists being taken seriously in the arena of science, which grows every day at the expense of religion's circus.

Religion isn't against Heliocentrism nor against evolution.