Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[SkepticThinker]

right, the point being that the best excuse for missing evidence does not replace the missing evidence. The 'very large gap' doesn't mean that fossils did not exist, it just means we can't prove they did or know what they looked like, we can only speculate. Which is fine, as long as we recognize our beliefs for what they are.

He goes on to say

"Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms -- that is, viable, functioning organisms -- between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions?"

again his words verbatim, they speak for themselves and creationists agree entirely, there is no direct evidence for smooth transitions (which evolution utterly depends on) and yes of course we can and do invent them

Those aren't Dawkins' words.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Were past that argument already, about the common ancestor. What we are arguing now is the end result of this delusional theory of evolution. Darwin was suggesting in the Descent of Man that some races of men were more highly evolved than others based on Galton’s theory about EUGENICS.

You should read this until you are blue in the face.

“Eugenics was put forth by Darwin's cousin,Francis Galton, in 1865 and 1869. Galton argued that just as physical traits were clearly inherited among generations of people, so could be said for mental qualities (genius and talent). Galton argued that social mores needed to change so that heredity was a conscious decision, to avoid over-breeding by "less fit" members of society and the under-breeding of the "more fit" ones.”

Does this sound like eliminating the “LESS FIT” by the “MORE FIT” to you? Yes! According to Darwin’s Descent of Man “Although he thought that all races were of the same species, it was natural that the more advanced races would soon eliminate their uncivilized competitors” Why? “society would be awash with inferiors.” –Galton

Who are the inferiors in the society today? Should they be eliminated according to Darwin’s and Galton’s theory?

“In Galton's view, social institutions such aswelfareandinsane asylums were allowing "inferior" humans to survive and reproduce at levels faster than the more "superior" humans in respectable society, and if corrections were not soon taken, society would be awash with "inferiors."

Darwin read his cousin's work with interest, and devoted sections ofDescent of Man to discussion of Galton's theories.

Now you tell me if Darwin’s and Galton's theory of evolution is not about racial supremacy.

No one is twisting Darwin’s views, it was twisted already since the beginning of his theory.

What does this have to do with anything??

 

[Sapiens]

So, you don’t believe Moses? Do you follow the Sabbath? A simple yes or no. You cannot mix evolution with your faith man.

Not only do I not "beleive" Moses, many of the top Jewish Historians do not believe Moses or the Exodus ... they are both fairy tales. I guess you'll have to take up evolution instead.

 

[Sapiens]

Everything is relevant man. If there is no history then nothing is relevant.

You know you make a very good point here. You are right I cannot name my grandparents from 1869 and this is just over 146 year but here you are claiming that your great granma named “Lucy” is from 3,200,000 years ago.

Well ... there is good history for Lucy and none for Moses, where does that leave you?

 

[metis]

So it's exactly as Monk of Reason just explained:

"This is true. A huge problem is that people think that there is a significant debate because we have a lot of non-scientists on the internet attempting to debate this rather than actually looking at the scientific field. There are no debates about the validity of evolution anymore. Most of these were hammered out in the late 1800's an early 1900's. Debate on evolution now involves the specifics of evolution. Both sides agree it happened but now we get to squabble over exactly how it happened and in what order."

Exactly, and I do believe we all, or at least almost all, understand why it is that we have an element here who refuses to accept the obvious, and that it is they've blindly accepted a teaching from their church/denomination that insists beyond reason that the creation accounts must be accepted as history-- no other interpretation is acceptable. Not only isn't their approach "science" in any way, it isn't even good theology.

In theology, one needs to realize that interpretations can vary on almost any narrative. In Judaism, a general rule of thumb is that if a particular interpretation defies reason, go with reason and look for alternative interpretations. Since we now know a lot about the evolutionary process, to believe it hasn't happened defies basic reasoning. Are there alternative interpretations? Of course.

For example, long before we knew anything about evolution, one of our greatest Jewish sages was Moses Maimonides, who believed that these accounts should be taken as allegory since a literal interpretation doesn't make much sense. Even if one were to disagree with this, the fact remains that there still is this and other possible interpretations other than just a literalistic one.

Also, with this anti-evolution element, they will insist on a literalistic approach when it suits their bias, but then they abandon it when it doesn't. When a "variation" (possible contradiction) is brought to their attention, they will just try to find any excuse possible to deny that there's this discrepancy. For example, how many angels were at Jesus' tomb, where was/were he/they located, and what did he/they say? No two of the gospels agree, and yet I have seen some here go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try and show how they supposedly don't contradict.

 

[Sapiens]

Dawkins clearly demonstrates how much of his belief is based on emotion, overt hatred of the alternative, a very personal desire to make God redundant, but when it comes to actual evidence...
"it's as though they [fossils] were just planted there, with no evolutionary history"

Back laboring in the quote mine, eh?

 

[Sapiens]

As always, going with the flow. I don’t blame you man.

You guys have not shown me any proof of evolution. Show me a talking ape and I will believe you. Oh yeah, if forgot that they’ve evolved already to the highest form of man or racial supremacy.

Every human being you meet is a talking ape. Other apes can talk too, but they have to use sign (which they can learn and use).

 

[outhouse]

As Dawkins said, there are very real large gaps, with no direct evidence of smooth changes at all, highly evolved species appearing as if planted with no history, is hardly a minor omission in the catalog

Provide sources, you don't have the credibility and I cannot trust you.

 

[Sapiens]

I knew you would join us here, its only a matter of time. I have no idea what E=MC2 is. Can you explain in details on how it works?

We don't need to hold you hand, and education awaits and Google and Wiki are you your friends.

 

[Sapiens]

Those aren't Dawkins' words.

I believe that was Steven J Gould:

All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record--if only one step in a thousand survives as a fossil, geology will not record continuous change. Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question. Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms--that is, viable, functioning organisms--between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no. "The Return of Hopeful Monsters" Natural History June 1977 p.24

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I was sponsored by the Holocaust Memorial Center to study the Holocaust here, in Poland, and in Israel, and for you to blame that on the ToE is just outrageously nonsensical. There was a batch of aspects that lead to that, including some Christian teachings that Jews were of Satan. Even though some German scientists did indeed believe in eugenics, they weren't calling the shots, plus even they were influenced by the NAZI approach that Jews and some other were "not true Germans" and were inferior for other reasons as well.

That is bogus. Your history is biased. Haeckel, the closest colleague of Darwin, whom Darwin profusely praised in Descent of Man above any other scientist, advanced the jewish question as a valid scientific issue. He also helped chair a competition on applying Darwinism to the laws of the state, with all anti-semitic and eugenic entries. So it is the top of evolutionary science which is involved, as we can also see with Konrad Lorenz.

We can see now, 2015, there is widespread rejection of subjectivity on account of natural selection theory. All forums on the internet, freedom is not acknowledged as real and relevant. Subjectivity operates based on free will.

The creationism vs evolution controversy is not mainly about acknowledging God the holy spirit, creating the species, it is really mainly about acknowledging the human spirit on a properly subjective basis. You cannot acknowledge somebody's emotions by measuring. You have to be subjective. And this is what evolutionists undermine very systematically.

World war II has a very simple structure besides the chaos. On the one hand the people fighting for freedom, democracy, on the other hand people fighting for dictatorship. On the one hand people who conceive of people as choosing, on the other hand people who conceive of people being predistined by race. On the one hand people protecting freedom of opinion, on the other hand people stating as fact what the worth of people is. Acceptance of subjectivity vs rejection of subjectivity.

There is widespread and very general rejection of the human spirit on internet forums, and it is coming from people advocating natural selection theory. It is still now in 2015 a very large threat against worldpeace.

 

[Sapiens]

That is bogus. Your history is biased. Haeckel, the closest colleague of Darwin, whom Darwin profusely praised in Descent of Man above any other scientist, advanced the jewish question as a valid scientific issue. He also helped chair a competition on applying Darwinism to the laws of the state, with all anti-semitic and eugenic entries. So it is the top of evolutionary science which is involved, as we can also see with Konrad Lorenz.

We can see now, 2015, there is widespread rejection of subjectivity on account of natural selection theory. All forums on the internet, freedom is not acknowledged as real and relevant. Subjectivity operates based on free will.

The creationism vs evolution controversy is not mainly about acknowledging God the holy spirit, creating the species, it is really mainly about acknowledging the human spirit on a properly subjective basis. You cannot acknowledge somebody's emotions by measuring. You have to be subjective. And this is what evolutionists undermine very systematically.

World war II has a very simple structure besides the chaos. On the one hand the people fighting for freedom, democracy, on the other hand people fighting for dictatorship. On the one hand people who conceive of people as choosing, on the other hand people who conceive of people being predistined by race. On the one hand people protecting freedom of opinion, on the other hand people stating as fact what the worth of people is. Acceptance of subjectivity vs rejection of subjectivity.

There is widespread and very general rejection of the human spirit on internet forums, and it is coming from people advocating natural selection theory. It is still now in 2015 a very large threat against worldpeace.

Who were the Russians and the Nationalist Chinese fighting for? Or for that matter the Norwegians, the Swiss, or the Vatican?

 

[metis]

That is bogus. Your history is biased. Haeckel, the closest colleague of Darwin, whom Darwin profusely praised in Descent of Man above any other scientist, advanced the jewish question as a valid scientific issue. He also helped chair a competition on applying Darwinism to the laws of the state, with all anti-semitic and eugenic entries. So it is the top of evolutionary science which is involved, as we can also see with Konrad Lorenz.

We can see now, 2015, there is widespread rejection of subjectivity on account of natural selection theory. All forums on the internet, freedom is not acknowledged as real and relevant. Subjectivity operates based on free will.

The creationism vs evolution controversy is not mainly about acknowledging God the holy spirit, creating the species, it is really mainly about acknowledging the human spirit on a properly subjective basis. You cannot acknowledge somebody's emotions by measuring. You have to be subjective. And this is what evolutionists undermine very systematically.

World war II has a very simple structure besides the chaos. On the one hand the people fighting for freedom, democracy, on the other hand people fighting for dictatorship. On the one hand people who conceive of people as choosing, on the other hand people who conceive of people being predistined by race. On the one hand people protecting freedom of opinion, on the other hand people stating as fact what the worth of people is. Acceptance of subjectivity vs rejection of subjectivity.

There is widespread and very general rejection of the human spirit on internet forums, and it is coming from people advocating natural selection theory. It is still now in 2015 a very large threat against worldpeace.

You've been corrected over and over again by many here but you keep coming back with the same tales, so I'm really not interested in wasting time.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Who were the Russians and the Nationalist Chinese fighting for? Or for that matter the Norwegians, the Swiss, or the Vatican?

The Russians were fighting for their lives.

People who do not accept freedom is real have nothing of interest to say about history.

It is convenient for the reputation of evolution theory, that WW II is not framed as a fight between democracy and dictatorship. That is the exact process of thinking of Sapiens, so then being clever, he just invents some nonsense to deny it. Evolutionists habitually provide false representations of events, it is obvious.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You've been corrected over and over again by many here but you keep coming back with the same tales, so I'm really not interested in wasting time.

Your fantasy does not make for history.

 

[metis]

Your fantasy does not make for history.

^^ignore list^^, so enjoy your Fantasy Land existence.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

^^ignore list^^, so enjoy your Fantasy Land existence.

Thank goodness you will let the truth run free.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your fantasy does not make for history.

Yours certainly doesn't.

 

[Sapiens]

The Russians were fighting for their lives.

People who do not accept freedom is real have nothing of interest to say about history.

It is convenient for the reputation of evolution theory, that WW II is not framed as a fight between democracy and dictatorship. That is the exact process of thinking of Sapiens, so then being clever, he just invents some nonsense to deny it. Evolutionists habitually provide false representations of events, it is obvious.

I did not "invent" anything, I did not deny anything, I asked you a rhetorical question that made you face the absurdity of your earlier statements. You coughed rather than responded, "The Russians were fighting for their lives." Which is a nonsense answer since everyone was fighting for their lives. Was it a war between democracy and dictatorship? Was it a war for nationalism and hegemony? Was it war for survival? Wat was it? It kinda depends on whom you talk to. I, personally, see it was a war between democracy and dictatorship, but then I conveniently overlook the USSR and both Chinas.

 

[JM2C]

Two things. One is that early on when we didn't have that much we could work with, there were many hypotheses that certainly didn't work on as some thought it may, but in science that goes with the territory. What you are doing is confusing "hypotheses" with "facts", and the two ain't the same.

What facts are you talking about? You guys are still in the theory business. No facts were ever produced by any evolutionists.