Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[ImmortalFlame]

Nobel prize for just carbon dating?

No. If a scientist demonstrated that dinosaurs existed less than 50,000 years ago, they would undoubtedly get the Nobel prize.

How about doing what is right and forget about the Nobel prize? It is absolutely dateable with 14C,

No, it isn't. There is insufficient carbon in the sample for it to be accurately dated.

and if you think about it, is there anything he would lose if he agrees on doing it?

Exactly what he said - it would lead to dishonest people like you jumping on the result of less than 50,000 years and using it as evidence of your position - despite the fact that there is no reason to assume such a date would be accurate.

You know what I think, he probably did it already, and found out it was not really a 65 million years old dinosaur, but just over 4,500 years old.

Where is your evidence?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There it is.

If that was too 'mined' I can expand the quote if it helps

In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years (evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years), are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The theory of evolution. But are you talking about a list of fossils?

This is just a snippet of the thousands of fossils that track the evolution of a horse for example.

Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years

So the oldest known ancestor is already highly 'evolved', and practically identical after 55 million years? and that's the best example?

where's the transition there? no wonder atheists are forced to say things like

"Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms [?]" Gould

 

[gnostic]

Empirical evidence you mean? Where? Evidence of nothing produced nothing.

You don't nothing about evolution, if you believe that evolution came from "nothing".

Do you even know what "nothing" is?

Nothing mean know "substance", no "matter", no "particle", which mean no molecule, no atom, proton, neutron and electron.

Nothing is nothing organic or inorganic.

The only nothingness is your belief. Isn't that what you believe in.this God of yours came out of nowhere, until some one, made him up, because that person was ignorant of the natural world and superstitious of the things he couldn't understand, so he made up God to be like human, hence Genesis' man being an image of God.

Not only was the person or people who wrote Genesis was stupid and superstitious, he think that God was like human, also suggest that he had big fat ego.

This same sort of stupidity and superstition exist among some Christians, who think that Jesus was/is "God". So the whole human and God have come full circle, except we have Christians like you believing in such nonsense God, Holy Spirit and Jesus being one and the same.

Evolution was never about abiogenesis or the origin of 1st life. Even about abiogenesis, it is about something coming out of nothing. It is hypotheize that living matter was made out of non-living matters (inorganic matter), under the right conditions.

Evolution is about evolving, changing and adapting, it required the parents to pass their genes to their children, generation after generation, so it required ancestors and descendants. Genes are passed on hereditarily, hence it required parents, so evolution is every similar to genetics. So there is no "nothing".

But with Genesis, God created light out of nothing, he created animals and plants, sun, moon and stars, ALL OUT OF NOTHING, except god's words, eg "Let there be light", so light came out of nothing, but from a few spoken words. That same stupid ignorance, come from the John's Logos.

The only thing that wasn't made out of nothing is man - a fully-grown adult - being made from soil, clay or earth, which is more mythological superstition.

And yet Christians like yourself expect everyone to accept these myths and superstitions to be true, all because some books here and there, say so.

There are no evidences for creation from divine intervention, no evidences for your superstition, your belief - your faith.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So the oldest known ancestor is already highly 'evolved', and practically identical after 55 million years? and that's the best example?

where's the transition there? no wonder atheists are forced to say things like

"Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms [?]" Gould

Such as who? Do you not realize that almost all life on earth as we know it didn't exist in any way similar 55 million years ago?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Nobel prize for just carbon dating? How about doing what is right and forget about the Nobel prize? It is absolutely dateable with 14C, and if you think about it, is there anything he would lose if he agrees on doing it? You know what I think, he probably did it already, and found out it was not really a 65 million years old dinosaur, but just over 4,500 years old.

You keep implying that there is some conspiracy afoot. That these people KNOW for a FACT that creationists are right and that they are actively attempting to subvert the truth in order to protect some scientific ideology.

If they knew for a fact that the bone was datable to being something far younger than what it is supposed to be and able to do so ACCURATELY then they would receive the nobel prize. This year in fact. It wouldn't even take deliberation. They have everything to gain. Money, recognition, fame, scientific reputation, ect. If they could prove that evolution was a load of crap (which this effectively would) then they would only gain from it.

But they aren't. Because they aren't trying to protect some crazy conspiracy theory.

 

[Parsimony]

So the oldest known ancestor is already highly 'evolved', and practically identical after 55 million years? and that's the best example?

where's the transition there? no wonder atheists are forced to say things like

"Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms [?]" Gould

Conflating atheism with evolution, are we?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Conflating atheism with evolution, are we?

of course, or by the same token, you are saying you don't conflate creationism with theism?!

 

[WirePaladin]

And yet Christians like yourself expect everyone to accept these myths and superstitions to be true, all because some books here and there, say so.

It's actually worse than that. They are not content with your simply accepting. Or pretending to. You must BEHAVE as if all this nonsense were true. And they are anxious to use the power of the state to see that you do!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You keep implying that there is some conspiracy afoot. That these people KNOW for a FACT that creationists are right and that they are actively attempting to subvert the truth in order to protect some scientific ideology.

If they knew for a fact that the bone was datable to being something far younger than what it is supposed to be and able to do so ACCURATELY then they would receive the nobel prize. This year in fact. It wouldn't even take deliberation. They have everything to gain. Money, recognition, fame, scientific reputation, ect. If they could prove that evolution was a load of crap (which this effectively would) then they would only gain from it.

But they aren't. Because they aren't trying to protect some crazy conspiracy theory.

cmoff it, Lemaitre practically single handedly showed the atheist consensus on the origin of the universe to be a load of crap, and died in relative obscurity, not even a nobel prize for the greatest scientific discovery of all time... institutions don't hand out awards for being embarrassed. But more to the point, he didn't want the books sales, TV shows and awards like pop scientists Hawking and Dawkins , boring old science was far more valuable to him.

In reality evidence against evolution is similarly mocked and rejected as 'psuedoscience' as was the primeval atom, you know that Dawkins like Hoyle, shows open disdain for those who do not follow the academic consensus, and would likewise be obliged to take his passionate beliefs to the grave,
'science progresses one funeral at a time' as Planck said..

 

[Parsimony]

of course

Then you are commiting the fallacy of conflation as not all evolutionists are atheists nor are all atheists evolutionists.

or by the same token, you are saying you don't conflate creationism with theism?!

As a matter of fact I do not, as there are many theists who are not creationists (at least in the sense of rejecting common ancestry).

 

[McBell]

cmoff it, Lemaitre practically single handedly showed the atheist consensus on the origin of the universe to be a load of crap, and died in relative obscurity, not even a nobel prize for the greatest scientific discovery of all time... institutions don't hand out awards for being embarrassed. But more to the point, he didn't want the books sales, TV shows and awards like pop scientists Hawking and Dawkins , boring old science was far more valuable to him.

In reality evidence against evolution is similarly mocked and rejected as 'psuedoscience' as was the primeval atom, you know that Dawkins like Hoyle, shows open disdain for those who do not follow the academic consensus, and would likewise be obliged to take his passionate beliefs to the grave,
'science progresses one funeral at a time' as Planck said..

Please present an evidence against evolution that is not pseudoscience or requiring a strawman version of evolution.

I bet you cannot do it even though you repeatedly claim said evidence exists.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Then you are commiting the fallacy of conflation as not all evolutionists are atheists nor are all atheists evolutionists.
or by the same token, you are saying you don't conflate creationism with theism?!

As a matter of fact I do not, as there are many theists who are not creationists (at least in the sense of rejecting common ancestry).[/QUOTE]

Fine, I think most can agree there is a teensy weensy overlap though- the fact that the world's most prominent evolutionist's best selling book was called 'The God Delusion' says a lot about the underlying ideology

 

[Bunyip]

As a matter of fact I do not, as there are many theists who are not creationists (at least in the sense of rejecting common ancestry).

Fine, I think most can agree there is a teensy weensy overlap though- the fact that the world's most prominent evolutionist's best selling book was called 'The God Delusion' says a lot about the underlying ideology

Just a heads up - Dawkins is not an 'evolutionist'. There is no such thing as an 'evolutionist', is is just some absurd creationist bogeyman that doesn't even make sense, let alone exist.

 

[McBell]

Just a heads up - Dawkins is not an 'evolutionist'. There is no such thing as an 'evolutionist', is is just some absurd creationist bogeyman that doesn't even make sense, let alone exist.

oh, like most, if not all, of the alleged deities?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Job 40:15 hineh-na' behemot 'asher-`asiyti `imake chatsiyr kabaqar yo'kel. Behemoth: meaning the beast par excellence.
Did you see the tail of a hippo? Was it really like a cedar tree? Can’t hardly see the tail of a hippo compare to the size of the body, but in Job 40:17, the tail is eye-catching, as in, you can’t miss it from any angle and that’s how God describe this dinosaur [modern name for BEHEMOTH of course]. Just imagine the size of the body of this BEHEMOTH compare to the tail.

Since we are referring to Job 40:15 the sources of the Hippo's tremendous power and energy are noted to be in the hips, and in the tendons of its belly, or the muscles of its back and its belly ( verse 16 ).

The tail being like cedar: Is fairly short, thus likely the animal can set its thick tail so rigidly upright or swing it about like a tree.

The sinews of its thighs are interwoven so that the fiber and tendons of muscles of it thighs are twisted together and braided like powerful cables - see verse 17.
Its bones in its legs are as strong as tubes of copper thus being able to support its great body weight. The bones and ribs are like wrought-iron rods - see verse 18.
The Hippo's immense consumption of food is alluded to in verse 20. and mention is made of it relaxing under the thorny lotus trees or concealing itself in a swampy place- like beneath the shade of the poplars - verses 21,22.
Even when a river overflows its banks, the Hippo does Not panic because it can still keep its head above the water level and swim against even the force of a deluge - verse 23.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Such as who? Do you not realize that almost all life on earth as we know it didn't exist in any way similar 55 million years ago?

...and there are No dinosaur bones found mixed with human bones. Dinosaurs were extinct before mankind was on earth.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

cmoff it, Lemaitre practically single handedly showed the atheist consensus on the origin of the universe to be a load of crap, and died in relative obscurity, not even a nobel prize for the greatest scientific discovery of all time... institutions don't hand out awards for being embarrassed. But more to the point, he didn't want the books sales, TV shows and awards like pop scientists Hawking and Dawkins , boring old science was far more valuable to him.

In reality evidence against evolution is similarly mocked and rejected as 'psuedoscience' as was the primeval atom, you know that Dawkins like Hoyle, shows open disdain for those who do not follow the academic consensus, and would likewise be obliged to take his passionate beliefs to the grave,
'science progresses one funeral at a time' as Planck said..

During the time of the internet? Most people back and that day didn't give two cents for the latest scientific news. Now it would be a phenomenon in days.

The reason why the "evidence" against evolution is mocked is because it is mockable. Bring good evidence and it shant be mocked. Open debate has been going on since the theory first came out. It isn't an a theist conspiracy. In fact atheism is the minority in the science fields. NO WHERE is atheism a majority or even a power.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

...and there are No dinosaur bones found mixed with human bones. Dinosaurs were extinct before mankind was on earth.

The stratification of species is how we know there is evolutionary history. If we find things that are slightly different as we move through the different strata that is how we see evolutionary history.

 

[Parsimony]

Fine, I think most can agree there is a teensy weensy overlap though-

Just as most people who believe in a round Earth also believe in a heliocentric Solar System: one is not prerequisite for the other.

the fact that the world's most prominent evolutionist's best selling book was called 'The God Delusion' says a lot about the underlying ideology

You might as well be saying that the fact that he is white or male has something to do with his ideology as an atheist. One is not a prerequisite for the other. The fact that most atheists are evolutionists has more to do with the fact that atheists don't usually have dogmas that clash with evolutionary theory and are therefore able to accept the evidence without having to look for ways to make it compatible with faith.