Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[shmogie]

Then show it. You can start by showing/explaining how ID creationists differentiate between "designed" and "undesigned" things.

The universe is perfectly designed to support life on earth., From the big bang an incredible number of coincidences to the point of virtual impossibility happened for this to occur. That is design. Natural forces based on the laws of physics that began at the big bang may create a star 60 million light years away, that is undesigned, only the processes were designed.

 

[shmogie]

There's no such thing.


No, you are simply repeating your error of conflating different types of "faith".


That's a very good depiction of the God of the Gaps fallacy........"You can't explain it, therefore God". History shows the foolishness of such thinking.

No, you can't produce a rational explanation, but deny it was a miracle, that is faith in a process that to you, cannot be observed, replicated, or explained, you don't even know what to call it, but you have faith it exists. EXACTLY the same.

 

[Polymath257]

I suggest you look at the work done by Stanford, and Purdue universites that shows the rate of decay of certain radioactive materials vary's, and appears to vary in relationship with the sun. These materials were previously considered to be stable with predictable decay rates.

You mean these?
https://phys.org/news/2010-08-radioactive-vary-sun-rotation.html
https://phys.org/news/2010-08-strange-case-solar-flares-radioactive.html

First, yes, it seems like an actual effect. The decays rates *do* vary.

Now, did you look at *how much* those decay rates vary and which isotopes have been used?

First, none of them are C14. They used Si32, Cl36, Mn54, and Ra226. In all cases, the amount the rates vary was about 1/10% of the 'expected' decay rate.

Now, the main guess as to the cause of these fluctuations is interaction with neutrinos, although that is somewhat suspect because the decay of Ra226 is not through beta decay, but is from alpha decay. That could suggest a new particle from the sun (and able to go through the Earth) causing these changes. Dark matter, anyone???

In fossil dating where c14 is used in a fossil with carbon material left, age estimates are based upon the amount of carbon, ie, c14 available in the fossil. This material has been absorbed by the organism throughout it's life from it's environment. The dating is based upon the assumption that the availability of this material in the environment was the same as today.

Actually, this is no longer the case. it was the case in the 1950's when C14 dating was first investigated as a possibility, but it has *long* been known that *production* rates in the upper atmosphere vary considerably because of the sunspot cycle and how the charged particles from our sun interact with the Earth's magnetic field.

Because of this, the raw C14 dates are *calibrated* against other methods such as tree rings, varves, etc.

There is no proof on which to base this assumption. Since c 14 dating is good for only about 50,000 years or so, there is every possibility that the environment 30,000 years ago could have been significantly different.

And we know that it was *because* of the differences between raw C14 dates and the calibrated dates. This is actually one way to measure differences in solar output over these time periods.

Now, the effects you mentioned above are small enough that the production rate changes vastly overwhelm the changes in decay rates. The error bars are already way above 1/10%, so this effect isn't relevant. Nobody is using C14 at ages of 30,000 years and expecting an accuracy of 30 years!

The same is true for other radioactive isotopes. Even if the decay rates change by 1/10% because of a new particle (or neutrinos, for that matter), the *other* uncertainties involved in dating methods *far* outweigh such effects. In particular, nothing along this line will change dates of millions of years into dates of thousands of years. They may change a date of 100 million years into a date of 99.9 million years, but again, the error bars are already more than that degree of variance.

 

[Polymath257]

Actually, there is not enough evidence to believe that macro evolution occurred on earth. This too must be accepted by faith. Show my any species on earth now that has living intermediary forms proving it is evolving into a different species, with all the life forms we have this should be easy.

Well, technically, ALL species are transitional. But if you want a specific, look at mudskippers:

Mudskipper - Wikipedia

With the chain of evolution in the charts showing macro evolution at work since life began, these intermediary forms should be everywhere in the fossil record, they aren't, where are they ? Here is a big one you should be able to find. Macro evolution tells us that whales are land animals who returned to the sea. Those intermediary forms should be easy to find, where are they ? The theory proposes that whales are the results of the evolution of a four legged animal about the size of a dog, with absolutely no evidence for that conclusion.

You mean, like Pakicetus or Ambulocetus?

 

[Polymath257]

We are speaking of scientific faith, belief in a concept that is difficult or impossible to prove by direct evidence, and religious faith, the same. There is indirect evidence, like a person consumed by cancer, told here is no hope and that they will be dead in a month, who prays and whose church prays, and the cancer disappears and they live many years to a ripe old age. I knew one like this, as well as the oncologist. The oncologist said there was no scientific explanation for what occurred, it was a miracle. This , to me, is indirect evidence of God. You will disagree, but unless you are more knowledgeable than the chief of oncology at a well known university teaching hospital, you can';t explain it either. Nevertheless, you will cling to your faith that there must be a natural explanation.

But actual studies of survival rates of heart patients who were prayed for and those who were not shows that the *knowledge* of being prayed for is, if anything, detrimental to survival. Those who did not know showed no difference in whether prayer was done.

 

[Jose Fly]

The universe is perfectly designed to support life on earth., From the big bang an incredible number of coincidences to the point of virtual impossibility happened for this to occur. That is design. Natural forces based on the laws of physics that began at the big bang may create a star 60 million light years away, that is undesigned, only the processes were designed.

Well that's an interesting series of empty assertions, but as you should know, empty assertions are not science. Remember, you claimed that "ID is based upon science", so it shouldn't be very difficult for you to show the science behind these assertions.

You can start where I suggested.....explain how ID creationism differentiates between "designed" and "undesigned" things.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, you can't produce a rational explanation, but deny it was a miracle, that is faith in a process that to you, cannot be observed, replicated, or explained, you don't even know what to call it, but you have faith it exists. EXACTLY the same.

I know exactly what to call it.....an unexplained phenomenon. Do you think all unexplained phenomena are miraculous acts of God?

 

[sayak83]

You mean these?
https://phys.org/news/2010-08-radioactive-vary-sun-rotation.html
https://phys.org/news/2010-08-strange-case-solar-flares-radioactive.html

First, yes, it seems like an actual effect. The decays rates *do* vary.

Now, did you look at *how much* those decay rates vary and which isotopes have been used?

First, none of them are C14. They used Si32, Cl36, Mn54, and Ra226. In all cases, the amount the rates vary was about 1/10% of the 'expected' decay rate.

Now, the main guess as to the cause of these fluctuations is interaction with neutrinos, although that is somewhat suspect because the decay of Ra226 is not through beta decay, but is from alpha decay. That could suggest a new particle from the sun (and able to go through the Earth) causing these changes. Dark matter, anyone???



Actually, this is no longer the case. it was the case in the 1950's when C14 dating was first investigated as a possibility, but it has *long* been known that *production* rates in the upper atmosphere vary considerably because of the sunspot cycle and how the charged particles from our sun interact with the Earth's magnetic field.

Because of this, the raw C14 dates are *calibrated* against other methods such as tree rings, varves, etc.



And we know that it was *because* of the differences between raw C14 dates and the calibrated dates. This is actually one way to measure differences in solar output over these time periods.

Now, the effects you mentioned above are small enough that the production rate changes vastly overwhelm the changes in decay rates. The error bars are already way above 1/10%, so this effect isn't relevant. Nobody is using C14 at ages of 30,000 years and expecting an accuracy of 30 years!

The same is true for other radioactive isotopes. Even if the decay rates change by 1/10% because of a new particle (or neutrinos, for that matter), the *other* uncertainties involved in dating methods *far* outweigh such effects. In particular, nothing along this line will change dates of millions of years into dates of thousands of years. They may change a date of 100 million years into a date of 99.9 million years, but again, the error bars are already more than that degree of variance.

@shmogie

Actually radioactive decay rates do not vary. That experiment was wrong.

The results were mistaken due to experimental error:-
1)2009:-
Searching for modifications to the exponential radioactive decay law with the Cassini spacecraft (Cooper)
Data from the power output of the radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard the Cassini spacecraft are used to test the conjecture that small deviations observed in terrestrial measurements of the exponential radioactive decay law are correlated with the Earth–Sun distance. No significant deviations from exponential decay are observed over a range of 0.7–1.6 A.U. A 90% CL upper limit of 0.84×10-4 is set on a term in the decay rate of 238Pu proportional to 1/R2 and 0.99×10-4 for a term proportional to 1/R. The terrestrially measured Earth–Sun distance correlation is ∼(3×10-2)/R2.

2) 2014
https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html

Scientists of the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt have now carried out new measurements and have published their results in the journal "Astroparticle Physics". For three years, they checked the activity of samples with 36Cl in order to detect possible seasonal dependencies. Whereas the US-Americans had determined the count rates with gas detectors, PTB used the so-called TDCR liquid scintillation method which largely compensates disturbing influences on the measurements. The result: The measurement results of PTB clearly show fewer variations and do not indicate any seasonal dependence or the influence of solar neutrinos. "We assume that other influences are much more probable as the reason for the observed variations", explains PTB physicist Karsten Kossert. "It is known that changes in the air humidity, in the air pressure and in the temperature can definitively influence sensitive detectors."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html#jCp

3) 2014
Disproof of solar influence on the decay rates of 90Sr/90Y

Abstract
A custom-built liquid scintillation counter was used for long-term measurements of 90Sr/90Y sources. The detector system is equipped with an automated sample changer and three photomultiplier tubes, which makes the application of the triple-to-double coincidence ratio (TDCR) method possible. After decay correction, the measured decay rates were found to be stable and no annual oscillation could be observed. Thus, the findings of this work are in strong contradiction to those of Parkhomov (2011) who reported on annual oscillations when measuring 90Sr/90Y with a Geiger–Müller counter. Sturrock et al. (2012) carried out a more detailed analysis of the experimental data from Parkhomov and claimed to have found correlations between the decay rates and processes inside the Sun. These findings are questionable, since they are based on inappropriate experimental data as is demonstrated in this work. A frequency analysis of our activity data does not show any significant periodicity.

4) 2016
Evidence against solar influence on nuclear decay constants (Pomme et al)
The hypothesis that proximity to the Sun causes variation of decay constants at permille level has been tested and disproved. Repeated activity measurements of mono-radionuclide sources were performed over periods from 200 days up to four decades at 14 laboratories across the globe. Residuals from the exponential nuclear decay curves were inspected for annual oscillations. Systematic deviations from a purely exponential decay curve differ from one data set to another and are attributable to instabilities in the instrumentation and measurement conditions. The most stable activity measurements of alpha, beta-minus, electron capture, and beta-plus decaying sources set an upper limit of 0.0006% to 0.008% to the amplitude of annual oscillations in the decay rate. Oscillations in phase with Earth's orbital distance to the Sun could not be observed within a 10^−6 to 10^−5 range of precision. There are also no apparent modulations over periods of weeks or months. Consequently, there is no indication of a natural impediment against sub-permille accuracy in half-life determinations, renormalisation of activity to a distant reference date, application of nuclear dating for archaeology, geo- and cosmochronology, nor in establishing the SI unit becquerel and seeking international equivalence of activity standards.

Full paper link
Evidence against solar influence on nuclear decay constants

Thus, extensive investigations have unambiguously disproved this idea that radioactive decay rates are varying.

 

[Looncall]

The only way the present state could be the key to the past is if the past were this same state. You need to know what laws and nature and state existed in the past or you simply cannot connect the dots.

Quite complex past phenomena, such as paleo reactors, leave traces that exactly match what is expected using current knowledge. That is evidence that past physics matches current physics. Your "past state" guff is just an ordinary dishonest creationist dodge.

You have been lied to by scoundrels. That does not absolve you since you have a duty of due diligence to avoid being scammed.

 

[Polymath257]

@shmogie

Actually radioactive decay rates do not vary. That experiment was wrong.

The results were mistaken due to experimental error:-
1)2009:-
Searching for modifications to the exponential radioactive decay law with the Cassini spacecraft (Cooper)
Data from the power output of the radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard the Cassini spacecraft are used to test the conjecture that small deviations observed in terrestrial measurements of the exponential radioactive decay law are correlated with the Earth–Sun distance. No significant deviations from exponential decay are observed over a range of 0.7–1.6 A.U. A 90% CL upper limit of 0.84×10-4 is set on a term in the decay rate of 238Pu proportional to 1/R2 and 0.99×10-4 for a term proportional to 1/R. The terrestrially measured Earth–Sun distance correlation is ∼(3×10-2)/R2.

2) 2014
https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html

Scientists of the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt have now carried out new measurements and have published their results in the journal "Astroparticle Physics". For three years, they checked the activity of samples with 36Cl in order to detect possible seasonal dependencies. Whereas the US-Americans had determined the count rates with gas detectors, PTB used the so-called TDCR liquid scintillation method which largely compensates disturbing influences on the measurements. The result: The measurement results of PTB clearly show fewer variations and do not indicate any seasonal dependence or the influence of solar neutrinos. "We assume that other influences are much more probable as the reason for the observed variations", explains PTB physicist Karsten Kossert. "It is known that changes in the air humidity, in the air pressure and in the temperature can definitively influence sensitive detectors."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html#jCp

3) 2014
Disproof of solar influence on the decay rates of 90Sr/90Y

Abstract
A custom-built liquid scintillation counter was used for long-term measurements of 90Sr/90Y sources. The detector system is equipped with an automated sample changer and three photomultiplier tubes, which makes the application of the triple-to-double coincidence ratio (TDCR) method possible. After decay correction, the measured decay rates were found to be stable and no annual oscillation could be observed. Thus, the findings of this work are in strong contradiction to those of Parkhomov (2011) who reported on annual oscillations when measuring 90Sr/90Y with a Geiger–Müller counter. Sturrock et al. (2012) carried out a more detailed analysis of the experimental data from Parkhomov and claimed to have found correlations between the decay rates and processes inside the Sun. These findings are questionable, since they are based on inappropriate experimental data as is demonstrated in this work. A frequency analysis of our activity data does not show any significant periodicity.

4) 2016
Evidence against solar influence on nuclear decay constants (Pomme et al)
The hypothesis that proximity to the Sun causes variation of decay constants at permille level has been tested and disproved. Repeated activity measurements of mono-radionuclide sources were performed over periods from 200 days up to four decades at 14 laboratories across the globe. Residuals from the exponential nuclear decay curves were inspected for annual oscillations. Systematic deviations from a purely exponential decay curve differ from one data set to another and are attributable to instabilities in the instrumentation and measurement conditions. The most stable activity measurements of alpha, beta-minus, electron capture, and beta-plus decaying sources set an upper limit of 0.0006% to 0.008% to the amplitude of annual oscillations in the decay rate. Oscillations in phase with Earth's orbital distance to the Sun could not be observed within a 10^−6 to 10^−5 range of precision. There are also no apparent modulations over periods of weeks or months. Consequently, there is no indication of a natural impediment against sub-permille accuracy in half-life determinations, renormalisation of activity to a distant reference date, application of nuclear dating for archaeology, geo- and cosmochronology, nor in establishing the SI unit becquerel and seeking international equivalence of activity standards.

Full paper link
Evidence against solar influence on nuclear decay constants

Thus, extensive investigations have unambiguously disproved this idea that radioactive decay rates are varying.

Thanks for the correction!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I find it slightly ironic that you sport an avatar of Einstein, yet seem to have absolutely no idea about any of this theories.

Perhaps this will help:

 

[Polymath257]

The conclusion of the paper investigating these variations in decay rates:

"
The experimental data in this work are typically 50 times more stable than the measurements on which recent claims for solar influence
on the decay constants were based. The observed seasonal modulations can be ascribed to instrumental instability, since they vary
from one instrument to another and show no communality in amplitude or phase among – or even within – the laboratories.
The exponential decay law is immune to changes in Earth–Sun distance within 0.008% for most of the investigated α, β −, β+ and
EC decaying nuclides alike."

OK, @shmogie. is this good enough to show decay rates are constant for the purposes of dating? Remember that even a variance of 1/10%
would put NONE of the dates in jeopardy. But now we see the actual variances are far lower than that.

Yes, C14 was investigated. The amplitude of variance was .013+_.016. That is equivalent to a null result.

 

[metis]

Actually, there is not enough evidence to believe that macro evolution occurred on earth. This too must be accepted by faith.

Simply put, science does not work on the basis of faith, so we don't confuse science with religion. It is faith, not science, that imagines some sort of miraculous wall that supposedly stops evolution in its tracks at a certain point. But there simply is not one shred of evidence found to support this, plus geneticists scoff at that concept. I grew up in a church that taught this nonsense, and I even realized back when I was in high school that it was just that-- nonsense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We are speaking of scientific faith, belief in a concept that is difficult or impossible to prove by direct evidence, and religious faith, the same. There is indirect evidence, like a person consumed by cancer, told here is no hope and that they will be dead in a month, who prays and whose church prays, and the cancer disappears and they live many years to a ripe old age. I knew one like this, as well as the oncologist. The oncologist said there was no scientific explanation for what occurred, it was a miracle. This , to me, is indirect evidence of God. You will disagree, but unless you are more knowledgeable than the chief of oncology at a well known university teaching hospital, you can';t explain it either. Nevertheless, you will cling to your faith that there must be a natural explanation.

How weird that the doctor has never before heard of spontaneous remission. Are you sure (s)he is a real doctor?

The Natural History of Invasive Breast Cancers Detected by Screening Mammography
Fluctuations in the Growth Energy of Malignant Tumors in Man, with Especial Reference to Spontaneous Recession | Cancer Research
Spontaneous tumor regression - ScienceDirect
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/02841869009090048

 

[shmogie]

Well that's an interesting series of empty assertions, but as you should know, empty assertions are not science. Remember, you claimed that "ID is based upon science", so it shouldn't be very difficult for you to show the science behind these assertions.

You can start where I suggested.....explain how ID creationism differentiates between "designed" and "undesigned" things.

Well, technically, ALL species are transitional. But if you want a specific, look at mudskippers:

Mudskipper - Wikipedia



You mean, like Pakicetus or Ambulocetus?

The evolutionists are restless ! Just as I would have it. Since my typing skills are limited, and because of a neurological condition I can only type for short periods, my response here will have to suffice for all these restless natives.

Unlike many here I make no pretense of being a scientist, my degrees and training and experience are in Criminology. I simply am the messenger that so many want to shoot. Apparently we have here a highly qualified team of evolution experts.

However, based upon my reading of your very own atheist evolutionists, very well known and qualified, the fossil record does not support what you experts here say it does, so you will have to take issue with them, not me, I am only going to quote their statements, I have twelve pages of them.

" A large number of well trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and biology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more darwinian than it is. This probably comes from oversimplification of secondary sources, low level textbooks, semi popular articles and so on. Also there probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, they have not been found. Yet optimism dies hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into the textbooks." Dr. David Raup, Paleontologist, University of Chicago. Science, vol. 213, p. 289

"No wonder Paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen, assiduous collecting at cliff faces yields zig zags, minor oscillations, and very occasionally, slight accumulations of change, over millions of years, a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history.

" When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with s bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere. Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet, this is how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist trying to learn something of evolution" Dr. Eldridge, " Reinventing Darwin; The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory" 1995, p.95

" The number of intermediate varieties,m which formerly existed, must be truly enormous, why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of these intermediate links ? Geology certainly does not show any such finely graduated organ chain ; and this, perhaps, is the most serious and obvious objection which can be urged against the theory." Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species" 1856, Masterpiece of science edition, 1958, p. 261. 150 years later the case has NOT significantly changed

" Although each of these classes are well documented in the fossil record (fishes, amphibians, mammals and primates), as of yet, no one has discovered a fossil creature that is indisputably transitional between one species and another species. Not a single "missing link " in the exposed rock of the earths crust despite the most careful and extensive search " "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis ", Milton, pp 253-254

" The extreme rarity of evidence for evolution in the fossil record is the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches, the rest is inference. However reasonable, is not based upon the evidence of fossils" Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard University

"Darwin essentially invented a new field of scientific inquiry, what is now called taphonomy, to explain why the fossil record is so full of gaps, so deficient, that the predicted patterns of gradual change simply do not emerge" Reinventing Darwin pp. 95-96

I have not quoted ONE scientist who believes in ID, these are atheist evolutionists., Should I believe them when I say the fossil record does not support evolution, or should I believe you and all the experts here that it does ?

 

[Jose Fly]

The evolutionists are restless ! Just as I would have it. Since my typing skills are limited, and because of a neurological condition I can only type for short periods, my response here will have to suffice for all these restless natives.

Unlike many here I make no pretense of being a scientist, my degrees and training and experience are in Criminology. I simply am the messenger that so many want to shoot. Apparently we have here a highly qualified team of evolution experts.

However, based upon my reading of your very own atheist evolutionists, very well known and qualified, the fossil record does not support what you experts here say it does, so you will have to take issue with them, not me, I am only going to quote their statements, I have twelve pages of them.

" A large number of well trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and biology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more darwinian than it is. This probably comes from oversimplification of secondary sources, low level textbooks, semi popular articles and so on. Also there probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, they have not been found. Yet optimism dies hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into the textbooks." Dr. David Raup, Paleontologist, University of Chicago. Science, vol. 213, p. 289

"No wonder Paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen, assiduous collecting at cliff faces yields zig zags, minor oscillations, and very occasionally, slight accumulations of change, over millions of years, a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history.

" When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with s bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere. Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet, this is how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist trying to learn something of evolution" Dr. Eldridge, " Reinventing Darwin; The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory" 1995, p.95

" The number of intermediate varieties,m which formerly existed, must be truly enormous, why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of these intermediate links ? Geology certainly does not show any such finely graduated organ chain ; and this, perhaps, is the most serious and obvious objection which can be urged against the theory." Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species" 1856, Masterpiece of science edition, 1958, p. 261. 150 years later the case has NOT significantly changed

" Although each of these classes are well documented in the fossil record (fishes, amphibians, mammals and primates), as of yet, no one has discovered a fossil creature that is indisputably transitional between one species and another species. Not a single "missing link " in the exposed rock of the earths crust despite the most careful and extensive search " "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis ", Milton, pp 253-254

" The extreme rarity of evidence for evolution in the fossil record is the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches, the rest is inference. However reasonable, is not based upon the evidence of fossils" Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard University

"Darwin essentially invented a new field of scientific inquiry, what is now called taphonomy, to explain why the fossil record is so full of gaps, so deficient, that the predicted patterns of gradual change simply do not emerge" Reinventing Darwin pp. 95-96

I have not quoted ONE scientist who believes in ID, these are atheist evolutionists., Should I believe them when I say the fossil record does not support evolution, or should I believe you and all the experts here that it does ?

Not one bit of that addressed what I asked you. Remember, you claimed that ID creationism was based in science; I asked you to show how and specifically explain how ID creationists differentiate "designed" from "undesigned".

Your series of mined quotes is a complete dodge of that.

 

[shmogie]

Simply put, science does not work on the basis of faith, so we don't confuse science with religion. It is faith, not science, that imagines some sort of miraculous wall that supposedly stops evolution in its tracks at a certain point. But there simply is not one shred of evidence found to support this, plus geneticists scoff at that concept. I grew up in a church that taught this nonsense, and I even realized back when I was in high school that it was just that-- nonsense.

See post 498

 

[shmogie]

Not one bit of that addressed what I asked you. Remember, you claimed that ID creationism was based in science; I asked you to show how and specifically explain how ID creationists differentiate "designed" from "undesigned".

Your series of mined quotes is a complete dodge of that.

I'll get to you, be patient

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh please don't start quote mining.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have not quoted ONE scientist who believes in ID, these are atheist evolutionists., Should I believe them when I say the fossil record does not support evolution, or should I believe you and all the experts here that it does ?

You should check whatever source you copied those quotes from.....they're lying to you. For example, you quoted Dr. S.J. Gould as apparently saying that there are no transitional fossils. That sort of dishonest misrepresentation of his views irritated him a great deal and caused him to write....

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

So which category do you fall into? Did you misrepresent Gould's views on purpose, or through stupidity?