On falsifiability of Evolution

[eyedrop]

Here is a little text from wiki on the falsifiability of Evolution, I think it deserves it's own tread since rejection of evolution doesn't really have anything to do with ID, except it's political relation. I thought it could be here, even if it belongs to the science forum.




[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falsifiability&action=edit&section=17)] Evolution

Main article: Objections to evolution#Evolution is unfalsifiable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Evolution_is_unfalsifiable )
Many creationists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationist) have claimed that evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) is unfalsifiable.
Numerous examples of potential ways to falsify common descent have been proposed. Richard Dawkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins) said that "If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found."[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#cite_note-9)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#cite_note-10)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#cite_note-11) Similarly, J.B.S. Haldane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.B.S._Haldane), when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era".[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#cite_note-12) Similarly, the evolution of the great apes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_apes) and humans from a common ancestor predicts a (geologically) recent common ancestor of apes and humans. In contrast, many religious beliefs are not falsifiable, because no testable prediction has been made about the supernatural. [14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#cite_note-13)
Molecular biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_biology) identifies DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA) as the mechanism for inherited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance) traits. Therefore if common descent is true, human DNA should be more similar to great apes than other mammals. If this is not the case, then common descent is falsified. DNA analysis shows this to be the case however (and remarkably so), and hence evolution passes a falsifiable test.
Popper himself drew a distinction between common descent and the process of natural selection. While he agreed common descent was falsifiable (he used the even more drastic example of the remains of a car in cambrian sediments),[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#cite_note-14) Popper said that natural selection "is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical) research programme".[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#cite_note-15) However, Popper later said "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection, and I am glad to have the opportunity to make a recantation."[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#cite_note-popper-16) He went on to formulate natural selection in a falsifiable way and offered a more nuanced view of its status. He still felt that "Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test." However, "[t]here are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry."[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#cite_note-popper-16)

[ID-guy]

Numerous examples of potential ways to falsify common descent have been proposed. Richard Dawkins (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins) said that "If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found."[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#cite_note-9)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#cite_note-10)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#cite_note-11)No. even if we did find them there. You could just say that that was a case of convergent evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution) that made them evolve that way.

On the other hand, the reason why we don't find them there is because the geologic column is based on circular reasoning. It dates the fossils by the rocks, and rocks by the fossils. So when you find a fossil, the evolutionists say which period it is from based on where it was found in the ground. So they actually determine the age of the fossil so we actually can't find them in the same time period. Thus this is not falsifiable.


Similarly, J.B.S. Haldane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.B.S._Haldane), when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era"This is the same thing as above.


Molecular biology (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_biology) identifies DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA) as the mechanism for inherited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance) traits. Therefore if common descent is true, human DNA should be more similar to great apes than other mammals. If this is not the case, then common descent is falsified. DNA analysis shows this to be the case however (and remarkably so), and hence evolution passes a falsifiable test.This is actually circular logic.

Humans and apes are said to be close relatives because they are similar. Their similarity is due to similar DNA. So since they have similar DNA they are said to have evolved from a common ancestor because they have similar DNA. That is circular logic. Thus this is not falsifiable.

Do you have anything else?

[Pawn Power]

No. even if we did find them there. You could just say that that was a case of convergent evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution) that made them evolve that way.

No, convergent evolution would not cause modern-day rabbits to appear in the Precambrian fossil record.


On the other hand, the reason why we don't find them there is because the geologic column is based on circular reasoning. It dates the fossils by the rocks, and rocks by the fossils. So when you find a fossil, the evolutionists say which period it is from based on where it was found in the ground. So they actually determine the age of the fossil so we actually can't find them in the same time period. Thus this is not falsifiable.

Rocks and fossils are dated in a variety of ways including relative dating methods like the principles of archeolgical stratigraphy (that is, using the rock layers). However, absolute dating methods are used like, for example, potassium- argon dating or radio-carbon dating (for organic matter).

So, no, the reason we don't find rabbits back then is not based on "circular logic" it is because they did not yet exist.

[MarxSchmarx]

Rats pawn power beat me to it in RE: carbon dating.


Humans and apes are said to be close relatives because they are similar. Their similarity is due to similar DNA. So since they have similar DNA they are said to have evolved from a common ancestor because they have similar DNA. That is circular logic. Thus this is not falsifiable.No. At its most credible interpretation, you are confusing the history of the hypothesis with the hypothesis itself. Humans and apes are HYPOTHESIZED to be "similiar" because it is HYPOTHESIZED that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor in the recent past. This hypothesis is generated irrespective of DNA. It is, in a strict sense, generated regardless of other similarities. Pretend it is thrown out as an abstract hypothesis; don't focus on its "inspiration", much less the history of this hypothesis. Therefore, according to this abstract hypthothesis, they should be similar. And wonder of wonders, they are similar in DNA, they are similar in anatomy, hell they are similar even in behavior. If the hypothesis that they evolved from a common ancestor in the recent past was FALSE, none (or very few) of these similarities should hold. And lo and behold, they don't hold for humans versus ants, much less humans verses trees, much less humans versus viruses. If ape DNA some how miraculously (intelligently?) resembled virus DNA, we'd falsify the notion that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor in the recent past.

Quad era demonstratum.

[eyedrop]

Your ignorance shows once again ID-guy. Ever heard of C14 dating? It's really useless when you don't even know the basis.

And as Marxsmarx said above the similar DNA was predicted before we knew it and when we got to know it it fit perfectly with what evolution and common ancestry predicted.

Learn the history of a science and the methods it uses before claiming that it's wrong.

[apathy maybe]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13675-evolution-myths-evolution-cannot-be-disproved.html


To count as science, hypotheses and theories should make predictions that might turn out to be wrong. In other words, it should be possible to falsify these ideas. Some claim this is not true of evolution, but this is simply because we find it hard to imagine how different life might have been if it had not evolved.

When asked what would disprove evolution, the biologist J. B. S. Haldane reportedly growled: "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian". What he meant is that the progression over time seen in the millions of fossils unearthed around the world is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts.

Unicellular organisms, for example, appear before multicellular ones. Jawless fish precede jawed fish. Lunged fish precede amphibians. Amphibians precede reptiles. Reptiles with scales precede mammals and birds with modified scales (fur and feathers). Apes precede humans. All it would take is one or two exceptions to seriously challenge the theory.

Rabbits with feathers could also disprove evolution. There are animals with a mixture of mammalian and reptilian features, such as echidnas, and there are fossils with a mixture of bird and reptilian features, such as the toothy archaeopteryx. However, no animals have a mixture of mammalian and bird features.

[ID-guy]

No, convergent evolution would not cause modern-day rabbits to appear in the Precambrian fossil record. They wouldn't be rabbits, but they would look 100% like rabbits. You wouldn't be able to tell them apart. So yes, they would count as rabbits.


Rocks and fossils are dated in a variety of ways including relative dating methods like the principles of archeolgical stratigraphy (that is, using the rock layers).Yes, and guess how the fossils are dated? By the rocks? And how are the rocks dated? By the fossils? And how are the fossils dated? By the rocks? Catching on already?


However, absolute dating methods are used like, for example, potassium- argon dating or radio-carbon dating (for organic matter).And they are all wrong. If you think they are correct, explain how they work.


So, no, the reason we don't find rabbits back then is not based on "circular logic" it is because they did not yet exist.No, it's because of circular logic.

[ID-guy]

Rats pawn power beat me to it in RE: carbon dating.

No. At its most credible interpretation, you are confusing the history of the hypothesis with the hypothesis itself. Humans and apes are HYPOTHESIZED to be "similiar" because it is HYPOTHESIZED that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor in the recent past. This hypothesis is generated irrespective of DNA. It is, in a strict sense, generated regardless of other similarities. Pretend it is thrown out as an abstract hypothesis; don't focus on its "inspiration", much less the history of this hypothesis. Therefore, according to this abstract hypthothesis, they should be similar. And wonder of wonders, they are similar in DNA, they are similar in anatomy, hell they are similar even in behavior. If the hypothesis that they evolved from a common ancestor in the recent past was FALSE, none (or very few) of these similarities should hold. And lo and behold, they don't hold for humans versus ants, much less humans verses trees, much less humans versus viruses. If ape DNA some how miraculously (intelligently?) resembled virus DNA, we'd falsify the notion that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor in the recent past.

Quad era demonstratum.They are similar because they have similar DNA. So of course they are going to be said to be close relatives because they are similar, and of course they are going to have similar DNA since they are similar. It's still circular logic.

[ID-guy]

Your ignorance shows once again ID-guy. Ever heard of C14 dating? It's really useless when you don't even know the basis.I know about it, and it doesn't work.


And as Marxsmarx said above the similar DNA was predicted before we knew it and when we got to know it it fit perfectly with what evolution and common ancestry predicted.

Learn the history of a science and the methods it uses before claiming that it's wrong.IT'S STILL CIRCULAR LOGIC! Prediction or not, it's still circular.

[apathy maybe]

And they are all wrong. If you think they are correct, explain how they work.No, how about you explain why they are wrong.
Why should we tell you how they work, when you are so sure that they don't? Explain why they don't work and what is wrong with them.

(Also, how old is the Earth anyway? Last time I checked I think scientists had dated it around 6000 years. Do you disagree with that?)

[eyedrop]

Ahh, no I'm getting it. You are now starting to claim that nuclear and nuclear radiation science is wrong too. Why didn't you just tell us this from the start so we could just clearly disregard you as a nut with no understanding of science.



IT'S STILL CIRCULAR LOGIC! Prediction or not, it's still circular.

No understanding of science and scientific methods. I suspect you disregard all science on the same grounds.

[Pawn Power]

They wouldn't be rabbits, but they would look 100% like rabbits. You wouldn't be able to tell them apart. So yes, they would count as rabbits.
This is foolishness. What is "counting as a rabbit?" Either the Precambrian produced what we call "rabbits," or it didn't...hint.... it didn't.

Also this has nothing to do with convergent evolution like you mentioned before. Read you own link.


Yes, and guess how the fossils are dated? By the rocks? And how are the rocks dated? By the fossils? And how are the fossils dated? By the rocks? Catching on already?
Certianly, you must read the entire post before you respond and make yourself look foolish. Indeed, relative dating methods do not use "circular logic" when there are many absolute dating techniques to date various fossiles, rocks, soil, etc. with in different layers of strata.


And they are all wrong. If you think they are correct, explain how they work.

No, it's because of circular logic.

Can you see the irony? You are now using "circular logic" yourself!

Becasue you are ignorant of the processes which make these dating methods work does not prove anything... besides you own ignorance. (no offense, really)

If you want a brief explanation of how they work wikipedia is a fine tool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-argon_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_carbon_dating

To be sure, there are dozens of other absolute dating methods which are used to date certain things in certain time frames.

[ID-guy]

No, how about you explain why they are wrong.
Why should we tell you how they work, when you are so sure that they don't? Explain why they don't work and what is wrong with them.

(Also, how old is the Earth anyway? Last time I checked I think scientists had dated it around 6000 years. Do you disagree with that?)You can't use C14 dating since it depends on the C14 being in equillibrium in the atmosphere. But it's not. C14 is still building up. So when you measure the amount of C14 in artifacts you want to know how old they are, you are going to get the wrong date. Since C14 method is actually calculating the ratio between the amount C14 in the atmosphere and the artifact you are measuring. If there is no equilibrium than you can not measure it, since you are always going to get the wrong number.

[ID-guy]

Ahh, no I'm getting it. You are now starting to claim that nuclear and nuclear radiation science is wrong too. Why didn't you just tell us this from the start so we could just clearly disregard you as a nut with no understanding of science.




No understanding of science and scientific methods. I suspect you disregard all science on the same grounds.You are an imbecile. Don't respond to me anymore.

[ID-guy]

This is foolishness. What is "counting as a rabbit?" Either the Precambrian produced what we call "rabbits," or it didn't...hint.... it didn't.

Also this has nothing to do with convergent evolution like you mentioned before. Read you own link. You don't get it. If we found fossils of animals that looked 100% like rabbits, evolutionists would jsut say that that is not a rabbit but some other creature that looks like a rabbit becasue of the convergent evolution.


Certianly, you must read the entire post before you respond and make yourself look foolish. Indeed, relative dating methods do not use "circular logic" when there are many absolute dating techniques to date various fossiles, rocks, soil, etc. with in different layers of strata.Explain than how does relative dating works.


Can you see the irony? You are now using "circular logic" yourself!

Becasue you are ignorant of the processes which make these dating methods work does not prove anything... besides you own ignorance. (no offense, really)

If you want a brief explanation of how they work wikipedia is a fine tool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-argon_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_carbon_dating

To be sure, there are dozens of other absolute dating methods which are used to date certain things in certain time frames.Yes, I know about them, and they are all wrong. Since they are based on faulty assumptions.

[Pawn Power]

You don't get it. If we found fossils of animals that looked 100% like rabbits, evolutionists would jsut say that that is not a rabbit but some other creature that looks like a rabbit becasue of the convergent evolution..

I am not sure that this is what evolutionist would say. The problem with this hypothetical "rabbit," apart from not existing, is that it would onyl resemble modern-day "rabbits" is fossilized form. If there match was "100%" I don't think evolutionist would simply disregard it as another similar creature, but woud seriously questions what is happening... however, this has not happened.


Explain than how does relative dating works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_dating



Yes, I know about them, and they are all wrong. Since they are based on faulty assumptions.
A fantastic claim...now you need to prove it.

[Lord Testicles]

(Also, how old is the Earth anyway? Last time I checked I think scientists had dated it around 6000 years. Do you disagree with that?)

The Earth is 4.54 billion years old.

[ID-guy]

I am not sure that this is what evolutionist would say. The problem with this hypothetical "rabbit," apart from not existing, is that it would onyl resemble modern-day "rabbits" is fossilized form. If there match was "100%" I don't think evolutionist would simply disregard it as another similar creature, but woud seriously questions what is happening...He would just say that it is a case of convergent evolution.


however, this has not happened.Because it can't happen. Because of circular logic used to date the rocks.

Look at what your link says:


Though relative dating can determine the order in which a series of events occurred, not when they occurred, it is in no way inferior to radiometric dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating); in fact, relative dating by biostratigraphy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biostratigraphy) is the preferred method in paleontology, and is in some respects more accurate.(Stanley, 167-9)It says that relative dating is even superior to absolute dating. How can that be? You use the so called index fossils to tell the relative dates of the rocks, and than you use the relative dates to tell the date the fossils. You see, it's circular logic.


A fantastic claim...now you need to prove it.As you can clearly see, this si teh assumption:


For more than three decades potassium-argon (K-Ar) and argon-argon (Ar-Ar) dating of rocks has been crucial in underpinning the billions of years for Earth history claimed by evolutionists. Critical to these dating methods is the assumption that there was no radiogenic argon (40Ar*) in the rocks (e.g., basalt) when they formed, which is usually stated as self-evident.

Yet this is the reality:


However, this dogmatic statement is inconsistent with even Dalrymple's own work 25 years earlier on 26 historic, subaerial lava flows, 20% of which he found had non-zero concentrations of 40Ar* (or excess argon) in violation of this key assumption of the K-Ar dating method.2Therefore, radiometric dating fails the test.

http://www.icr.org/article/436/

[Pawn Power]

He would just say that it is a case of convergent evolution.

Who would? You are assuming what people would think in a fantastically hypothetical situation.


Because it can't happen. Because of circular logic used to date the rocks.

No, it can't happen because evolution exists.




It says that relative dating is even superior to absolute dating. How can that be? You use the so called index fossils to tell the relative dates of the rocks, and than you use the relative dates to tell the date the fossils. You see, it's circular logic.

You keep repeating the same thing without knowing the significance of the words you are using. Look up the term 'index fossil.' These are used to identify geological periods, however, the priciples of stratigraphy are still used. Relative dating messures materials in relative relation to each other, but one can still date individual materials... relative dating can then be used to place things in geological periods.


As you can clearly see, this si teh assumption:
These are not assumptions but are tested realities.




Yet this is the reality:

Therefore, radiometric dating fails the test.

http://www.icr.org/article/436/

The vast majority of the scientific community which understand how these processes work would diseagree with you. Certianly, you are going to have to disprove the other dozen or so dating techiniques false... not that providing a link to a creationist blog accomplishes this.

[ID-guy]

Who would? You are assuming what people would think in a fantastically hypothetical situation.The evolutionists would.


No, it can't happen because evolution exists.Do you have any proof of this?


You keep repeating the same thing without knowing the significance of the words you are using. Look up the term 'index fossil.' These are used to identify geological periods, however, the priciples of stratigraphy are still used.However!?!? That is the same thing!? The principles of the branch of stratigraphy, which is biostratigraphy is based on index fossils! That is circular logic.


Biostratigraphy is the branch of stratigraphy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratigraphy) which focuses on correlating and assigning relative ages of rock strata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratum) by using the fossil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil) assemblages contained within them.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biostratigraphy


Relative dating messures materials in relative relation to each other, but one can still date individual materials...But how do you know the age of the individual to begin with!?


relative dating can then be used to place things in geological periods.And relative dating is based on index fossils. And now I ask you, how do you know the age of the fossils?


These are not assumptions but are tested realities.Yes, and they were wrong. As you can clearly see, the assumption WAS that there will be no Argon in the rocks. But guess what!? There was! Therefore, PA dating is wrong.


The vast majority of the scientific community which understand how these processes work would diseagree with you. Certianly, you are going to have to disprove the other dozen or so dating techiniques false... not that providing a link to a creationist blog accomplishes this.I don't care what the vast majority of "scientists" think. OK? Sto with the arguments from authority. I'm not falling for it. And if you do not accept my links than I'm not accepting yours. So there.

[Dean]

Here is a little text from wiki on the falsifiability of Evolution, I think it deserves it's own tread since rejection of evolution doesn't really have anything to do with ID, except it's political relation. I thought it could be here, even if it belongs to the science forum.

Yes, evolutionary theory is not among those theories which fit into Popper's falsifiability. That does not, however, discredit it. Falsifiability is a specific method to which some scientists adhere to fully, whereas most agree that both inductive and deductive logic are also useful methods by which scientific theory, testing and hypothesizing can be done.

Evolution fits into inductive logic. In so many instances, the data correlate with the theory, a theory which has its basis in distinct, verifiable "micro-evolutionary" reactions.

In other words, Macro-evolution is the broadening of a scientifically verified theory into a broader context; that is, that such reactions will eventually cross certain borders which not only make a different strain of a given organism, but can create a different species. The only difference between the two theories is that one speaks of change within an arbitrary boundary, whereas the other speaks of a grouping of such changes sufficient enough to dictate a change in classification. Evolution has already been witnessed. It is only the wide-scale change required to prove changes along arbitrary lines that has not been documented.

And to make another point here: that Humans evolved from others creatures can never be proven, for the simple fact that we cannot verifiably test the past. Fossil records are a great tool, but cannot be proof of past scientific reactions, only of specific, atomized occurrences. That is simply how all history is.


As for intelligent design, it has no basis in scientific theory. It seeks to find a given hypothesis, rather than looking for the answer to a given [/i]problem.[/i] It comes to the table with answers, rather than questions. Evolution theory came about through exhaustive documentation, and since Darwin conceptualized the theory, it has been worked upon, studied and critiqued to create a whole new concept of the theory.

That is not so with ID. It came from the Creationist movement, which utilized biblical mythology to attempt to create a rationale for its acceptance. The entire concept of "Intelligent Design" is of adding a fantastical concept of an unknown, "Intelligent," deliberate and reasoned creator by which all matter was created. Evolution makes a very few, plausible bridges to form a coherent and transparent image of our biological history. The Creationists (thats what these people are, anyways) seek to define not only how long organisms have existed in relation to other organisms, but also the precise method by which the species were conceived. This is not some mild inference into how our world was transformed: this is a completest, supernatural dogma about the entire formation of our universe. In other words, a myth.

[ID-guy]

Yes, evolutionary theory is not among those theories which fit into Popper's falsifiability. That does not, however, discredit it.But it puts her outside science and into religion. Therefore, Evolution is a religion.


Falsifiability is a specific method to which some scientists adhere to fully, whereas most agree that both inductive and deductive logic are also useful methods by which scientific theory, testing and hypothesizing can be done.Yes, when you can't prove Evolution, simply say you don't have to. But ID has to be falsifiable.


Evolution fits into inductive logic. In so many instances, the data correlate with the theory, a theory which has its basis in distinct, verifiable "micro-evolutionary" reactions.In other words, Evolution is just guessing.


In other words, Macro-evolution is the broadening of a scientifically verified theory into a broader context; that is, that such reactions will eventually cross certain borders which not only make a different strain of a given organism, but can create a different species.False. That is only the half of it. Or should I say. Only a bit of it. The real true claim is that all teh life on Earth had a common ancestor, and it was ONE tiny cell. Now, nobody disproves speciation. It happens. But you can NOT use speciation to prove that we came from 1 cell 3.6 billion years ago. Because speciation means that 1 species has split into 2 species. And what actually happened is that they can not interbreed anymore. That is all. There is nothing new added to those species, they just can't interbreed. So you can't use the proof of not beeing able to interbreed as a proof that we came from ONE cell 3.6 billion years ago. This simply is not logical.


The only difference between the two theories is that one speaks of change within an arbitrary boundary, whereas the other speaks of a grouping of such changes sufficient enough to dictate a change in classification. Evolution has already been witnessed. It is only the wide-scale change required to prove changes along arbitrary lines that has not been documented.Yeah, and that's the whole point. Do you know why it has NEVER been proven? Because it doesn't happen! Because speciation is not the way to get from 1 cell to a human in 3.6 billion years. You can wait as long as you want. You will have 10 different or 100 different species of human, of wolves, of birds, you name it. But they will still be people, wolves and birds. Because the grand changes do not happen.


And to make another point here: that Humans evolved from others creatures can never be proven, for the simple fact that we cannot verifiably test the past. Fossil records are a great tool, but cannot be proof of past scientific reactions, only of specific, atomized occurrences. That is simply how all history is.Thank you for admiting that fossils do not count as proof for Evolution.


As for intelligent design, it has no basis in scientific theory.Only atheistical fundamentalists say that.


It seeks to find a given hypothesis, rather than looking for the answer to a given [/i]problem.[/i]No it seeks to detecd design in nature.


It comes to the table with answers, rather than questions.No it does not. You are painfuly wrong.


Evolution theory came about through exhaustive documentation, and since Darwin conceptualized the theory, it has been worked upon, studied and critiqued to create a whole new concept of the theory.Which has never been proven. And which has been modified so much that it can not be falsified anymore. Which in turn does not make her part of science, but a religion.


That is not so with ID.Of course it isn't! ID is not a religion like Evolution.


It came from the Creationist movement, which utilized biblical mythology to attempt to create a rationale for its acceptance.This is so painfuly wrong, it hurts my eyes to read it. The concept of a designing intelligence comes from Anaxagoras of Clazomenae a Greek philosopher who lived 500 years BC. His ideas about an intelligence that is a force that can create has been expanded through centuries so today we have a modern version of the Intelligent Design movement.

http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_timeline


The entire concept of "Intelligent Design" is of adding a fantastical concept of an unknown, "Intelligent," deliberate and reasoned creator by which all matter was created.Wrong again on so many counts. The modern concept of ID is detection of design in nature, and from that point investigation of the said entety.


Evolution makes a very few, plausible bridges to form a coherent and transparent image of our biological history.Evolution is a religion for god sakes!


The Creationists (thats what these people are, anyways) seek to define not only how long organisms have existed in relation to other organisms, but also the precise method by which the species were conceived.This is insanely wrong. I would shoot myself in the face if I ever said something like this. A person who is a proponent of ID does not automatically have to be a Creationist. Creationism is a way of explaining nature in a way that suits a selected religion. In contrast, ID is about detecting design in nature.


This is not some mild inference into how our world was transformed: this is a completest, supernatural dogma about the entire formation of our universe. In other words, a myth.A myth is when somebody tells you that first there was nothing, than it exploded, than we got everything. Now that's a myth!

Go educate yourself!

[Kami]

ID-Guy, there's so much bullshit in your posts it's getting a real chore to debunk them. To save myself some time, I'll catagorize them.
The Myth of the Atheist Religion

But it puts her outside science and into religion. Therefore, Evolution is a religion.False Dichotomy.

Only atheistical fundamentalists say that.No such thing.

[in regards to evolution starting with evidence then looking for answers] No it does not. You are painfuly wrong.Nonsense, evolution as an idea only came into existance as a result of the analysing of evidence. It could hardly have been the starting position if it didn't exist

Evolution is a religion for god sakes!Proove it.

Of course it isn't! ID is not a religion like Evolution.How many times will you repeat this empty phrase; Evolution is science, it is backed up by evidence. There is no debate here.

A myth is when somebody tells you that first there was nothing, than it exploded, than we got everything. Now that's a myth! Go educate yourself!
So you're not a Creationist, but you quote well-known creationist literature? Literature regarding the origin of the universe, NOT evolution, I hasten to point out?
Oh, and you realise that all respectable educational institutions teach evolution? And since you ask, what are your educational credentials in the subject?
Proof of Evolution

Yes, when you can't prove Evolution, simply say you don't have to. But ID has to be falsifiable.How might we falsify ID and put this tired debate to rest, then?

In other words, Evolution is just guessing.If Inductive logic is guessing, we're all boned.

Anyway, you've been asked before, but why do you constantly ignore this bucketload of evidence? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution)

The Myth of ID as legitimate Science

No it seeks to detecd design in nature.No, it seeks to proove that nature is designed.

This is so painfuly wrong, it hurts my eyes to read it. The concept of a designing intelligence comes from Anaxagoras of Clazomenae a Greek philosopher who lived 500 years BC. His ideas about an intelligence that is a force that can create has been expanded through centuries so today we have a modern version of the Intelligent Design movement.It may well be the case an ancient philosopher suggested the idea, but the modern movement started as a failed attempt to introduce creationism into education.

This is insanely wrong. I would shoot myself in the face if I ever said something like this. A person who is a proponent of ID does not automatically have to be a Creationist. Creationism is a way of explaining nature in a way that suits a selected religion. In contrast, ID is about detecting design in nature.You've said worse, so please make with the shooting. And as I've said, ID seeks to proove nature is designed, in the interests of the religious. If you are not among them, I pity you for being caught up in there scam

[MarxSchmarx]

They are similar because they have similar DNA. So of course they are going to be said to be close relatives because they are similar, and of course they are going to have similar DNA since they are similar. It's still circular logic.

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but no more.

Look, do you deny DNA as the basis of heredity and phenotypes? Even "ID" people affirm this.

If DNA is the basis of heredity and phenotypes, it follows that organisms with similar DNA will have similar phenotypes. This has nothing to do with the theory of natural selection.

Let me draw it out for you. Suppose the flying spaghetti monster created every species de novo. "He" used DNA as the genetic code, and DNA is translated into proteins. ID is on board with this.

it therefore follows that, under this fantasy, my kid and I should have more similar DNA than me and a person I'm not related to. I mean, ID people are ok with paternity testing, right? The more similar any organisms are, the more DNA they share. Is it any surprise that cows share more DNA with other cows than they do with alligators?

If you are denying this, you have no idea what you are talking about.

[ID-guy]

ID-Guy, there's so much bullshit in your posts it's getting a real chore to debunk them. To save myself some time, I'll catagorize them.
The Myth of the Atheist Religion
And you were born with bullshit in your head, so now what?


False Dichotomy.Explain why.


No such thing.Yes there is.


Nonsense, evolution as an idea only came into existance as a result of the analysing of evidence. It could hardly have been the starting position if it didn't existI didn't say otherwise. But it's still wrong.


Proove it.You got no proof of evolution. Yet you believe it. That is called a religion.


How many times will you repeat this empty phrase; Evolution is science, it is backed up by evidence. There is no debate here.Give me the evidence.


So you're not a Creationist, but you quote well-known creationist literature? Literature regarding the origin of the universe, NOT evolution, I hasten to point out?Yes I do, so what of it?


Oh, and you realise that all respectable educational institutions teach evolution?And what of it?


And since you ask, what are your educational credentials in the subject?Non of your bussieness.


Proof of Evolution
How might we falsify ID and put this tired debate to rest, then?Prove that natural forces can create information.


If Inductive logic is guessing, we're all boned.

Anyway, you've been asked before, but why do you constantly ignore this bucketload of evidence? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution)
I do not ignore it. I refute it with this.

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp




The Myth of ID as legitimate Science
No, it seeks to proove that nature is designed.Show me where does it say that.


It may well be the case an ancient philosopher suggested the idea, but the modern movement started as a failed attempt to introduce creationism into education.I really do not care about politics, you must understand that. The point is that the IDEA about intelligent design is not based on religious grounds. That is a fact.


You've said worse, so please make with the shooting. And as I've said, ID seeks to proove nature is designed, in the interests of the religious. If you are not among them, I pity you for being caught up in there scamAgain, I do not care about politics. Even if religious people are using ID for their ends, that does not mean that ID istself is not valid.

[ID-guy]

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but no more.

Look, do you deny DNA as the basis of heredity and phenotypes? Even "ID" people affirm this.Why the fuck would I deny it?


If DNA is the basis of heredity and phenotypes, it follows that organisms with similar DNA will have similar phenotypes. This has nothing to do with the theory of natural selection. When did I say that it does have anything to do with it?


Let me draw it out for you. Suppose the flying spaghetti monster created every species de novo. "He" used DNA as the genetic code, and DNA is translated into proteins. ID is on board with this.

it therefore follows that, under this fantasy, my kid and I should have more similar DNA than me and a person I'm not related to. I mean, ID people are ok with paternity testing, right? The more similar any organisms are, the more DNA they share. Is it any surprise that cows share more DNA with other cows than they do with alligators? The point of this crap is?


If you are denying this, you have no idea what you are talking about.What the fuck am I denying? Who are you even talking to!?

[Kami]

Explain why.
Do you even know what a false dichotomy is? Okay, this is why; you claim that if evolution isn't scienc, it must be religion. Evolution is science, but even if it weren't, that wouldn't automatically make it a religion -.-

Yes there is.
How the hell can you have a fundamentalist lack of belief?

I didn't say otherwise. But it's still wrong.
Proove it

You got no proof of evolution. Yet you believe it. That is called a religion.
How many bloody times will this take? (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution) A link to some nutjobs' homepage is no refutation, and yet again you demonstrate your hypocracy about explaining links :P

Give me the evidence.
Okay, I'll put this simply; we have the fossils. We win.

Yes I do, so what of it?
You're bringing discredited and unrelated material into the debate, that only weakens your case, and it really can't take any more weakening :P

Non of your bussieness.
Then fuck off with your accusations of ill-education.

Prove that natural forces can create information.
Oh dear. The circle comes to a close. So, by giving you naturally created information, I can disproove your hypothesis? all well and good, but that's exactly what you are taking as evidence of design. Any naturally created information I give you you will immediately be classified, by your system, as designed. Try again.


Why the fuck would I deny it?
No idea, but you did

They are similar because they have similar DNA. So of course they are going to be said to be close relatives because they are similar, and of course they are going to have similar DNA since they are similar. It's still circular logic.

[eyedrop]

Prove that natural forces can create information.
Most mutations can be reversed by subsequent mutations – a DNA base can be turned from an A to a G and then back to an A again, for instance. In fact, reverse mutation or "reversion (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19325861.200-the-ancestor-within-all-creatures.html)" is common (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0046-8177%2803%2900406-4). For any mutation that results in a loss of information, logically, the reverse mutation must result in its gain. So the claim (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html) that mutations destroy information but cannot create it not only defies the evidence, it also defies logic.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html

Or is reverse mutation false too?


You can't use C14 dating since it depends on the C14 being in equillibrium in the atmosphere. But it's not. C14 is still building up. So when you measure the amount of C14 in artifacts you want to know how old they are, you are going to get the wrong date. Since C14 method is actually calculating the ratio between the amount C14 in the atmosphere and the artifact you are measuring. If there is no equilibrium than you can not measure it, since you are always going to get the wrong number. C14 in the athmosphere is not still building up. Research have shown that it have been twice as high as it is now earlier. The changing back and forth of the C14 rarity in the athmosphere affects the uncertainty of the C14 number but not enough that the rabbit and the pre-cambrian age would overlap inside the estimations of the C14 athmospheric values. Haven'tcalculated on it though. But nevertheless you are right that it's useless in such cases since it is too little left after the C14 has halved too many times in over 500 million years. About 1 million times. I admit I was a bit hasty on C14 dating.

But luckily we have 238U92 (Uranium) with a halving age of 4,5*10^9 years that is usable on such long scales. By a different and a bit more advanced method which involves melting of rock around the uranium. The only thing one needs to accept here is that different compounds solidify at different temperatures.


In short it goes as this. When molten material solified as temperature dropped, different compounds solified at different temperatures. As such they seperated to some extent. Uranium present became fixed in position and daughter nuclei stayed in the same fixed position, which was a different one from where it would have solified. By looking at the realation between 238U92 and daugther nuclei one can determine the age of the rock.

[ID-guy]

Do you even know what a false dichotomy is? Okay, this is why; you claim that if evolution isn't scienc, it must be religion. Evolution is science, but even if it weren't, that wouldn't automatically make it a religion -.-I said that if a person believes something without proof, that is religion. Since Evolution has no evidences, yet is believed, it is by definition a religion.


How the hell can you have a fundamentalist lack of belief?Atheists believe in evolution.


Proove itDon't ahve to. You prove it right.


How many bloody times will this take? (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution) As many as you wish. (http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp)


A link to some nutjobs' homepage is no refutation,A link to wikipedia article is no proof also.


and yet again you demonstrate your hypocracy about explaining links :PYou didn't explain yours, so why should I explain mine. Pick one of your proofs, and I'll refute it by myself if you want.


Okay, I'll put this simply; we have the fossils. We win.We also have the fossils, so we win also. How do you like them apples?


You're bringing discredited and unrelated material into the debate, that only weakens your case, and it really can't take any more weakening :PDiscredited by whome and where?


Then fuck off with your accusations of ill-education.[/quite]Are you retarded? You are tho one with no education, not me. You are the one who can't explain any of your "proofs".

[quote]Oh dear. The circle comes to a close. So, by giving you naturally created information, I can disproove your hypothesis? all well and good, but that's exactly what you are taking as evidence of design. Any naturally created information I give you you will immediately be classified, by your system, as designed. Try again.No it won't. If you find information that has been naturally created, I will not be able to say that some intelligence has created it. Since it was nature that did it.


No idea, but you didNo, I did not. You misunderstood me. I just said it was circular logic.

[ID-guy]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html

Or is reverse mutation false too?Wrong. You need to show me, where natural forces can create information from scratch, not insides living systems.

Anyway, this is not creating new information. This is modifying information. Even this is not gaining new information. Since you gained no new functions. Just because you have more nucleotides, does not mean they are forming some new meaningful function.


C14 in the athmosphere is not still building up. Research have shown that it have been twice as high as it is now earlier. The changing back and forth of the C14 rarity in the athmosphere affects the uncertainty of the C14 number but not enough that the rabbit and the pre-cambrian age would overlap inside the estimations of the C14 athmospheric values.Where does it say that?

[Kami]

I said that if a person believes something without proof, that is religion. Since Evolution has no evidences, yet is believed, it is by definition a religion.
And that, as I say, is a false dichotomy. Oh, and check your definitions (again).

Atheists believe in evolution.
Some do, some don't, same as with theists. There's no link.

Don't ahve to. You prove it right.
We have done so, there is a hell of a lot of literature you could read on the subject. For you to proove it wrong, what you now need to do is get a paper peer reviewed and published, and to some degree accepted by the scientific community. Up to the challenge?

A link to wikipedia article is no proof also.
Perhaps not, but it at least supplies references, and I can quote from it without breaching copyright. If you want something more, it's available at the bottom of the page.

You didn't explain yours, so why should I explain mine. Pick one of your proofs, and I'll refute it by myself if you want.
Sorry, what? I wasn't saying you should, merely remarking on your hypocricy.

We also have the fossils, so we win also. How do you like them apples?
I do so love apples. Now, these fossils provide a nice sample of different periods and show gradual changes as creatures evolve, (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Horseevolution.png) supporting the theory of evolution. How does it support yours again?

Discredited by whome and where?
By the scientific community at large, everywhere O.o Sorry, are you asking me to take creationist psuedoscience seriously?

Are you retarded? You are tho one with no education, not me. You are the one who can't explain any of your "proofs".
Yes, you neurotypical arsehole, and I made no accusations, so I would thank you for not making any in return.

No it won't. If you find information that has been naturally created, I will not be able to say that some intelligence has created it. Since it was nature that did it.
Only you claim that information in nature is evidence of design. So any natural information (like DNA) you label "Proof". You can't have the proof the only way to falsify it -.-

No, I did not. You misunderstood me. I just said it was circular logic.
Ah, so you claim it to have no logical backing, but it still stands? In line with what we've learnt of you so far, to be fair.

[Kami]

Wrong. You need to show me, where natural forces can create information from scratch, not insides living systems.

Anyway, this is not creating new information. This is modifying information. Even this is not gaining new information. Since you gained no new functions. Just because you have more nucleotides, does not mean they are forming some new meaningful function.
http://fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/59.jpg

[ID-guy]

And that, as I say, is a false dichotomy. Oh, and check your definitions (again).Than define religion.


Some do, some don't, same as with theists. There's no link.Show me one that doesn't.


We have done so, there is a hell of a lot of literature you could read on the subject. For you to proove it wrong, what you now need to do is get a paper peer reviewed and published, and to some degree accepted by the scientific community. Up to the challenge?Yes you do. You claim that there is proof for Evolution. If there is, than show it to me.


Perhaps not, but it at least supplies references, and I can quote from it without breaching copyright. If you want something more, it's available at the bottom of the page.I got refferences also, so the point is?


Sorry, what? I wasn't saying you should, merely remarking on your hypocricy.It's not hypocricy. I will explain my links always. If others don't explain theirs, I won't my either.


I do so love apples. Now, these fossils provide a nice sample of different periods and show gradual changes as creatures evolve, (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Horseevolution.png) supporting the theory of evolution. How does it support yours again?Two things.

1.) How do you know any of those animals are related

2.) http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_12.html

If you read this link, you will see that even evolutionists are not in agreement about the evolution of the horse.


By the scientific community at large, everywhere O.oShow me where.


Sorry, are you asking me to take creationist psuedoscience seriously?Are you asking me to take evolutionist pseudoscience seriously?


Yes, you neurotypical arsehole, and I made no accusations, so I would thank you for not making any in return.So, you do admit that you are reterded?


Only you claim that information in nature is evidence of design. So any natural information (like DNA) you label "Proof". You can't have the proof the only way to falsify it -.-NO! You NEVER saw natural process creating DNA. You have to show me where a natural process is creating information. You can't just claim it did. If you show me how nature does it, I can't say that an intelligence did it.


Ah, so you claim it to have no logical backing, but it still stands? In line with what we've learnt of you so far, to be fair.If it's circular logic, than it means it can't be falsified.

[ID-guy]

http://fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/59.jpgThis is not pushing the goalpost. You don't understand information. I specifically said NATURAL FORCES, not living organisms.

[Kami]

Than define religion.
religion (plural religions)
after the death of one’s A system of beliefs, including belief in the existence of at least one of the following: a human soul or spirit, a deity or higher being, or selfbody.
He couldn’t abide by any religion that didn’t allow for wrongdoers to be punished after death.
A number of customs and rituals associated with such beliefs.
When it comes to religion, she doesn’t believe, but she loves to attend the ceremonies.
Anything that involves the association of people in a manner resembling a religious institution or cult.
At this point, Star Trek has really become a religion.
Any system or institution which one engages with in order to foster a sense of meaning or relevance in relation to something greater than oneself.


Show me one that doesn't.
One Atheist that doesn't "believe" in evolution? Any at all, as long as they lived before Darwin, definately didn't. Stalin didn't, either, as I recall.
One theist that does? The whole bloody catholic and anglican churches.

Yes you do. You claim that there is proof for Evolution. If there is, than show it to me.
Look, I'm not even going to bother posting the link again, it's above if you want it.

I got refferences also, so the point is?
Mine are from respectable sources, yours aren't.

1.) How do you know any of those animals are related
Common traits and DNA, as well as dissapearance of one in favour of the next. How do you propose they got there? placed later by a noodly appendage?

Are you asking me to take evolutionist pseudoscience seriously?

Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status.

So, you do admit that you are reterded?
Yes, I am. Is there a problem? At least I can spell the word.

NO! You NEVER saw natural process creating DNA. You have to show me where a natural process is creating information. You can't just claim it did. If you show me how nature does it, I can't say that an intelligence did it.
*sigh* exactly, anything I present you will not accept.

[eyedrop]

Modified the original post a bit. But anyway I agree with you on C14 dating on long timescales although for differing reasons.

Wrong. You need to show me, where natural forces can create information from scratch, not insides living systems. No I only need to show that more information can result from a natural process.


Anyway, this is not creating new information. This is modifying information. Even this is not gaining new information. Since you gained no new functions. Just because you have more nucleotides, does not mean they are forming some new meaningful function. Which definition of information are you using? In physics the amount of information is based on how much data one would need to describe it if I remember right.So 111 would contain less information than 962.


Where does it say that?http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2676 As it has been higher before it cannot have been building up since the start of time.

As for the other you are free to calculate how little the original level of C14 must have been. You can use this
Computation of ages and dates

The radioactive decay of carbon-14 follows an exponential decay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_decay). A quantity is said to be subject to exponential decay if it decreases at a rate proportional to its value. Symbolically, this can be expressed as the following differential equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_equation), where N is the quantity and λ is a positive number called the decay constant:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/8/a/a8a0bd0a12874474352b307d9e919076.png The solution to this equation is:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/d/8/6d8b32517f26f891dd02c9003a0ef52e.png, where, for a given sample of carbonaceous matter:
N0 = number of radiocarbon atoms at t = 0, i.e. the origin of the disintegration time,N = number of radiocarbon atoms remaining after radioactive decay during the time t,λ = radiocarbon decay or disintegration constant.Two related times can be defined:
mean- or average-life: mean or average time each radiocarbon atom spends in a given sample until it decays.
half-life: time lapsed for half the number of radiocarbon atoms in a given sample, to decay,It can be shown that:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/b/6/bb6e75fc48b68f1863dfcaa954861d90.png = http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/a/c/fac02813f7c0d30d84591f219db1f752.png = radiocarbon mean- or average-life = 8033 years (Libby value) http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/5/7/5579b30b29442d967bd18b6912a3b5e5.png = http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/4/a/e4a488d6d1a00bf19995cbcd5f2132e7.png = radiocarbon half-life = 5568 years (Libby value) Notice that dates are customarily given in years BP which implies t(BP) = -t because the time arrow for dates runs in reverse direction from the time arrow for the corresponding ages. From these considerations and the above equation, it results:
For a raw radiocarbon date:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/3/c/33c192ac44fbf70eb6e3b95e170eab20.png and for a raw radiocarbon age:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/a/a/2aae3adc621ac34ab024ee47189deec9.png After replacing values, the raw radiocarbon age becomes any of the following equivalent formulae:
using logs base e and the average life:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/5/5/f5566415a0cbd1d0c9bdc37e23ee083b.png1/(Lambda sign)=3.83*10^11s and N at would be 1.3*10^13 if the athmosphere would have been as now. But still it's moot anyway since C14 halves way to fast to find any meaningful traces after more than 60k years. Check how small N0 needs to be.

[ID-guy]

Number 4. Nature is something higher than an individual and it is allpowerful. Because it can create life. That is what evolutionists believe. Therefore, it is a religion.

[quote]One Atheist that doesn't "believe" in evolution? Any at all, as long as they lived before Darwin, definately didn't. Stalin didn't, either, as I recall.Evolution was an idea before Darwin. What about Lamarcks' evolution. And ALL communists believe in evolution, so did Stalin.


One theist that does? The whole bloody catholic and anglican churches.I don't give a fuck about them.


Look, I'm not even going to bother posting the link again, it's above if you want it.And I refuted it with anotehr link. So, do you have something new?


Mine are from respectable sources, yours aren't.And who says what is respectable and what isn't? The respectable sources do? Well that's circular logic.


Common traits and DNA, as well as dissapearance of one in favour of the next. How do you propose they got there? placed later by a noodly appendage?1.) Similarity of anything is not proof of anything. People have eyes, birds have eyes, is that PROOF that we are related do birds? No it isn't.

2.) How do you know one dissapeared and the next one evolved?


Yes, I am. Is there a problem? At least I can spell the word.Good for you.


*sigh* exactly, anything I present you will not accept.I will if you prove that nature did it.

[ID-guy]

Modified the original post a bit. But anyway I agree with you on C14 dating on long timescales although for differing reasons.I know you do. Heh, I didn't even get to the part why C14 sux on long periods of time. Nice of you to figure it out by yourself.


No I only need to show that more information can result from a natural process.No you do not. You made two errors.

1.) If you show me more information being made inside living organism, you can't say that that is teh way the first organism was formed, since there was no organism before the FIRST one to get the information modified. You can't use an already existing system and say that is the way teh FIRST system formed. Because you are already using a fully formed system.

2.) Information is something meaningfull. Just because you add more characters into the word "BUILDING" that doesn't mean that you created new meaning. You gained nothing. Look... "BUILDING" + "A" = "BUILDINGA".

Is this a meaningful word? No it is not. You added a new character but you did not gain new information since "BUILDINGA" is not a meaningful word. The same thing is with the sequences of DNA. Just because you add a nucleotide or change one, that doesn't mean that you will get a new function, i.e. a gain in information.


Which definition of information are you using? In physics the amount of information is based on how much data one would need to describe it if I remember right.So 111 would contain less information than 962.The same one you are using.


http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2676 As it has been higher before it cannot have been building up since the start of time.The point is that they do not say that it escalates freely up and down. Furthermore, they got the idea that there was more C14 before than today, because they dated the stalagmites that they say are between 45 000 and 11 000 years ago. But than again, how do they know that? By dating them? With what? C14? Which doesn0t work? That circular logic!


As for the other you are free to calculate how little the original level of C14 must have been. You can use this

1/(Lambda sign)=3.83*10^11s and N at would be 1.3*10^13 if the athmosphere would have been as now. But still it's moot anyway since C14 halves way to fast to find any meaningful traces after more than 60k years.I do not disagree with the method of calculation. The point is that the assumptions are wrong. And the assumption is that the C14 was in equilibrium. Since it isn't we can't use the method even if it is correct, because the assumption was wrong. Thus C14 dating is wrong.

[Kami]

Number 4. Nature is something higher than an individual and it is allpowerful. Because it can create life. That is what evolutionists believe. Therefore, it is a religion.

No, Evolution gives no meaning of relevance. It tells us where we came from, that's it.

Evolution was an idea before Darwin. What about Lamarcks' evolution. And ALL communists believe in evolution, so did Stalin.
Stalin supported Lysenko, an anti-darwinian (I am assuming here we refer to darwinian evolution). Also, that's a big claim about all communists. Can you back that up?
Do you suggest the Atheistic Cārvāka of the 6th Centuary BCE supported evolution?

I don't give a fuck about them.
You asked, don't get snappy.

And I refuted it with anotehr link. So, do you have something new?
You need something a little more solid. Something in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. Something that has been examined and given the A-OK by scientists who specialise in that field.

And who says what is respectable and what isn't? The respectable sources do? Well that's circular logic.
The community at large do, don't put words in my mouth.

Also, in Killmitzer vs. Dover it was firmly establishing that creationism and intelligent design were religious teachings and not areas of legitimate scientific research.

1.) Similarity of anything is not proof of anything. People have eyes, birds have eyes, is that PROOF that we are related do birds? No it isn't.
That's a hell of a lot more than just eyes. And the eyes of birds and men are rather distinct, it would be a very interesting discovery indeed if they were identical.

2.) How do you know one dissapeared and the next one evolved?
We have examples of them in one period, none in the next. A modern horse in eocene rock would blow this all out of the water.

Good for you.
Hey, you brought it up.

[ID-guy]

No, Evolution gives no meaning of relevance. It tells us where we came from, that's it.Yuo, it tells us we came from rocks, and that we are meaningless.


Stalin supported Lysenko, an anti-darwinian (I am assuming here we refer to darwinian evolution).What? Wasn't that the guy that was making some false evidence just to prove evolutionl. Now I don't know everything about this. But I am sure that that was the guy in the USSR that did not accept genetics just so evolution could be learned in the classrooms and still be science.


Also, that's a big claim about all communists. Can you back that up?Again, all communists are atheists, and all atheists today believe in evolution. The modern version of materialism.


Do you suggest the Atheistic Cārvāka of the 6th Centuary BCE supported evolution?In a way yes. Since evolution is nothing more than a modern version of centuries old ideology of materialism. An idea that matter is all that is.


You asked, don't get snappy.No, I did not ask about what the chirch thinks. I'm concerned about their opinion as much as im concerned what evolutionists think.


You need something a little more solid. Something in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. Something that has been examined and given the A-OK by scientists who specialise in that field.Um, yeah, than, you need that also. Wikipedia is not it.


The community at large do, don't put words in my mouth.Who is this "community at large"?


Also, in Killmitzer vs. Dover it was firmly establishing that creationism and intelligent design were religious teachings and not areas of legitimate scientific research.Judge Jones is an idiot, and does not understand science. I do not care what courts have to say about this topic. Science should be decided by evidence not by courts!


That's a hell of a lot more than just eyes. And the eyes of birds and men are rather distinct, it would be a very interesting discovery indeed if they were identical.That's not the point. The point is that you will alwaya find some similarity in anything you look at. To claim that similarity by itself is proof of anything, but similarity itself, is just plain wrong. It is not proof of common descent, it is just proof that they are similar.

Again, the other point is that you have to prove that the similarity is due to evolution. You cant' use similarity to say that it is the proof of evolution. It's just an assumption that you need to prove.


We have examples of them in one period, none in the next. A modern horse in eocene rock would blow this all out of the water.Again, you are talking about geologic periods. They are dated by fossils, and fossils aer in turn dated by the geologic periods. That is circular logic, and that is why we can't find them in the same period.

[eyedrop]

I know you do. Heh, I didn't even get to the part why C14 sux on long periods of time. Nice of you to figure it out by yourself. More plausible explanation, you didn't know.


No you do not. You made two errors.

1.) If you show me more information being made inside living organism, you can't say that that is teh way the first organism was formed, since there was no organism before the FIRST one to get the information modified. You can't use an already existing system and say that is the way teh FIRST system formed. Because you are already using a fully formed system.

2.) Information is something meaningfull. Just because you add more characters into the word "BUILDING" that doesn't mean that you created new meaning. You gained nothing. Look... "BUILDING" + "A" = "BUILDINGA".

Is this a meaningful word? No it is not. You added a new character but you did not gain new information since "BUILDINGA" is not a meaningful word. The same thing is with the sequences of DNA. Just because you add a nucleotide or change one, that doesn't mean that you will get a new function, i.e. a gain in information.Except that I were not talking about a word but a sequence.
BTW you need a scientific definition of science to be able to claim that something can not create it.
A good test you could do on this would be to use ID to derive which changes in a DNA sequence would destroy information (since ID claims that mutations can destroy information but not add) and which would add information. Then you could test over a plausible amount of times and speciemen and see if the mutation were only of the kind that destroyed information. If ID had been a serious it would try to design some kind of similar experiment. But since it isn't it just pseudoscience.


The same one you are using. And which is that?


The point is that they do not say that it escalates freely up and down. Furthermore, they got the idea that there was more C14 before than today, because they dated the stalagmites that they say are between 45 000 and 11 000 years ago. But than again, how do they know that? By dating them? With what? C14? Which doesn0t work? That circular logic! See my above post about uranium and it's decay.


I do not disagree with the method of calculation. The point is that the assumptions are wrong. And the assumption is that the C14 was in equilibrium. Since it isn't we can't use the method even if it is correct, because the assumption was wrong. Thus C14 dating is wrong. There is nothing to agree with. Derived from basic mathemathical terms. Not my fault that you don't understand it enough, you could try out with your different values for N0 and check. What you are claiming is just that the formula needs a different No value. And through other science branches it is possible to narrow the No values down, it's not like it's been wildly fluctuating thorugh the years.

[Kami]

Yuo, it tells us we came from rocks, and that we are meaningless.
Well, objectively, we are meaningless. And that's abiogenesis, not evolution. Anyway, point is, Evolution fits into none of those definitions.

Again, all communists are atheists, and all atheists today believe in evolution. The modern version of materialism.
No they aren't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism)

In a way yes. Since evolution is nothing more than a modern version of centuries old ideology of materialism. An idea that matter is all that is.
Science in general is a form of materialism, not just evolution. If we're going to be debating materialism, we're getting into philosophy.

Um, yeah, than, you need that also. Wikipedia is not it.
Yes, I realise that. But there are a wealth of evolutionary peer-reviewed papers, as I've already mentioned, though, I use wikipedia for copyright reasons.

Who is this "community at large"?
The Scientific community; that is, universities and laboratories around the world. The concensus lies squarely with evolution.

Science should be decided by evidence not by courts!
Here, at least, we're in agreement.

That's not the point. The point is that you will alwaya find some similarity in anything you look at. To claim that similarity by itself is proof of anything, but similarity itself, is just plain wrong. It is not proof of common descent, it is just proof that they are similar.

Again, the other point is that you have to prove that the similarity is due to evolution. You cant' use similarity to say that it is the proof of evolution. It's just an assumption that you need to prove.
The proof is given on a smaller scale, these examples fit with the predictions. It is not proof in and of itself, but combined with the theory that explains why, and that all current observations fit with, it is.

Again, you are talking about geologic periods. They are dated by fossils, and fossils aer in turn dated by the geologic periods. That is circular logic, and that is why we can't find them in the same period.You misunderstood this earlier; relative dating is used in combination with absolute dating, which does not rely on relative dating, breaking the circle.

[eyedrop]

In a way yes. Since evolution is nothing more than a modern version of centuries old ideology of materialism. An idea that matter is all that is.Science says that everything that doesn't affect the material world are meaningless since it can't be validated by science. It's out of it's scope.

It's quite peculiar how he portrays how biology, palenthology and geology as wrong just from the viewpoint of a layman which in the other tread admitted that he is "new to ID and science" and that I should be able to learn enough in a few days to be able to fairly judge a discussion about bacterial DNA on proffesional level. I'll hope he claims that my 238U92 dating is wrong to. Then physics is wrong to.

[ID-guy]

More plausible explanation, you didn't know.Trust me, I did.


Except that I were not talking about a word but a sequence.A word is a sequence. It is a sequence of letters. Just like DNA is a sequence of nucleic acids.


BTW you need a scientific definition of science to be able to claim that something can not create it. A good test you could do on this would be to use ID to derive which changes in a DNA sequence would destroy information (since ID claims that mutations can destroy information but not add) and which would add information. Then you could test over a plausible amount of times and speciemen and see if the mutation were only of the kind that destroyed information. If ID had been a serious it would try to design some kind of similar experiment. But since it isn't it just pseudoscience.Not my fault you never read The Edge of Evolution by M. Behe. You would be surprised! :D


And which is that?An information is knowledge. Materialised information is data. It is represented by a group of enteties in a system that has a meaning.


See my above post about uranium and it's decay.Quote it.


There is nothing to agree with. Derived from basic mathemathical terms. Not my fault that you don't understand it enough, you could try out with your different values for N0 and check. What you are claiming is just that the formula needs a different No value. And through other science branches it is possible to narrow the No values down, it's not like it's been wildly fluctuating thorugh the years.You don't get it. You don't know the amount of C14 in the atmosphere at the time the animal died. So you can't calculate anything.

[ID-guy]

Well, objectively, we are meaningless. And that's abiogenesis, not evolution. Anyway, point is, Evolution fits into none of those definitions.Abiogenesis is not evolution but it is aa part of "Evolution" with a capital "E". You know, the whole package. Since Evolution (evolution + abiogenesis) tell us where we came from and that we are meaningless, that makes Evolution a religion. So yeah, it fits.



No they aren't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism)
They are not real communists. Marx didn't like religion. And religion is not compatible with communism.


Science in general is a form of materialism, not just evolution. If we're going to be debating materialism, we're getting into philosophy.No it is not. Science is a search for truth, whatever it is. Naturalism is a form of materialism that seeks to explain the world only through material sources.


Yes, I realise that. But there are a wealth of evolutionary peer-reviewed papers, as I've already mentioned, though, I use wikipedia for copyright reasons.And there are PR ID papers, so what?


The Scientific community; that is, universities and laboratories around the world. The concensus lies squarely with evolution.So the point is, the people you say are relyable, are the ones that support your position, and therefore they are relyable. Circluar logic...


Here, at least, we're in agreement.Fine, than don't mention Dover trial, or any other arguments from authority like: "Scientific comunity accepts my views and not yours!!!"


The proof is given on a smaller scale, these examples fit with the predictions. It is not proof in and of itself, but combined with the theory that explains why, and that all current observations fit with, it is.
You misunderstood this earlier; relative dating is used in combination with absolute dating, which does not rely on relative dating, breaking the circle.Exactly, it's just a prediction. Not proof. ID can do the same thing. The designer used similar design on all living things and that is why we have similarity! Is this proof of design, or just an assumption?

This is neither proof for evolution or ID. It's just similarity. And similarity is no proof at all!

[ID-guy]

Science says that everything that doesn't affect the material world are meaningless since it can't be validated by science. It's out of it's scope.

It's quite peculiar how he portrays how biology, palenthology and geology as wrong just from the viewpoint of a layman which in the other tread admitted that he is "new to ID and science" and that I should be able to learn enough in a few days to be able to fairly judge a discussion about bacterial DNA on proffesional level. I'll hope he claims that my 238U92 dating is wrong to. Then physics is wrong to.But that doesn't mean that non-material enteties do not exist, and that they do not affect material world.

[eyedrop]

But that doesn't mean that non-material enteties do not exist, and that they do not affect material world. Then the effect would be part of the material world.


Trust me, I did.Why did you choose the weak refutation then? Which was just that one of variables where badly evalueted?


That is information in day-to-day conversation. Information is a different beeing in science. Information is a quantifiable consept, do you know that the event-horizon of a black hole is related to the information it cointains for example? Your definition of it is subjective as what makes meaning is subjective.

You can't really claim that something can't mutate more information when you don't have a way to measure information.


Not my fault you never read The Edge of Evolution by M. Behe. You would be surprised! http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif
Yes i know that you as a layman with little experience in science recommends it; but that doesnt weigh heavily with me. Why haven't you been able to show any results of such experiments to the public? It's not like you wouldn't get the support of the entire Christian-Right and all the money there if you had it?



You don't get it. You don't know the amount of C14 in the atmosphere at the time the animal died. So you can't calculate anything.I've already adressed it in the what you quoted. And yes they don't know it exactly, but that is why they calculate with uncertainties.





Quote:

See my above post about uranium and it's decay.Quote it.Because you ignored it the first time I posted it I should post it again? Besides don't you already know that it is wrong before you know what it is? It's a way to date which works over long time that only needs stones, that has solified, which cointain 238U92.

[ID-guy]

Then the effect would be part of the material world.Exactly. but the source is still non-material.


Why did you choose the weak refutation then? Which was just that one of variables where badly evalueted?I did what where? :confused:


That is information in regular talk. Information is a different beeing in science. Information is a quantifiable consept,Yes I do know it is quantifiable. The information I'm talking about and that is scientific is the same thing. And you quantify it by calculation the CSI.


do you know that the event-horizon of a black hole is related to the information it cointains for example? Your definition of it is subjective as what makes meaning is subjective. No. It is not subjective. It is objective. Once you specified an inforamtion you created information and it is meaningful, it is real, it is objective. If someone understands that information or not, is not the point. The point is that information is objective once you create it.


You can't really claim that something can't mutate more information when you don't have a way to measure information.Ever heard of bytes? That's teh way to measure it. And the way to quantify it is by using CSI. There are finite numbers of nucleotides in the genome, so yeah you can measure and quantify it.


I've already adressed it in the what you quoted.I didn't see it.


Because you ignored it the first time I posted it I should post it again? It's a way to date which works over long time that only needs stones, that has solified, which cointain 238U92.I didn't see it. But now that you mention it, that method is bad also, bacuse it gives inconsistant dates. So it gives few dates, and than the ones that seem to be good, are selected as the right ones. That's not how you do science.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/earth.asp



This is not an isolated case. I selected it because it was identified by the journal editors as a significant advance in knowledge. Another example is the work of F.A. Podosek, J. Pier, O. Nitoh, S. Zashu, and M. Ozima (Nature 334:607–609, 1988). They found what might have been the world’s oldest rock crystals, but unfortunately they were too old!
They extracted diamonds from rocks in Zaire and found by the potassium-argon method that they (the diamonds) were six billion years old. But the earth is supposed to be only 4.5 billion years old. So Podosek and friends decided they must be wrong. They admitted, however, that if the date had not been contradicted by the ‘known’ age of the earth, they would have accepted it as valid.

Now, before you accuse me of posting creationist's links. Notice that the article is talking about an article published in Nature by standard evolutionist scientists.

[Kronos]

Excuse me for butting in, but wouldn't it be far more difficult to falsify an intelligent design theory than an evolutionary theory?

To say that the scientific method has not been able to answer all questions, or provide necessary conclusive evidence, is not to say that it cannot in the future, nor is it to say that our questions actually can be answered in the first place.

The burden of proof is on the creationists, and to pester science with this "god of the gaps" crap is a waste of time and effort.

Let's suppose intelligent design is true. Don't stop there. Explain how and why the universe was intelligently created. Creationists will soon find themselves in a maze of ridiculous theory and speculation- "uh I dunno...God was bored I guess", or "umm....God was the first cause and defied his own logic when he created Hume, but, like the dinosaur bones, Hume was also a trick, because God is a prankster, and he screwed up when he told Paul what to right in the bible because he accidentally made racist comments, so he changed his mind and spoke to some other folks who were to re-write the bible and split Christianity into endless denominations, like the baptists, who are not allowed to dance because it is against God's wishes, but who should wrap poisonous snakes around their necks to test their faith"......on and on and on the ridiculous nonsense goes.

No, it is much more difficult to even begin to try to understand the reason for creation, the intent for creation, what one should do in life (if you can make sense out of the fortune-cookie talk in any religious text).

Alternatively, humanism and science can utilize what we do know to make life better. Fortunately we don't need to know everything about the universe to do that. And really, people need to realize that anthropomorphic interpretations of "God" are as silly as they are complicated. The first and last thing ever said about "God", that is even remotely comprehensible, was said by Spinoza. There is the infinite nature of substance and its modes of extension. That's it. No personality, no "love", no intention, no purpose, no design. We are part of an eternal machine and there is nothing more to it. Eons passed before we evolved and eons will continue to pass after we are gone.

If the religious crap continues much longer on this earth, we will end up cutting our time shorter than it could've been. Religion has never once, not once, accomplished anything progressive for the human species. If anything it steadily fucking everything up.

[ID-guy]

Excuse me for butting in, but wouldn't it be far more difficult to falsify an intelligent design theory than an evolutionary theory? No. You can't falsify evolution. Because it's a religion not science. On the other hand, you just have to show how naturalistic processes create information, and you falsified ID.


To say that the scientific method has not been able to answer all questions, or provide necessary conclusive evidence, is not to say that it cannot in the future, nor is it to say that our questions actually can be answered in the first place.I have no problem with tthis.


The burden of proof is on the creationists, and to pester science with this "god of the gaps" crap is a waste of time and effort.ID is not god of the gaps.


Let's suppose intelligent design is true. Don't stop there. Explain how and why the universe was intelligently created.Why? ID is not about that. Why don't you explain how evolution biulds houses! What? Evolution is not about that you say? Well, duh, neither is ID about explaining how the designer bulds stuff.


Creationists will soon find themselves in a maze of ridiculous theory and speculation- "uh I dunno...God was bored I guess", or "umm....God was the first cause and defied his own logic when he created Hume, but, like the dinosaur bones, Hume was also a trick, because God is a prankster, and he screwed up when he told Paul what to right in the bible because he accidentally made racist comments, so he changed his mind and spoke to some other folks who were to re-write the bible and split Christianity into endless denominations, like the baptists, who are not allowed to dance because it is against God's wishes, but who should wrap poisonous snakes around their necks to test their faith"......on and on and on the ridiculous nonsense goes.This has nothing to do with ID, you are talking about the Bible. Go somewhere else to talk about that please.


No, it is much more difficult to even begin to try to understand the reason for creation, the intent for creation, what one should do in life (if you can make sense out of the fortune-cookie talk in any religious text). And again, the "reason" for creatin is not in the domain of ID. It's not something you are supposed to discover while detecting design.


Alternatively, humanism and science can utilize what we do know to make life better. Fortunately we don't need to know everything about the universe to do that. And really, people need to realize that anthropomorphic interpretations of "God" are as silly as they are complicated. The first and last thing ever said about "God", that is even remotely comprehensible, was said by Spinoza. There is the infinite nature of substance and its modes of extension. That's it. No personality, no "love", no intention, no purpose, no design. We are part of an eternal machine and there is nothing more to it. Eons passed before we evolved and eons will continue to pass after we are gone.Again, this is philosophy not science.


If the religious crap continues much longer on this earth, we will end up cutting our time shorter than it could've been. Religion has never once, not once, accomplished anything progressive for the human species. If anything it steadily fucking everything up.I agree, that is why we have to get rid of this religion called Evolution as soon as possible.

[Dean]

No. You can't falsify evolution. Because it's a religion not science. On the other hand, you just have to show how naturalistic processes create information, and you falsified ID.

I can't believe this debate is still going on.

First off, neither can be falsified. Even if a natural process created something, since it can't be proven (because it is in the past) you creationist hacks will still say "it's not science blah blah God blah," so no, ID can't be falsified. You don't understand the concept. To falsify something is to definitively prove that it is wrong: falsification is a mode of scientific inquiry by which tests can show that something is plausible, not factual.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Falsifiability can only be applied to something if it deals in concrete concepts. ID deals with the concept that there is an unknown, deliberate will creating things. That can conceivably exist under any conditions, because it is rooted in an exteriorization of the subjects you would test if it was falsifiable.

Fianally, get it through your creationist caveman head that falsifiability is irrelevant to either Evolution or ID. The closest it gets is that you can falsify evidence that makes up the mounds of empirical data for evolution. Since ID is purely a supernaturalist concept, none of its "evidence" (which is really pure conjecture) can be falsified. But Evolution relies on inductive and deductive reasoning, so the falsifiability issue doesn't apply to its relevance. Its existence is scientific for other reasons. And your mysticism isn't even related to any observable data or reason.

Please, just go burn yourself alive, you useless hack. Nobody here really gives a fuck about your childish obsession with creationism, so go see if some hillbilly Sunday school wants to hear this drivel. We don't.

[eyedrop]

I didn't see it. But now that you mention it, that method is bad also, bacuse it gives inconsistant dates. So it gives few dates, and than the ones that seem to be good, are selected as the right ones. That's not how you do science.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/earth.asp



Now, before you accuse me of posting creationist's links. Notice that the article is talking about an article published in Nature by standard evolutionist scientists.

That was actually a decent article, it wasn't filled with all the mumbo-jumbo that regularly accompanies creationists articles. I would have liked to read the original Nature article but that's only for subscribers.

As one can see from the wiki page on Nature they have done some faulty peer review before. The article is just claims without references, I'm supposed to believe everything she tells me about the methods used by them? They just picked a crystal at random? Sounds unplausible that they did it that way.


I don't really get what you are saying with C14 dating? Are you claiming that we got no idea how much C14 there have been in the atmosphere earlier, because that is just untrue. And it's entirely possible to calculate with a uncertainty on the No value.

[ID-guy]

I can't believe this debate is still going on.

First off, neither can be falsified. Even if a natural process created something, since it can't be proven (because it is in the past) you creationist hacks will still say "it's not science blah blah God blah," so no, ID can't be falsified. You don't understand the concept. To falsify something is to definitively prove that it is wrong: falsification is a mode of scientific inquiry by which tests can show that something is plausible, not factual.Wrong. You can't falsify evolution. You can falsify ID. Just show that natural forces can create information and ID becomes redundant. ID claims that only intelligence can create information. We have NEVER, EVER, seen anything else do it. So if you can show that natural forces can create information i will galdly admit that DNA could be a product of natural forces.


Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Falsifiability can only be applied to something if it deals in concrete concepts. ID deals with the concept that there is an unknown, deliberate will creating things. That can conceivably exist under any conditions, because it is rooted in an exteriorization of the subjects you would test if it was falsifiable.

Fianally, get it through your creationist caveman head that falsifiability is irrelevant to either Evolution or ID. The closest it gets is that you can falsify evidence that makes up the mounds of empirical data for evolution. Since ID is purely a supernaturalist concept, none of its "evidence" (which is really pure conjecture) can be falsified. But Evolution relies on inductive and deductive reasoning, so the falsifiability issue doesn't apply to its relevance. Its existence is scientific for other reasons. And your mysticism isn't even related to any observable data or reason.You're an idiot. I don't really knwo what to say to you anymore. God damn you really are stupid. You don't even know what I calim to be evidence for ID yet you calim they are supernatural. Go kick yourself in the head!


Please, just go burn yourself alive, you useless hack. Nobody here really gives a fuck about your childish obsession with creationism, so go see if some hillbilly Sunday school wants to hear this drivel. We don't.FU red!

[ID-guy]

That was actually a decent article, it wasn't filled with all the mumbo-jumbo that regularly accompanies creationists articles. I would have liked to read the original Nature article but that's only for subscribers.

As one can see from the wiki page on Nature they have done some faulty peer review before. The article is just claims without references, I'm supposed to believe everything she tells me about the methods used by them? They just picked a crystal at random? Sounds unplausible that they did it that way.Trust me, there are tons of articles like this. This was just one example. You just can't use those dating methods since they all show different dates. The ones that get selected are the ones that seem to be "correct" ones. Google it, you'll see what I'm talking about.


I don't really get what you are saying with C14 dating? Are you claiming that we got no idea how much C14 there have been in the atmosphere earlier, because that is just untrue. And it's entirely possible to calculate with a uncertainty on the No value.You can't know. You can't calcualte what the atmosphere was like 15.000 years ago. And no, rocks don't help, because C14 is not used for dating rocks.


Carbon-14 is not appropriate for rocks because it must involve organic carbon. Rocks are made of minerals that are by definition inorganic.

http://serc.carleton.edu/quantskills/methods/quantlit/RadDecay.html

[Dean]

Wrong. You can't falsify evolution. You can falsify ID. Just show that natural forces can create information and ID becomes redundant. ID claims that only intelligence can create information. We have NEVER, EVER, seen anything else do it. So if you can show that natural forces can create information i will galdly admit that DNA could be a product of natural forces.
Whoa, whoa whoa - natural forces??? As opposed to what? SUPERnatural forces? You do realize that something that is not natural is something that doesn't exist, right? And then:


You're an idiot. I don't really knwo what to say to you anymore. God damn you really are stupid. You don't even know what I calim to be evidence for ID yet you calim they are supernatural. Go kick yourself in the head!

FU red!
You just admitted that they are!

[ID-guy]

Whoa, whoa whoa - natural forces??? As opposed to what? SUPERnatural forces? You do realize that something that is not natural is something that doesn't exist, right? And then:By natural forces I mean, forces like gravity, light, fire, wind, erosion, tides etc. Show me where those can create information and you falsified ID. Unlike Evolution which can't be falsified.


You just admitted that they are!I did not. Learn to read AND understand the text.

[Dean]

By natural forces I mean, forces like gravity, light, fire, wind, erosion, tides etc. Show me where those can create information and you falsified ID.
Again, you are saying that your theory presupposes an entirely external entity to the natural world. Please read about the meaning of the term "nature." You will find that any convinced theist will agree that his god is a part of nature.

Also, I highly doubt that you will give up your obsession when presented with any data, so I won't waste my time re-researching it. I am sure you have found plenty of apologies for the data which doesn't fit with your schematics. As Einstein said, "if the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts!"


Finally, if you really do believe that genetic changes in a population or sample falsify your theory, then you have thoroughly discredited yourself.


Unlike Evolution which can't be falsified.The evolution of genetic traits is a proven fact, and its rationale resides in basic logic. When genetic mutations occur this "creates information" (I'm assuming that you meant new genes by that term) and so it only takes a single mutation to become dominant - an observed occurances - for not only evolution to occur (which doesn't even need a new gene, but simply a change in genetic tendancies), but also for the evolution into a "new information" to occur. Your theory crashes down, and I have no doubt you are relishing the feces - infested neurons which cater to your bullshit.


I did not. Learn to read AND understand the text.Yes, you did. The dichotomy is very distinct: what is not natural, is supernatural, at least in the context of these scientific arguments.


You wanna know what really pisses me off about you? You don't give a damn about any of the great things religion has brought us (and before you jump on me comrades, I am well aware that there is just as much if not more evil in religion). You only care about the widely unscientific, irreligious perversion that creationism is. Why don't you read something a truly noble man who tried to use religion for positive change: Paul Tillich Archive (http://www.theology.ie/theologians/tillich.htm)
or by this man: Joseph Fletcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics)

Or you can stick to your admittedly supernatural ways of holding on to your dying drive for religiosity. I'm damn proud that I can embrace my religious past in the positive traditions I adhered to, and admire others who try to make positive change in theh church away from supernaturalism and divisiveness, and towards a truly humanist, spiritual position.

[eyedrop]

Trust me, there are tons of articles like this. This was just one example. You just can't use those dating methods since they all show different dates. The ones that get selected are the ones that seem to be "correct" ones. Google it, you'll see what I'm talking about. Yes the internet is full of conspirationist theories agreed.

And let's see what happens when radimetric dating is used on suitable rocks.


The uppermost ash bed, dated by three independent methods (K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr), and from as many as three different minerals (felspar, biotite, and zircon), yields a date of about 72.5 ± 0.4 million years ago (Ma) (weighted mean of several analyses. The numbers above are just summary values). The results for the lower ash bed, although not as complete as for the upper ash bed (only the Rb/Sr isochron method -- the U/Pb isochron was discordant, indicating the minerals did not preserve the date), give the expected result from superpositional relationships -- it is older by about a million years (73.65 ± 0.59 Ma), taking the mean values.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html (about halvway down, A good example?)
Why did all the different dating methods end up with almost the same result?


You can't know. You can't calcualte what the atmosphere was like 15.000 years ago. And no, rocks don't help, because C14 is not used for dating rocks. If you've read my links this would have been explained to you already.

But anyway here is the link http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2676


Beck and colleagues tested slices of a half-metre long stalagmite that grew between 45 000 and 11 000 years ago in a cave in the Bahamas. Stalagmites are calcium carbonate deposits left behind when carbon dioxide evaporates out of cave seepage water. They found that carbon-14 concentrations were twice their modern level during that period. Current records of the levels of carbon-14 in the atmosphere only cover the last 16 thousand years, and this discovery extends those records a further 30 thousand years.





http://serc.carleton.edu/quantskills/methods/quantlit/RadDecay.html (http://serc.carleton.edu/quantskills/methods/quantlit/RadDecay.html)

Thanks for telling me what I already know

[ID-guy]

Again, you are saying that your theory presupposes an entirely external entity to the natural world. Please read about the meaning of the term "nature." You will find that any convinced theist will agree that his god is a part of nature.No it does not.


Also, I highly doubt that you will give up your obsession when presented with any data, so I won't waste my time re-researching it. I am sure you have found plenty of apologies for the data which doesn't fit with your schematics. As Einstein said, "if the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts!"Your opinion of me does not influence reality.


Finally, if you really do believe that genetic changes in a population or sample falsify your theory, then you have thoroughly discredited yourself.They do not falsify my theory.


The evolution of genetic traits is a proven fact, and its rationale resides in basic logic. When genetic mutations occur this "creates information" (I'm assuming that you meant new genes by that term) and so it only takes a single mutation to become dominant - an observed occurances - for not only evolution to occur (which doesn't even need a new gene, but simply a change in genetic tendancies), but also for the evolution into a "new information" to occur. Your theory crashes down, and I have no doubt you are relishing the feces - infested neurons which cater to your bullshit.You retarded ape. New genes do not equal new information. When will your aborted embrionic head understand that?


Yes, you did. The dichotomy is very distinct: what is not natural, is supernatural, at least in the context of these scientific arguments.IMBECILE! Stop telling me what I said. Id never said it is not natural. I said it was not a natural FORCE or a natural PROCESS!


You wanna know what really pisses me off about you? You don't give a damn about any of the great things religion has brought us (and before you jump on me comrades, I am well aware that there is just as much if not more evil in religion). You only care about the widely unscientific, irreligious perversion that creationism is. Why don't you read something a truly noble man who tried to use religion for positive change: Paul Tillich Archive (http://www.theology.ie/theologians/tillich.htm)
or by this man: Joseph Fletcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics)

Or you can stick to your admittedly supernatural ways of holding on to your dying drive for religiosity. I'm damn proud that I can embrace my religious past in the positive traditions I adhered to, and admire others who try to make positive change in theh church away from supernaturalism and divisiveness, and towards a truly humanist, spiritual position.You are stupid.

[ID-guy]

Yes the internet is full of conspirationist theories agreed.I'm not talking about conspirac theories. I'm talking about the truth. If you don't want to check it out for yourself than don't.


And let's see what happens when radimetric dating is used on suitable rocks.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html (about halvway down, A good example?)
Why did all the different dating methods end up with almost the same result?Because they god the same results thats why. But hat happened THIS time. It doesn't happen all the time. And if it doesn't happen all the time, than how do you know they are right any time?


If you've read my links this would have been explained to you already.

But anyway here is the link http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2676No. You can't know that. You do not know that they are between 45.000 and 11.000 years old. And if you don't know that, than you don't know the amount of C14 in the atmosphere in the past.


Thanks for telling me what I already knowNo problem, glad to help...

[eyedrop]

I'm not talking about conspirac theories. I'm talking about the truth. If you don't want to check it out for yourself than don't.I'll take my chances.


Because they god the same results thats why. But hat happened THIS time. It doesn't happen all the time. And if it doesn't happen all the time, than how do you know they are right any time? By random? That's an abysmally small chance. There's a weird thing that it happens almost all the time when it's suitably applied. So you agree that they managed to determine the date in that case?


No. You can't know that. You do not know that they are between 45.000 and 11.000 years old. And if you don't know that, than you don't know the amount of C14 in the atmosphere in the past. It's funny how you first have to dismiss one scientific method, and to dismiss that one you have to dismiss the method that one is built on. Wonder when it's gonna stop.


No problem, glad to help... Recieved noone.

[eyedrop]

Abit more on the subject


Radiometric dating gives unreliable results. Source:

Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 24.
Response:


Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD020.html) or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.
Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:
The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).
Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997).
Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).
Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).
The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990).

[Dean]

No it does not.

Your opinion of me does not influence reality.

They do not falsify my theory.

You retarded ape. New genes do not equal new information. When will your aborted embrionic head understand that?

IMBECILE! Stop telling me what I said. Id never said it is not natural. I said it was not a natural FORCE or a natural PROCESS!

You are stupid.

At least my insults came with reasoned responses.

Again, just leave the forum. The presence of brain dead creeps like you disgusts me immensely.

[MarxSchmarx]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarxSchmarx http://img.revleft.com/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1136820#post1136820)
I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but no more.

Look, do you deny DNA as the basis of heredity and phenotypes? Even "ID" people affirm this.

Why the fuck would I deny it?

Quote:
If DNA is the basis of heredity and phenotypes, it follows that organisms with similar DNA will have similar phenotypes. This has nothing to do with the theory of natural selection.
When did I say that it does have anything to do with it?

Quote:
Let me draw it out for you. Suppose the flying spaghetti monster created every species de novo. "He" used DNA as the genetic code, and DNA is translated into proteins. ID is on board with this.

it therefore follows that, under this fantasy, my kid and I should have more similar DNA than me and a person I'm not related to. I mean, ID people are ok with paternity testing, right? The more similar any organisms are, the more DNA they share. Is it any surprise that cows share more DNA with other cows than they do with alligators?
The point of this crap is?

Quote:
If you are denying this, you have no idea what you are talking about.
What the fuck am I denying? Who are you even talking to!?

Geez LUIZ do ah have to spell it out for you AGAIN????

Paternity testing, similarity of cow DNA, all of which you accept, are consequences of this "circular logic" you use:


So of course they are going to be said to be close relatives because they are similar, and of course they are going to have similar DNA since they are similar. It's still circular logic.So the only way you could claim this "circular logic" invalidates a given theory (including evolution by natural selection), is if you refuse to accept DNA as the basis of heredity. An absurd proposition, as you've assented to. If you accept DNA as the basis of heredity, you must accept the validity of this claim you insist is "circular logic". Which it isn't, but even if were, just because it's circular doesn't make it wrong.

[apathy maybe]

You can't use C14 dating since it depends on the C14 being in equillibrium in the atmosphere. But it's not. C14 is still building up. So when you measure the amount of C14 in artifacts you want to know how old they are, you are going to get the wrong date. Since C14 method is actually calculating the ratio between the amount C14 in the atmosphere and the artifact you are measuring. If there is no equilibrium than you can not measure it, since you are always going to get the wrong number.

I wanted to respond to this early, but I didn't. Ice cores. You fail.

[ID-guy]

I'll take my chances.Than what are you doing here on this topic? If you just want to troll around than I suggest you find something better to do.


By random? That's an abysmally small chance. There's a weird thing that it happens almost all the time when it's suitably applied. So you agree that they managed to determine the date in that case?No I do not. I just said that they got the same numbers, not that they were the right ones.


It's funny how you first have to dismiss one scientific method, and to dismiss that one you have to dismiss the method that one is built on. Wonder when it's gonna stop.I'm only dismissing what's false.


Recieved noone.I'll remember that.

[ID-guy]

At least my insults came with reasoned responses.

Again, just leave the forum. The presence of brain dead creeps like you disgusts me immensely.Why don't you leave? I don't like you anyway.

[ID-guy]

Geez LUIZ do ah have to spell it out for you AGAIN????

Paternity testing, similarity of cow DNA, all of which you accept, are consequences of this "circular logic" you use:

So the only way you could claim this "circular logic" invalidates a given theory (including evolution by natural selection), is if you refuse to accept DNA as the basis of heredity. An absurd proposition, as you've assented to. If you accept DNA as the basis of heredity, you must accept the validity of this claim you insist is "circular logic". Which it isn't, but even if were, just because it's circular doesn't make it wrong.It's not wrong it's circular. And if it's circular its not falsifiable.

[ID-guy]

I wanted to respond to this early, but I didn't. Ice cores. You fail.They don't work either. You fail, go away now.

[apathy maybe]

They don't work either. You fail, go away now.

Why don't they work? Come on, explain it for us.

You keep making statements that go against the available evidence without providing any evidence to support your statements.

Anyway, a final message for you.

DINOSAUR GAME!
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/160/406307977_2c314e7172.jpg?v=0

[ID-guy]

Why don't you explain how they work? Why would I have to explain myself, you stupid red dick, if you won't explain yourself first?

[apathy maybe]

I'm not a mod or an admin, but just to warn you, trolling, flaming and spamming aren't accepted around here.

Saying "stupid red dick" doesn't add anything to the debate and merely makes you look like someone who can't debate.

As to why you should explain why they don't work, rather then me explain why they do:
Layers of ice in Antarctica and Greenland form over the years. As you go down into the ice sheet, you will find progressively older ice. Now this ice contains air trapped when the ice formed. Thus, scientists have a clear progression from now back to when the ice sheets first formed of what the composition of the air was at that particular point.

Now, you explain why scientists can't use ice cores to measure the amount of different things in air and then use mathematics to work out whether (for example) carbon dioxide is increasing or not.

Oh right, you can't. You rejected my claim as if you know what I was talking about. If you know what I'm talking about, you should be able to explain why I am wrong without me explaining. Yet you require explanation!

Anyway, dinosaur game!
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/images/behemoth/biblesaur.jpg

[ID-guy]

I'm not a mod or an admin, but just to warn you, trolling, flaming and spamming aren't accepted around here.

Saying "stupid red dick" doesn't add anything to the debate and merely makes you look like someone who can't debate. And how the fuck does your posting pictures of dinosaurs with the Bible add anything to the debate!? You are the one who can't debate since you started with this shit first!


As to why you should explain why they don't work, rather then me explain why they do:
Layers of ice in Antarctica and Greenland form over the years. As you go down into the ice sheet, you will find progressively older ice. Now this ice contains air trapped when the ice formed. Thus, scientists have a clear progression from now back to when the ice sheets first formed of what the composition of the air was at that particular point.

Now, you explain why scientists can't use ice cores to measure the amount of different things in air and then use mathematics to work out whether (for example) carbon dioxide is increasing or not.

Oh right, you can't. You rejected my claim as if you know what I was talking about. If you know what I'm talking about, you should be able to explain why I am wrong without me explaining. Yet you require explanation! They date them by the anual layers. They assume that the layers are created every year. But some of them are, and some are not. Some are created during shifts from colder to warmer weater. So you can't know their age by the layers.

[apathy maybe]

You don't know of the dinosaur game? Obviously not!

Dinosaur game!

[ID-guy]

Obviously not! So either get your act together or don't come back.

[Kami]

Obviously not! So either get your act together or don't come back.

Right back at you.

[ID-guy]

Right back at what? I'm doing nothing wrong. It's you all who are mad because you know nothing about what I'm talking about.

[eyedrop]

Than what are you doing here on this topic? If you just want to troll around than I suggest you find something better to do. I don't see what the point would be in me finding some parts of bad science done?


No I do not. I just said that they got the same numbers, not that they were the right ones. Why did they get the numbers? And why do we continue to get the same numbers?


I'm only dismissing what's false. What you believe to be false. Sure what we know about the world now is bound to cointain some errors but it's not those you randomly dismiss to get creation to fit in.

[ID-guy]

I don't see what the point would be in me finding some parts of bad science done?There is bad science all over the place.


Why did they get the numbers? And why do we continue to get the same numbers?Because they get all kind of numbers and some will be bound to be the same.


What you believe to be false. Sure what we know about the world now is bound to cointain some errors but it's not those you randomly dismiss to get creation to fit in.No, what I know to be false according to the best scientific knowledge today.

[eyedrop]

There is bad science all over the place. Agreed, and your filter has obviously failed.


Because they get all kind of numbers and some will be bound to be the same. Does not explain consistency


No, what I know to be false according to the best scientific knowledge today.
And the best scientific knowledge today says that most of the your dismissed sciences (methods) works.

[ID-guy]

Agreed, and your filter has obviously failed.Nope, don't agree here.


Does not explain consistencyThere is no consistency. I told you, you get it "right" few times and that's that. So how do you know the "right" time was right?


And the best scientific knowledge today says that most of the your dismissed sciences (methods) works.I follow the scientific method and it tells me that ID is right.

[eyedrop]

There is no consistency. I told you, you get it "right" few times and that's that. So how do you know the "right" time was right? Yes there is. Do a statistical analysis if you'd like.

[ID-guy]

Yes there is. Do a statistical analysis if you'd like.If there was one, than there wouldn't be so many cases of non-consistency. And if there are cases of non-consistecy, than that makes the whole case non-consistant.

[Dimentio]

Not that I care, but scientists usually don't "believe" in evolution like you are believing in creationism. You cannot have a "faith" when you are dealing with plausible theories regarding different issues.

The difference between evolutionists and creationists is that evolutionists look at physical evidence trough physical analyses, while creationists see what they want to see.

And even if the theory of evolution is incorrect, it is still no evidence for creationism.

Creationism as a doctrine is based on faith that nature somewhat is intentional and designed, while darwinism is merely an analysis of a possible way to see why we have such a diversity of species.

And even if God did create the world in six days, that would'nt provide my life with some intrinsic meaning. No force external from myself could provide a meaning with my life without infringing on my autonomy.

[eyedrop]

If there was one, than there wouldn't be so many cases of non-consistency. And if there are cases of non-consistecy, than that makes the whole case non-consistant. Yes there is, you just have to filter out the bad science and the cases which where undatable.

[ID-guy]

Not that I care, but scientists usually don't "believe" in evolution like you are believing in creationism.I don't believe in creationism.


You cannot have a "faith" when you are dealing with plausible theories regarding different issues.Evolution is not a plausible theory.


The difference between evolutionists and creationists is that evolutionists look at physical evidence trough physical analyses, while creationists see what they want to see.This is a blatant lie. You can't prove this.


And even if the theory of evolution is incorrect, it is still no evidence for creationism.Never said it was, so what's your point?


Creationism as a doctrine is based on faith that nature somewhat is intentional and designed, while darwinism is merely an analysis of a possible way to see why we have such a diversity of species.No, darwinisim is a way of explaining nature by using only material causes.


And even if God did create the world in six days, that would'nt provide my life with some intrinsic meaning. No force external from myself could provide a meaning with my life without infringing on my autonomy.Who the hell is talking about God creating world in six days here!?

[ID-guy]

Yes there is, you just have to filter out the bad science and the cases which where undatable.If some were undateable, how do you know that others are dateable?

[Dimentio]

I don't believe in creationism.

Okay, Intelligent Design then.


Evolution is not a plausible theory.

Well, the material evidence points in that direction, and that's how science works.


This is a blatant lie. You can't prove this.

Nothing could be proved at all, but we are seeking for a better understanding, not truth.


No, darwinisim is a way of explaining nature by using only material causes.

And what other causes should we look at? Opinions?


Who the hell is talking about God creating world in six days here!?

I did not point at you specifically, but in general. If it was true, it would'nt make the world more meaningful at all.

[ID-guy]

Okay, Intelligent Design then.Yes, but I accept it because of the evidence.


Well, the material evidence points in that direction, and that's how science works.No, it doesn't, that's why I don't accept it.


Nothing could be proved at all, but we are seeking for a better understanding, not truth.You can prove that a rock is standing infront of you. If you see something, that is proof that it's there.


And what other causes should we look at? Opinions?An intelligent cause.


I did not point at you specifically, but in general. If it was true, it would'nt make the world more meaningful at all.You mean in a subjective way? Well than, that's your opinion. I have no problem with it.

[eyedrop]

If some were undateable, how do you know that others are dateable?

Because some don't fit the criterias neccesary for dating by that method.

[Destroy capitalism]

well you can have one criterion or several criteria but there's no such word as 'criterias'
fyi

[ID-guy]

Because some don't fit the criterias neccesary for dating by that method.And those were?

[eyedrop]

Sorry mr. grammar police, what punishment is it for the crime? I'll suppose it is 2 weeks without chilinuts. But thanks anyway never hurts to improve ones grammar, I support a ban on all words that don't fit the regular grammar rules.

And to ID-guy: Find them yourself.

[ID-guy]

I'm not going to search for your arguments.

[eyedrop]

If you knew anything about radiomethric dating you would know them. Every method of obtaining data only work under certain circumstances.

[ID-guy]

If you knew anything about radiomethric dating you would know them. Every method of obtaining data only work under certain circumstances.Which are?

[Pawn Power]

ID-guy,

You convinced me. I now believe that we, and all living organisms, were intelligently designed by a Creator. Your reasoning is simply watertight. What else could possibly explain the complexity of life on earth but an even more complex “being” designing it all? I was merely confounded by the erroneous evidence of the fossil record. You have proved the “circular logic” and flawed presumptions of archeological dating methods with statements like “Yes, I know about them, and they are all wrong. Since they are based on faulty assumptions” and you have convincingly demonstrated that evolution is in fact a religion (unlike ID); “You got no proof of evolution. Yet you believe it. That is called a religion.” Your logical arguments like, “Evolution is not a plausible theory” and “Evolution is a religion for god sakes!” demonstrates your superior use of the scientific method and your passion for the truth. One cannot possibly hold valid the "evidence" for evolution against the substantial critiques your have made. The one thing I can't believe is that so many have been so blindly following the supposed "scientific method" of "established" biologists when, in reality, intelligent design upholds the scientific method!

[ID-guy]

ID-guy,

You convinced me. I now believe that we, and all living organisms, were intelligently designed by a Creator. Your reasoning is simply watertight. What else could possibly explain the complexity of life on earth but an even more complex “being” designing it all? I was merely confounded by the erroneous evidence of the fossil record. You have proved the “circular logic” and flawed presumptions of archeological dating methods with statements like “Yes, I know about them, and they are all wrong. Since they are based on faulty assumptions” and you have convincingly demonstrated that evolution is in fact a religion (unlike ID); “You got no proof of evolution. Yet you believe it. That is called a religion.” Your logical arguments like, “Evolution is not a plausible theory” and “Evolution is a religion for god sakes!” demonstrates your superior use of the scientific method and your passion for the truth. One cannot possibly hold valid the "evidence" for evolution against the substantial critiques your have made. The one thing I can't believe is that so many have been so blindly following the supposed "scientific method" of "established" biologists when, in reality, intelligent design upholds the scientific method!
Exactly what I have been saying the whole time...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Exactly what I have been saying the whole time...

pwned!

[ID-guy]

pwned!I'm just like that you know...

[Pawn Power]

I'm just like that you know...

But only because you were created like that...

[ID-guy]

Or naturally selected? :D