Guilt by Association

_{William Dembski

October 30, 2009

Creationism, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Nick Matzke and other critics of ID like nothing better than to conflate ID with young-earth creationism (go here for the latest in this vein by Matzke). But as University of Wisconsin science historian Ron Numbers has noted, even though it’s inaccurate to conflate the two, this is “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design” (go here). Matzke, as a loyal Darwinist, is thus simply being true to form.

For the record, just because various non-ID conferences and events are reported here at UD (e.g., creationist, atheist, or theistic evolutionist) does not constitute an endorsement of those events. Nor does the appearance of an ID proponent at such events constitute complicity with the positions of the organizers. I myself have appeared at atheist (World Skeptics Congress), theistic evolutionist (Templeton conferences), and young-earth creationist (local gatherings here in Texas) events. I believe in getting the word out about ID and, frankly, am happy to have the opportunity to address people on the other side of these issues.

ID, per definitionem, is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence. It rests on two pillars: (1) that the activity of intelligent agents is sometimes detectible and (2) that nature may exhibit evidence of intelligent activity. How anyone gets young-earth creationism from this is a mystery.

Comments

Frost, sorry about the length, but the evidence against human evolution is so voluminous it is hard to get it condensed,,, The funny thing is I could have gone much further.bornagain77_{November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

Bornagain, Those were two very good posts, but the two longest posts I have seen.Frost122585_{November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

cont: Many times materialists will try to establish scientific validity for evolution by pointing to mere suggestive similarities, of one type or another, all the while ignoring profound dissimilarities. For prime example of the flimsy "similarity evidence", used by materialists to try to make their case for evolution, most materialists are adamant Darwinian evolution is proven true when we look at the supposed 98.8% genetic similarity between chimps and man. Though suggestive, the gene similarity, even if true, is not nearly good enough to be considered conclusive scientific proof. Primarily this "lack of conclusiveness" is due to concerns with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and with the Law of Conservation of Information. But of more pressing concern, body plans are not even encoded in the DNA code in the first place. This inability of body plans to be reduced directly to the DNA code is clearly shown by Cortical Inheritance. Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism - Arthur Jones - video Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JzQ8ingdNY This inability for the DNA code to account for body plans is also clearly shown by extensive mutation studies to the DNA of different organisms which show "exceedingly rare" major morphological effects from mutations to the DNA code. Hopeful monsters,' transposons, and the Metazoan radiation: Excerpt: Viable mutations with major morphological or physiological effects are exceedingly rare and usually infertile; the chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event. These problems of viable "hopeful monsters" render these explanations untenable. Paleobiologists Douglas Erwin and James Valentine This includes the highly touted four-winged fruit fly mutations. ...Advantageous anatomical mutations are never observed. The four-winged fruit fly is a case in point: The second set of wings lacks flight muscles, so the useless appendages interfere with flying and mating, and the mutant fly cannot survive long outside the laboratory. Similar mutations in other genes also produce various anatomical deformations, but they are harmful, too. In 1963, Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote that the resulting mutants “are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through natural selection." - Jonathan Wells Darwin's Theory - Fruit Flies and Morphology - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZJTIwRY0bs If that wasn't enough, the Human Genome Project really put the last nail in the coffin for "Genetic Reductionism": DNA: The Alphabet of Life - David Klinghoffer Excerpt: But all this is trivial compared to the largely unheralded insight gained from the Human Genome Project, completed in 2003. The insight is disturbing. It is that while DNA codes for the cell's building blocks, the information needed to build the rest of the creature is seemingly, in large measure, absent. ,,,The physically encoded information to form that mouse, as opposed to that fly, isn't there. Instead, "It is as if the 'idea' of the fly (or any other organism) must somehow permeate the genome that gives rise to it." Higher Levels Of Information In Life - Stephen Meyer - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HavmzWVt8IU Psalm 139:15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;,, Thus the 98.8% similarity derived from the DNA code, to the body plans of chimps and man, is purely imaginary, since it is clearly shown that the overriding "architectural plan" of the body is not even encoded in the DNA in the first place. Of more clarity though, this "98.8% similarity evidence" is derived by materialists from a very biased methodology of presuming that the 1.5% of the genome, which directly codes for proteins, has complete precedence of consideration over the other remaining 98.5% of the genome which does not directly code for proteins. Yet even when considering just this 1.5% of the genome that codes for proteins, we find that the proteins, which are directly coded by that 1.5% of the genome, are shown to differ by a huge 80% difference between chimps and man. Chimps are not like humans - May 2004 Excerpt: the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts,,, The results reported this week showed that "83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect," Sakaki said. Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005: How in the world did the proteins change by +80% while the genes, which supposedly code for those proteins, remained virtually unchanged? Why is this huge +80% anomaly ignored by materialists and only the biased genetic similarity stressed? On top of this huge +80% difference in proteins, the oft quoted 98.8% DNA similarity is not even rigorously true in the first place. Just considering this 1.5% of the genome, other recent comparisons of the protein coding genes, between chimps and man, have yielded a similarity of only 96%. Whereas, the December 2006 issue of PLoS ONE reported that human and chimpanzee gene copy numbers differ by 6.4%, which gives a similarity of only 93.6% (Hahn). Even more realistically, to how we actually should be looking at the genomes from a investigative starting point, Dr. Hugh Ross states the similarity is closer to 85% to 90% when taking into account the chimp genome is about 12% larger than the human genome. A recent, more accurate, human/chimp genome comparison study, by Richard Buggs in 2008, has found when he rigorously compared the recently completed sequences in the genomes of chimpanzees to the genomes of humans side by side, the true genome similarity between chimps and man fell to slightly below 70%! Why is this study ignored since the ENCODE study has now implicated 100% high level functionality across the entire human genome? Finding compelling evidence that implicates 100% high level functionality across the entire genome clearly shows the similarity is not to be limited to the very biased "only 1.5% of the genome" studies of materialists. Chimpanzee? 10-10-2008 - Dr Richard Buggs - research geneticist at the University of Florida ...Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%. More Chimp-Human Genome Problems - Cornelius Hunter Excerpt: Even more interesting, at these locations the chimp's genome is quite similar to other primates--it is the human that differs from the rest, not the chimp. (human accelerated regions (HARs) . On top of that the Junk regions are actually found to be "more functional" than the protein coding regions: Astonishing DNA complexity update Excerpt: The untranslated regions (now called UTRs, rather than ‘junk’) are far more important than the translated regions (the genes), as measured by the number of DNA bases appearing in RNA transcripts. Genic regions are transcribed on average in five different overlapping and interleaved ways, while UTRs are transcribed on average in seven different overlapping and interleaved ways. Since there are about 33 times as many bases in UTRs than in genic regions, that makes the ‘junk’ about 50 times more active than the genes. Evolutionists were recently completely surprised by this genetic study of kangaroos: Kangaroo genes close to humans Excerpt: Australia's kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, "There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order," ,,,"We thought they'd be completely scrambled, but they're not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome," As mentioned previously, the chimpanzee is found to have a 12% larger genome than humans. Thus, at first glance it would seem the chimpanzee is "more evolved" than us, but this discrepancy is no anomaly of just chimps/humans. This disparity of genome sizes is found throughout life. There is no logical "evolutionary" progression to be found for the amount of DNA in less complex animals to the DNA found in more complex animals. In fact the genome sizes are known to vary widely between Kinds/Species and this mystery is known as the c-value enigma: C-value enigma Excerpt: it was soon found that C-values (genome sizes) vary enormously among species and that this bears no relationship to the presumed number of genes (as reflected by the complexity of the organism). For example, the cells of some salamanders may contain 40 times more DNA than those of humans. Given that C-values were assumed to be constant because DNA is the stuff of genes, and yet bore no relationship to presumed gene number, this was understandably considered paradoxical; The following refutes the evolutionists argument for common ancestry from "fused Chromosome 2": Fusion of Chromosome 2 - Sean D. Pitman M.D http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html#Fusion Refutation Of "Fused" Chromosome 2 Argument For Common Ancestry http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMTdjN3huNXBjdg This following paper and video reiterate the biased methodology of establishing 98.8% similarity, between chimps and man, used by materialists: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity Excerpt: One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. Relative differences: The myth of 1% Science 316: 1836.). ,,, In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors. Are Humans and Chimps Really 98% Genetically Identical? - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GxuIWshYQ As well, there are at least several hundred genes which are completely unique to humans: The Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families - Jeffery P. Demuth Excerpt: Our results imply that humans and chimpanzees differ by at least 6% (1,418 of 22,000 genes) in their complement of genes, which stands in stark contrast to the oft-cited 1.5% difference between orthologous nucleotide sequences. Moreover, single genes are shown to code for multiple protein products: Human genes are multitaskers: Abstract: Genome-wide surveys of gene expression in 15 different tissues and cell lines have revealed that up to 94% of human genes generate more than one (protein) product. And multiple genes are shown to code for single protein products Multiple genes code for high-molecular-mass rhoptry proteins of Plasmodium yoelii Excerpt: The genes in the family were distributed on 6 chromosomes probably at 9 or more loci. Another point worth reiterating is, at the protein level, 80% of proteins are found to be different in chimps and humans: Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005: The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species. Amazingly, this evidence is just brushed aside as insignificant by materialists since some of the proteins differ by only a few amino acids. Yet, since the "1-Dimensional" genetic code is shown to not even code for body plans in the first place, and proteins are at least 3-Dimensional in their configuration, as the bodies of the chimps and humans being compared are 3 dimensional, then this shows the 80% difference in proteins should at least carry more weight of consideration, over the genetic code, when considering similarities of the 3-Dimensional body plans. Especially now that proteins are shown to have far more "informational impact" on genes than previously thought. Researchers Uncover New Kink In Gene Control: - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: a collaborative effort,, has uncovered more than 300 proteins that appear to control genes, a newly discovered function for all of these proteins previously known to play other roles in cells.,,,The team suspects that many more proteins encoded by the human genome might also be moonlighting to control genes,,, Yet, even though materialists completely ignore the large portion of radically different proteins between chimps and humans, it is now shown that even the proteins which are similar to each other can have widely divergent and specified functions. Human Genes: Alternative Splicing (For Proteins) Far More Common Than Thought: Excerpt: two different forms of the same protein, known as isoforms, can have different, even completely opposite functions. For example, one protein may activate cell death pathways while its close relative promotes cell survival. If materialists were to actually try to account for the origination of the large portion of completely unique genes, and proteins, between chimps and humans, instead of just ignoring them, they would find genes, and specific functional proteins are exceedingly rare to "find": Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene? "our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)." "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds” 2004: - Doug Axe ,,,this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences." In further evidence, using the very biased and misleading "only protein coding genes count" methodology of materialists, our DNA is 92% similar to mice as well as 92% similar to zebrafish (Simmons PhD., Billions of Missing Links). So are we 92% mouse or are we 92% zebrafish? Our DNA is 70% similar to a fruit fly; So are we therefore 70% fruit fly? Our DNA is 75% similar to a worm; So are we therefore 75% worm? No, of course not! This reasoning, that materialists have shoe-horned their meager evidence into, is without proper scientific foundation and is severely contradicted by many other more concrete lines of evidence. This following recent article in "New Scientist" has a totally different conclusion on what comparing genes proves about evolution: "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009) Excerpt: Even among higher organisms, “the problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories,”,,,“despite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most [animal] phyla remained unresolved.” ,,,,Carl Woese, a pioneer of evolutionary molecular systematics, observed that these problems extend well beyond the base of the tree of life: “Phylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.”,,, “We’ve just annihilated the (Darwin's) tree of life.” In fact ever since Michael Denton's book in 1985, "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis", it has been popularly known that different genes tell widely different evolutionary "stories". And though you may have been taught otherwise, the "gene tree" problem remains unresolved to this day. Shilling for Darwin — The wildly irresponsible evolutionist - William Dembski - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: The incongruence of gene and species trees is a standing obstacle, or research problem, in molecular phylogenetics. This following article shows that the "same exact genes" have actually been shown to produce "completely different" adult structures: A Primer on the Tree of Life (Part 4) Excerpt: "In sharks, for example, the gut develops from cells in the roof of the embryonic cavity. In lampreys, the gut develops from cells on the floor of the cavity. And in frogs, the gut develops from cells from both the roof and the floor of the embryonic cavity. This discovery—that homologous structures can be produced by different developmental pathways—contradicts what we would expect to find if all vertebrates share a common ancestor. - Explore Evolution This following study reveals that genes can't even be resolved to the hypothetical mammalian tree of life. A article in - Trends in Ecology and Evolution - concluded “the wealth of competing morphological, as well as molecular proposals of the prevailing phylogenies of the mammalian orders would reduce the mammalian tree to an unresolved bush, the only consistent clade probably being the grouping of elephants and sea cows. W. W. De Jong, “Molecules remodel the mammalian tree,” - Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol 13(7), pgs. 270-274 (July 7, 1998). So did the very biased methodology of establishing genetic similarity, between man and chimps, help establish unguided evolution as true for the materialist once more solid evidence came in? No, of course not! From a standpoint of basic scientific evidence, if one were to actually try to prove evolution true, it must be first found if random mutations can do all that evolution requires of them to do before we can infer whether materialistic evolution, of increased functional complexity, is even viable as a hypothesis in the first place. The primary evidence that is crushing to the evolutionary hypothesis is this fact. Of the random mutations that do occur, and have manifested traits in organisms which can be measured, it appears at least 999,999 out of 1,000,000 (99.9999%) of these mutations to the DNA have been found to produce traits in organisms which are slightly deleterious, harmful and/or fatal to the life-form having the mutation. (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998, Bataillon, 2000, Elena et al, 1998). Professional evolutionary biologists are hard-pressed to cite even one clear-cut example of evolution through a beneficial mutation to the DNA of humans which would violate the principle of genetic entropy. Although a materialist may try to claim the lactase persistence mutation as a lonely example of a "truly" beneficial mutation in humans, lactase persistence is actually a loss of a instruction in the genome to turn the lactase enzyme off, so the mutation clearly does not violate Genetic Entropy. Yet at the same time, the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for doctors have already cited over 3500 mutational disorders (Dr. Gary Parker). "Mutations" by Dr. Gary Parker Excerpt: human beings are now subject to over 3500 mutational disorders. etc...etc...etc....bornagain77_{November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

“We hold no special place in the fossil record.” – Mustela Nivalis. But that’s just trendy, politically correct, fuzzy-wuzzy clap trap. There’s nothing in the theory to predict anything, and so under racist regimes elite Darwinists talk about survival of the fittest and under The Sixties we’re all equal—mosquito, coconut, mold, man.Rude_{November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

cont: It is also interesting to point out that materialism has an extremely difficult time assigning proper value to humans in the first place: How much is my body worth? Excerpt: The U.S. Bureau of Chemistry and Soils invested many a hard-earned tax dollar in calculating the chemical and mineral composition of the human body,,,,Together, all of the above (chemicals and minerals) amounts to less than one dollar! It seems fair to say the most suggestive piece of evidence, a materialist has for the supposed evolution of humans, is the existence of the Neanderthal fossils themselves. In fact, even though the fossils are fairly distinct and have a fairly stable history throughout the entire time they are found in the fossil record, the Neanderthal fossils are so morphologically similar to humans that many special creationists have lumped them together with humans in their debates with materialists. Moreover, it is only possible to scientifically prove Neanderthals are truly distinct from humans, as a kind/species, by their genetic 'mtDNA' dissimilarity from humans: NEANDERTHAL: NO RELATION By Sean Henahan, Access Excellence Excerpt: "These results indicate that Neanderthals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to modern humans," says Dr. Mark Stoneking, associate professor of anthropology at Penn State. "Neanderthals are not our ancestors."----"While the two species may have lived at the same time, Neanderthals did not contribute genetic material to modern humans," Yet this mtDNA evidence, though at first seeming to help the materialist in his debates with the creationist, has actually turned completely against the materialist for the mtDNA turns out to be a second solid line of "stability" evidence, in support of the stable fossil record. The mtDNA evidence actually proves there was no evolution going on in Neanderthals, nor in humans, for as far back in time as we can extract and measure the mtDNA. mtDNA Proves Humans And Neanderthals Did Not Evolve - Hugh Ross - audio http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcPmJTyn4yw Thus, the materialist is betrayed once again by even his most promising line of evidence for human evolution. I have heard some fairly fanciful theological arguments as to exactly why God would create Neanderthals, none of which I find compelling. About the best reason anyone has given me as to why God would create such a morphologically similar, yet "spiritually" different, species from humans is this: "I guess God just likes variety". Though that answer is almost certainly true in an overall sense, I can't help but feel there is some larger purpose behind God creating Neanderthals. As far as the science goes though, Neanderthals have clearly differentiated the spiritual aspect of "What it means to be human" by their demonstrated lack of advanced information capacity, though being so morphologically similar to us. Another interesting line of genetic evidence, which has recently come to light and which is extremely antagonistic to the materialist, is the Genetic Adam and Genetic Eve evidence. This genetic evidence strongly supports the Biblical view of the sudden creation of man. Human Evolution - Genetic Adam And Eve - Hugh Ross - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cfHsFtw02g I also like this following piece of evidence which unequivocally shows if human evolution did it occur it was a miracle. In Barrow and Tippler's book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, they list ten steps necessary in the course of human evolution, each of which, is so improbable that if left to happen by chance alone, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have incinerated the earth. They estimate that the odds of the evolution (by chance) of the human genome is somewhere between 4 to the negative 180th power, to the 110,000th power, and 4 to the negative 360th power, to the 110,000th power. Therefore, if evolution did occur, it literally would have been a miracle and evidence for the existence of God. William Lane Craig William Lane Craig - If Human Evolution Did Occur It Was A Miracle - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUxm8dXLRpA Another so called missing link in human evolution to make mainstream media headlines, in May 2009, is "Ida" the 47 million year old lemur-type primate. Ida is touted as "The Eighth Wonder Of The World" by a few publicity seeking paleontologists who are involved in examining her. Yet Ida has failed to inspire such frenzied faith from other paleontologists in the field as is noted in this following article: Amid Media Circus, Scientists Doubt 'Ida' Is Your Ancestor - May 2009 Excerpts: "They claim these animals have something to do with the direct line of human ancestry and living monkeys and apes. This claim is buttressed with almost no evidence," paleontologist Richard Kay of Duke University. - "It's not a missing link, it's not even a terribly close relative to monkeys, apes and humans, which is the point they're trying to make," Chris Beard curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh. ‘Missing link’ primate isn’t a link after all: Excerpt: "In fact, Ida is as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate could be" Erik Seiffert of Stony Brook University in New York. The same lack of faith among paleontologists can be found for "Ardi" of Oct. 2009: Artificially Reconstructed “Ardi” Overturns Prevailing Evolutionary Hypotheses of Human Evolution - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: The missing link presently being touted in the media, Ardipithecus ramidus, has had more reconstructive surgery than Michael Jackson.,,,One problem is that some portions of Ardi's skeleton were found crushed nearly to smithereens and needed extensive digital reconstruction. "Tim [White] showed me pictures of the pelvis in the ground, and it looked like an Irish stew," says Walker. Indeed, looking at the evidence, different paleoanthropologists may have different interpretations of how Ardi moved,,, The propaganda machine goes into overdrive: Excerpt: But Ardi's foot is fairly well preserved... and it is very obviously a flat-footed ape's foot - complete with curved toe bones, best suited for grasping branches:,,, Even some evolutionists, like Jungers, point this out: "Divergent big toes are associated with grasping, and this has one of the most divergent big toes you can imagine." "Why would an animal fully adapted to support its weight on its forelimbs in the trees elect to walk bipedally on the ground?" Ian Juby - Newsletter Sensation of the Month: "Ardi" - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNqtp-SymEM This following site has a graph which was made by an evolutionist. The graph can be enlarged by clicking on the image. The graph, though made by an evolutionist with an extreme bias for "shoehorning evidence", shows just how stable each of the hominid species is over the long periods of time they are found in the fossil record, as well as each hominid's "abrupt appearance" in the fossil record. Man is, of course, the last hominid species to "abruptly appear" in the graph. As well the graph shows the only actual transition ever witnessed by anyone, between any of the stable hominid lineages on the graph, is in the imaginations of the evolutionists who draw the connecting lines between the stable hominid lineages on such graphs. I guess drawing connecting lines on such graphs represents hard physical evidence for them. Perhaps they can forgive me for being less than impressed with their imaginary "lines of evidence" for human evolution. Hominid Fossil Graph http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.gif Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.” Anthropologist Ian Tattersall (curator at the American Museum of Natural History) Fearfully and Wonderfully Made (The Amazing Human Body) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAesaJ2T9C4 If you want to make evolutionist Henry Gee mad at you remind him that he once wrote this following "true" statement: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story, amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” Evolutionist - Henry Gee, editor of Nature, on the feasibility of reconstructing phylogenetic trees from fossils The hard evidence clearly suggests the abrupt arrival of man in the fossil record. Yet if you were to ask an average person on the street if we have evolved from apes he will tell you of course we have "evolved" and wonder why you would ask such a stupid question, since “everyone knows” this is clearly proven in the fossil record. One hard fact in the fossil record which is not disputed by most materialists is the fact man has the youngest distinct fossil of all fossils to appear in the fossil record on earth. Materialists do not seem to notice their theory of evolution expects and even demands there should be undeniably clear evidence for a genetically, and morphologically, unique species on earth somewhere since man first suddenly appeared on earth. Indeed there should be many such unambiguous examples they could produce to silence their critics.bornagain77_{November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

Mustela, so Human evolution is your big ace in the hole? Well I'll see your ace with a royal flush: "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Evolutionist Henry Gee, Nature 2001 “Most of what we understand about primate evolution is pieced together from bits of teeth and jaws," Michael Novacek, curator of paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, May 2009. "If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on." David Pilbeam, Harvard University paleoanthropologist: from Richard E. Leakey's book, The Making of Mankind, 1982, p. 43. The large variety of hominid (man or ape-like) fossils that we do have piece-meal records of are characterized by overlapping histories of “distinctively different and stable” hominid species. There is never a transition between any of the "stable" hominid kinds no matter where, or in what era, the hominid fossils are found. The following sources show that "Lucy", the supposed superstar of human evolution, was an ape: "these australopith specimens (Lucy) can be accommodated with the range of intraspecific variation of African apes" Nature 443 (9/2006), p.296 "The australopithecines (Lucy) known over the last several decades from Olduvai and Sterkfontein, Kromdraai and Makapansgat, are now irrevocably removed from a place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from any place in a direct human lineage." Charles Oxnard, former professor of anatomy at the University of Southern California Medical School, who subjected australopithecine fossils to extensive computer analysis; Israeli Researchers: 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans"; Apr 16, 2007 Mandibular ramus morphology (lower jaw bone) on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. "The australopithecine (Lucy) skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white." Lord Solly Zuckerman - Chief scientific advisor to British government and leading zoologist My Pilgrimage to Lucy’s Holy Relics Fails to Inspire Faith in Darwinism Excerpt: Collard and Aiello’s article also reports that we now have “good evidence” that A. afarensis (including Lucy) “‘knuckle-walked’, as chimps and gorillas do today.” Due to their evolutionary preconception that Lucy was a bipedal precursor to our genus Homo, they call this plain evidence that Lucy knuckled-walked “counterintuitive.” They suggest the possibility that “the locomotor repertoire of A. afarensis included forms of bipedalism, climbing and knuckle-walking.” This is a tenuous proposal, however, as knuckle-walking is obviously very different from bipedal locomotion. Collard and Aiello suggest avoiding the "counterintuitive" evidence that Lucy climbed and knuckle-walked by discarding it as unused “primitive retentions” from her ancestors.---"We were sent a cast of the Lucy skeleton, and I was asked to assemble it for display,” remembers Peter Schmid, a paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich.,,, "When I started to put [Lucy’s] skeleton together, I expected it to look human,” Schmid continues “Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw.” "If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving". Richard Leakey, world's foremost paleo-anthropologist, in a PBS documentary, 1990. “Dr. Leakey produced a biased reconstruction (of 1470/ Homo Rudolfensis) based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development,” Dr. Timothy Bromage http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/pdf/2007_BROMAGE_IADR_1470.pdf Here are some fairly good videos for refuting human evolution: Human Evolution ? - Dr. Marc Surtees - Video http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/humanevolution.xml This following quote, by a leading evolutionist in the field, is candid in its admission of the gaps for the evidence of human evolution. A 2004 book by leading evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr stated that "The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus (Lucy) by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.” Misrepresentations of the Evidence for Human Evolutionary Origins: Even though the preceding comment from a leading evolutionist in the field is crushing, to the smooth transition needed for the materialist to make his case for human evolution, you would think a materialist would at least have some sort of evidence he could cling to with Homo erectus and rudolfensis fossils Mayr cited. Yet when we look at the evidence presented by the materialists themselves, for the proposed evolution of Homo erectus, the evidence is anything but straight forward and appears to be, once again, "shoehorned" to fit their preconceived philosophical bias: Hominids, Homonyms, and Homo sapiens - 05/27/2009 - Creation Safaris: Excerpt: Homo erectus is particularly controversial, because it is such a broad classification. Tattersall and Schwartz find no clear connection between the Asian, European and African specimens lumped into this class. “In his 1950 review, Ernst Mayr placed all of these forms firmly within the species Homo erectus,” they explained. “Subsequently, Homo erectus became the standard-issue ‘hominid in the middle,’ expanding to include not only the fossils just mentioned, but others of the same general period....”. They discussed the arbitrariness of this classification: "Put together, all these fossils (which span almost 2 myr) make a very heterogeneous assortment indeed; and placing them all together in the same species only makes any conceivable sense in the context of the ecumenical view of Homo erectus as the middle stage of the single hypervariable hominid lineage envisioned by Mayr (on the basis of a much slenderer record). Viewed from the morphological angle, however, the practice of cramming all of this material into a single Old World-wide species is highly questionable. Indeed, the stuffing process has only been rendered possible by a sort of ratchet effect, in which fossils allocated to Homo erectus almost regardless of their morphology have subsequently been cited as proof of just how variable the species can be." By “ratchet effect,” they appear to mean something like a self-fulfilling prophecy: i.e., “Let’s put everything from this 2-million-year period into one class that we will call Homo erectus.” Someone complains, “But this fossil from Singapore is very different from the others.” The first responds, “That just shows how variable the species Homo erectus can be.” This following quote sums up what materialists appear to be doing with this Homo erectus and rudolfensis, "hominid in the middle", evidence: "But what is the basis for the human evolution thesis put forward by evolutionists? It is the existence of plenty of fossils on which evolutionists are able to build imaginary interpretations. Throughout history, more than 6,000 species of ape have lived, and most of them have become extinct. Today, only 120 species live on the earth. These 6,000 or so species of ape, most of which are extinct, constitute a rich resource for the evolutionists to build imaginary interpretations with." The first line of the " Evolution of the Genus Homo" paper illustrates the poverty of the fossil record in establishing human evolution: Evolution of the Genus Homo - Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences - Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: "Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis." Though the authors of the preceding paper appear to be thoroughly mystified by the fossil record, they never seem to give up their blind faith in evolution despite the disparity they see first hand in the fossil record. In spite of their philosophical bias, I have to hand it to them for being fairly honest with the evidence though. I especially like how the authors draw out this following "what it means to be human" distinction in their paper: "although Homo neanderthalensis had a large brain, it left no unequivocal evidence of the symbolic consciousness that makes our species unique." -- "Unusual though Homo sapiens may be morphologically, it is undoubtedly our remarkable cognitive qualities that most strikingly demarcate us from all other extant species. They are certainly what give us our strong subjective sense of being qualitatively different. And they are all ultimately traceable to our symbolic capacity. Human beings alone, it seems, mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities. When exactly Homo sapiens acquired this unusual ability is the subject of debate." The authors try to find some evolutionary/materialistic reason for the extremely unique "information capacity" of humans, but of course they never find a coherent reason. Indeed why should we ever consider a process, which is incapable of ever generating complex functional information at even the most fundamental levels of molecular biology, to suddenly, magically, have the ability to generate our brain? A brain which has been repeatedly referred to as "the Most Complex Structure in the Universe"? A brain which somehow has within itself the capacity to understand, and generate, large amounts of complex functional information? The authors never seem to consider the "spiritual angle" for why we would have such a unique capacity for such abundant information processing. Genesis 3:8 And they (Adam and Eve) heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day... John 1:1-1 In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. Human Evolution? Big Bang of Language, Clothes, Tools and Art - Hugh Ross - audio http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRNmiO6f_c4 This following study, though of materialistic bent, offers strong support that Humans are extremely unique in this "advanced information" capacity: Darwin’s mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds: Excerpt: There is a profound functional discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. We argue that this discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture can explain. We hypothesize that the cognitive discontinuity between human and nonhuman animals is largely due to the degree to which human and nonhuman minds are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system (i.e. able to understand information). These following studies highlight the difficulty materialists have in fitting mental abilities into an evolutionary scenario: Origin of Soulish Animals: Excerpt: Bolhuis and Wynne contrast the cognitive capacities of birds and primates.,,, They also refer to an experiment demonstrating that "crows can also work out how to use one tool to obtain a second with which they can retrieve food, a skill that monkeys and apes struggle to master." Evidently, certain bird species exhibit greater powers of the mind than do apes. New Caledonian Crows Exceed Apes/Chimps at Trap-tube Experiment - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwFLJBCk5sk Even the lowly honey bee is shown to have a capacity to communicate information to other bees. Thus this comparison of abilities to manipulate rudimentary information is fraught with difficulties for the materialist to make his case for evolution with: The Language Of Bees http://www.laits.utexas.edu/hebrew/personal/language/animals/beess.html Evolution vs. The Honey Bee - an Architectural Marvel - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW7CLGQOpfQ to be cont>bornagain77_{November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

Well Mustela, You claim no "physical evidence" exists for God so I will disprove that statement with the same post I posted in response to seversky: Reflection on the quantum teleportation experiment: That a photon would actually be destroyed upon the teleportation of its "infinite" information to another photon is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Thus, this is direct empirical validation for the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information (i.e. information cannot be created or destroyed). This conclusion is warranted because information exercises direct dominion of energy, which cannot be created or destroyed by any known material means, yet a photon of energy is destroyed by this transcendent means. Thus, this experiment provides a direct line of logic that transcendent information cannot be created or destroyed. Clearly anything that exercises dominion of the fundamental entity of this physical universe, energy, must of necessity possess the same, as well as greater, qualities. i.e. All information that can exist, for all past, present and future events of energy, already must exist. Another line of evidence, corroborating the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information, is the required mathematical definition for infinite information needed to correctly specify the reality of a photon qubit (Armond Duwell). The fact that quantum teleportation shows an exact "location dominion", of a photon of energy by "a specified truth of infinite information", satisfies a major requirement for the entity needed to explain the missing Dark Matter. The needed transcendent explanation would have to dominate energy in a very similar "specified location" fashion, as is demonstrated by the infinite information of quantum teleportation, to satisfy what is needed to explain the missing dark matter. Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. Moreover, the fact that simple quantum entanglement shows "coordinated universal control" of entangled photons of energy, by transcendent information, satisfies a major requirement for the entity which must explain the missing Dark Energy. i.e. The transcendent entity, needed to explain Dark Energy, must explain why the entire space of the universe is expanding in such a finely-tuned, coordinated, degree, and would have to employ a mechanism of control very similar to what we witness in the quantum entanglement experiment. Job 9:8 He stretches out the heavens by Himself and walks on the waves of the sea. Thus "infinite transcendent information" provides a coherent picture of universal control, and specificity, that could possibly unify all of physics upon further elucidation. It very well may be possible to elucidate, mathematically, the overall pattern God has chosen to implement infinite information in this universe. This following article powerfully backs up my assertion: Is Unknown Force In Universe Acting On Dark Matter? Excerpt: It is possible that a non-gravitational fifth force is ruling the dark matter with an invisible hand, leaving the same fingerprints on all galaxies, irrespective of their ages, shapes and sizes." ,,Such a force might solve an even bigger mystery, known as 'dark energy', which is ruling the accelerated expansion of the Universe. A more radical solution is a revision of the laws of gravity first developed by Isaac Newton in 1687 and refined by Albert Einstein's theory of General Relativity in 1916. Einstein never fully decided whether his equation should add an omnipresent constant source, now called dark energy. ,,Dr Famaey added, "If we account for our observations with a modified law of gravity, it makes perfect sense to replace the effective action of hypothetical dark matter with a force closely related to the distribution of visible matter." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091022154644.htm "I discovered that nature was constructed in a wonderful way, and our task is to find out its mathematical structure" Albert Einstein Further reflections on the "infinite transcendent information" framework: Mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. As well, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for mass at the speed of light (i.e. the mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light.). For us to hypothetically travel at the speed of light, in this universe, only gets us to first base as far as quantum teleportation is concerned. That is to say, traveling at the speed of light only gets us to the place where time, as we understand it, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. gets us to the eternal, "past and future folding into now", framework/dimension of time. This "eternal" inference for light is warranted because light is not "frozen within time" yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. "I've just developed a new theory of eternity." Albert Einstein "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." – Richard Swenson Light and Quantum Entanglement Proves That God Does Indeed Exist - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLzpr4EEKn4 Also, hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them, but, and this is a big but; this "timeless" travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework/dimension of time, i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our perspective. In information teleportation though the "time not passing", eternal, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but also in our temporal framework/dimension. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks/dimensions, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us. Thus "pure information" is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks/dimensions. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we have now examined; transcendent, eternal, infinite information is indeed real and the framework in which It resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned). Logic also dictates "a decision" must have been made, by the "transcendent, eternal, infinite information" from the primary timeless (eternal) reality It inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality with highly specified, irreducible complex, parameters from a infinite set of possibilities in the proper sequential order. Thus this infinite transcendent information, which is the primary reality of our reality, is shown to be alive. The restriction imposed by our physical limitations of us ever accessing complete infinite information to our temporal framework/dimension does not detract, in any way, from the primacy and dominion of the infinite, eternal, transcendent, information framework/dimension that is now established by the quantum teleportation experiment as the primary reality of our reality. Of note: All of this evidence meshes extremely well with the theistic postulation of God being infinite and perfect in knowledge. "An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality" Akiane - Child Prodigy - Artwork homepage - music video As a side light to this, leading quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger has followed in John Archibald Wheeler's footsteps (1911-2008) by insisting reality, at its most foundational level, is "information". Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/5896/Default.aspx Psalm 19:1-2 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.bornagain77_{November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 at 32, "14. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record." This statement indicates that you are profoundly misinformed on the human fossil record in particular and modern evolutionary theory in general. Information about the human fossil record is readily available on the web -- you can start with the links at Wikipedia or here. All other extant species are equally as evolved as humans. We hold no special place in the fossil record.Mustela Nivalis_{November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 at 32, "The artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has blinded many scientists to the inference of God as a rational explanation in these questions of origins." Methodological naturalism is not an "artificial imposition." It has been empirically demonstrated to allow science to make significant progress, in large part by virtue of being self-correcting. Theological "explanations" lack this quality. If a god or gods were a "rational explanation" then their purported effects would be incorporated into the scientific method. Since no empirical, objective evidence of such entities has thus far been presented, despite thousands of years of theological work, allowing them as explanations of natural phenomena would be anything but rational.Mustela Nivalis_{November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Jehu at 31, "ID is not inherently religious. Strong panspermia is an example of a hypothesis that is nonreligious and yet falls under the umbrella of intellligent design." Panspermia just pushes the question off one planet. If life on Earth came from space, either via something like spores or actual intelligent beings, those spores or beings had to come from somewhere. Either they evolved from non-living matter (impossible according to ID proponents) or they were created by some other intelligence. At some point, ID requires an uncaused, non-material intelligence. The comments quoted by Seversky make it very clear that the founders of the ID movement consider that to be the god of the Abrahamic religions.Mustela Nivalis_{November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

I dun mind at all,, hope it helps.bornagain77_{November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77, Great stuff. It will really pay dividends for ID. An' if ya dun mind, I think I'll just put that stuff in ma toolbox, thx. Keep jammin'.Oramus_{November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

Mustela Nivalis, Save for one thing Mustela Nivalis science is not allowed free reign to define the answer, the scientific method may receive, as a materialistic one in these questions of origins. To make it crystal clear for you: The artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has blinded many scientists to the inference of God as a rational explanation in these questions of origins. In fact, the scientific method, by itself, makes absolutely no predictions as to what the best explanation will be prior to investigation in these question of origins. In the beginning of a investigation all answers are equally valid to the scientific method. Yet scientists have grown accustomed through the years to the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method. That is to say by limiting the answers one may conclude to only materialistic ones, the scientific method has been very effective at solving many puzzles very quickly. This imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has indeed led to many breakthroughs of technology which would not have been possible had the phenomena been presumed to be solely the work of a miracle. This imposition of materialism onto the scientific method is usually called methodological naturalism, methodological materialism, or scientific materialism etc... Yet today, due to the impressive success of methodological naturalism in our everyday lives, many scientists are unable to separate this artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy from the scientific method in this completely different question of origins. A Question for Barbara Forrest http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/question-for-barbara-forrest.html In fact, I've heard someone say, "Science is materialism." Yet science clearly is not materialism. Materialism is a philosophy which makes the dogmatic assertion that only blind material processes generated everything around us, including ourselves. Materialism is thus in direct opposition to Theism which holds that God purposely created us in His image. Furthermore science, or more particularly the scientific method, in reality, only cares to relentlessly pursue the truth and could care less if the answer is a materialistic one or not. This is especially true in these questions of origins, since we are indeed questioning the materialistic philosophy itself. i.e. We are asking the scientific method to answer this very specific question, "Did God create us or did blind material processes create us?" When we realize this is the actual question we are seeking an answer to within the scientific method, then of course it is readily apparent we cannot impose strict materialistic answers onto the scientific method prior to investigation. In fact when looking at the evidence in this light we find out many interesting things which scientists, who have been blinded by the philosophy of materialism, miss. This is because the materialistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several natural contradictory predictions about what evidence we will find. These predictions, and the evidence we have found, can be tested against one another within the scientific method. For a quick overview here are a few: 1.Materialism predicted an eternal universe, Theism predicted a created universe. - Big Bang points to a creation event. - 2. Materialism predicted time had an infinite past, Theism predicted time had a creation - Time was created in the Big Bang. - 3. Materialism predicted space has always existed, Theism predicted space had a creation (Psalm 89:12) - Space was created in the Big Bang. - 4. Materialism predicted at the base of physical reality would be a solid indestructible material particle which rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted the basis of this reality was created by a infinitely powerful and transcendent Being who is not limited by time and space - Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. - 5. Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe, Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time - Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4)- 6. Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind - Every transcendent universal constant scientists can measure is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. - 7. Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe - Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe. - 8. Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made - ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a "biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.". - 9. Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth - The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 10. Materialism predicted a very simple first life form which accidentally came from "a warm little pond". Theism predicted God created life - The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 11. Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11) - We find evidence for complex photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth - 12. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse life to appear abruptly in the seas in God's fifth day of creation. - The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short "geologic resolution time" in the Cambrian seas. - 13. Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record - Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 14. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth - Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. - As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy, from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9bornagain77_{November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

ID is not inherently religious. Strong panspermia is an example of a hypothesis that is nonreligious and yet falls under the umbrella of intellligent design.Jehu_{November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

Joseph at 29, In one sense, all scientific theories are atheistic (literally "without theism") since no god, gods, or other non-natural phenomena are presumed to be involved. That being said, do you have any cites where Dawkins or Provine say that modern evolutionary theory is explicitly atheistic? The quotes provided by Seversky make it clear that ID is an inherently religious concept, as defined by it's major proponents.Mustela Nivalis_{November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

Seversky, By your "logic" the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory because people like Ruchard Dawkins and Will Provine say it is.Joseph_{November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

...what evidence of tampering with genetics by intelligent agents is exhibited by nature?
Cabal, Out of curiosity, where did you get the idea that intelligent agents are tampering with nature? It seems you are having a hard time wrapping your brain around the idea of intelligence being embedded in nature? FYI, God is not a being that stands apart from His creation, busy pulling the levers of life from a distance. Because we are a subset of creation, we must learn to understand what we can about God 'in the way' that He is, not as we hope or require Him to present Himself to us. How can we grow in our intellectual capacity if we are spoonfed the details? We wanna learn about the designer? Let's think like one. The pieces of the puzzle will fall in place, but not until we abandon the skepticism that is the 'veil of unknowing'.Oramus_{November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT}

the activity of intelligent agents is sometimes detectible and (2) that nature may exhibit evidence of intelligent activity.
How and when is intelligent activity (tampering with genetics) detected, and what evidence of tampering with genetics by intelligent agents is exhibited by nature? Isn't that just attributing what evolutionary theory says is the result of natural forces to the enigmatic term "intelligent activity"? I see many marvelous things in nature but don't see any reason to assume there's a higher being or supernatural forces behind them. There's a lot of intelligent activity going on inside my body, but where is the agent?Cabal_{November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
01:36 AM
1
01
36
AM
PDT}

Oops - hit 'send' thinking JGuy's post 23 was still the latest - apologies.PaulT_{November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
12:47 AM
12
12
47
AM
PDT}

Proof the NCSE promotes the teaching HUMANISM!...guilty by association! http://ncse.com/news/2009/09/harun-yahya-exposed-new-humanist-005053 Proof the NCSE endorses consensus science! http://ncse.com/news/2009/10/kilosteve-t-shirts-now-available-005103 Ah ha! Proof the NCSE even endorses science by legislation! http://ncse.com/news/2009/09/judge-jones-honored-by-geological-society-america-005080JGuy_{November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
12:47 AM
12
12
47
AM
PDT}

JGuy @ 22 -
Does Nicky have a blog we can use to evaluate what should be associated with evolution?
The first link in Dr Dembski's opening post is to the blog where you are most likely to find and question Nick Matzke directly.PaulT_{November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT}

I was just reading the comments in Nick Matzke's blog posting at PT. Because of the blatant fallacy in his association, I am really surprised at the level of concurrence in the comments at PT. I'd expect that at least one of their own challenge Nicky to his error. And Nicky's working on his PhD??? 'Good' thing for him that his faithful comrades are equally negligent and apparently don't care if he's wrong.JGuy_{November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT}

Does Nicky have a blog we can use to evaluate what should be associated with evolution?JGuy_{November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT}

Sever, the point is not about what ID ultimately leads to, but the point about "what is the theory of ID?" It is so simple to see that a young earth is not related. Also it is obvious that ID is scientific theory and not a religious doctrine. It is about detecting design in nature. To conflate it with creationism is just a text book example of a red herring attack.Frost122585_{October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

Not Young Earth Creationism, perhaps, but still Creationism in a broader sense: Jonathon Wells:
Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism
Phillip Johnson:
"We are taking an intuition most people have (the belief in God) and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator."
William Dembski
ID is three things: a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes; an intellectual movement that challenges Darwinism and its naturalistic legacy; and a way of understanding divine action.
and
The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.
Seversky_{October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

osteonectin @6 I think it's a relevent point that an ID supporter such as myself displays superior textual analysis to Darwin, regardless of the text.tragic mishap_{October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

Apparently dr Dembski assumes, that fellows as Matzke are interested in honest discussion with the ID camp. I'm afraid, the other side is completely not interested in any discussion, much less honest. What they want is to discredit by any means, so they will use any argument which suits them. Whether an argument is good or bad, true or false - that's completely secondary factor. Cheers, TohuTohu Wabohu_{October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Scientific Materialism And The Question Of Origins - Dr. Thomas Kindell - video Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvXF47L447U Part 2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCQYZkIG6GM "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." William Shakespeare - Hamlet Materialism Compared To Theism- article http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9bornagain77_{October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Another false argument that materialists use is the one which states "that supernatural explanations are not scientific." This supposedly presumes that only "naturalistic" or "natural" explanations are allowed as scientific explanations. While there really is no reason to rule out the super natural at all (I could quote Kant but I am not getting into it) there really is no reason to distinguish between the "super" natural and the just simply "natural" phenomena and explanations. This argument is as bad as saying superconductors cannot exist because they presupposes a "super" nature nature. We all know what they are and why they are deemd such- and this is no different than when we call a naturalistic explanation "supernatural"- in which case we are merely saying we understand the picture of what happened to a point and yet we cannot explanain it to a point. It is not a situation of invoking gaps to fill with Gods, but of arguing for a picture of events, history or reality according to the evidence, and at the same time accessing what we do and can know and what we don't and cannot know. Any explanation so long as it is natural- and so long as the evidence warrants it's possible or probable hypothesis, is science worthy as long as it is supported across the lines of competing hypothesis. That is, so long as an explanation is adequately argued for, and it is rationally natural, regardless of whether it is "super" natural nor not, it is perfectly scientifically rational to consider it. A supernatural explanation is perfectly compatible with sceince so long as it is warranted, based on the evidence and reasoning, and stands up when compared across the lines of competing hypotheses. With that said, there is no room in science as far as I can tel, with explanations that "only" invoke gaps. IN other words for an explanation to be such it must give us positive information about the topic at hand. There is no room for "unantrual" explanations- such as theories which presuppose things which violate all scientifically accepted fundamental laws just for the purpose of the theory. But on that note it is often overlooked how liberal the "laws" of physics actually are. There are not laws preventing the possibility of things like spontaneous combustion for example. While these things are "possible" one would still need to deal with their great "improbability" before invoking them as science worthy hypotheses or theories. SO the bottom line is that to say ID is not science because someone might view it as involving "supernatural" causes- is a totally invalid objection.Frost122585_{October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

Also if it works one way it works against them- IOW the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory- because of Richard Dawkins et al. And as such violates the separation laws.Joseph_{October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply