The Man Behind the Curtain: Evolutionists React to The Voyage

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 29, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Nothing exposes the failure of a dogma more than the propaganda it hides behind. Pathetic ideas cannot stand the light of day. They run from open inquiry and call everyone a liar. Evolution is pathetic–not because it is a religiously motivated idea with little scientific support, but because of its deceitful cover up. It makes religious proclamations and then points the finger at others. It is scientifically absurd yet it claims to be a fact. And when probed, watch out.

Continue reading here.

Comments

David Kellogg:
And yet ID’s contribution to information has gone unnoticed by people in the science of, um, information.
Two separate areas for reasons I have already explained to you. BTW ID's "information" is in line with information technology, which is more important than any of the alleged information "sciences" (which don't deal with "information"). And just because some scientists can ignore something that ignorance is not a refutation.Joseph_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Just checking in - nothing yet, I see, except links to a some forums about dinosaur heredity. Not a shred, not a single scientific detail about how birds evolved from dinosaurs. Echidna and others, I'm challenging that your theory, which proposes to explain the origin of species, does not explain the origin of birds. Not a hypothetical branch on the tree of life - how did it happen? Why did it happen? If your theory explains this, then explain it. The rest is noise. Anyone can talk Echidna, anyone can mock. I say there's nothing behind it. The only ghost I believe in is you. Prove me wrong.ScottAndrews_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

Even better not one of the scientists who disagrees with me can substantiate their claim. Echidna-Levy:
Prove it!
I have already proven that evolution shouldn't expect a nested hierarchy. What else do you want?
And yet here you sit, on a blog arguing with anonymous people like me thinking that you are actually getting somewhere.
This is just practice abd it also exposes the ignorance of you and your ilk.
Yet you and yours are all ID has got!
And you and your ignorance are all you have.
If I was in your position I’d spend less time insulting clowns and more time doing something constructive that might actually have a chance of changing something out there in the real world.
In order for you to be in my position you would first need an education. But that ain't happenin', is it? One thing is for sure your ignorance isn't going to change anything.
Tell me, as evoltuion has been a “theory in crisis” according to some since it was written down do you think you’ll see the end of it in the next 5 years? 50?
It won't end it will just be revised to accomodate reality.Joseph_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

Nnoel, "If you’ve no theory in opposition to ToE, then by your own admission you’ve no reason not to let it get on with whats its doing (telling us how we came about)." You can't be serious. For IDers that believe in the ToE, there's plenty of room for another type of ToE. Genome entropy and cambrian explosion demand it. So what if ID doesn't have a theory beyond that it was ID'd? It only needs to disprove materialism can make it happen. It can go all the way with that.lamarck_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

Joseph,
Even better not one of the scientists who disagrees with me can substantiate their claim.
Prove it!
And that you can’t understand the logic pretty much exposes your position of willfull ignorance.
And yet here you sit, on a blog arguing with anonymous people like me thinking that you are actually getting somewhere. I can do this, I know that actual work is also going on without me. Yet you and yours are all ID has got! If I was in your position I'd spend less time insulting clowns and more time doing something constructive that might actually have a chance of changing something out there in the real world. Tell me, as evoltuion has been a "theory in crisis" according to some since it was written down do you think you'll see the end of it in the next 5 years? 50?Echidna-Levy_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

ScottAndrews @ 72 I didn’t throw in the towel on ID. ID has nothing to do with mechanisms, for reasons that you’ve read countless times but don’t seem to reach you. Thermometers don’t tell you why it’s hot. Fingerprints don’t tell you why a person touched something. ID is not about how something was made. Read that several times. You then proceed further to comment on a explanation that you claim is in a different realm of study to that of ID. If ID does not deal with mechanisms, then what is the issue with the ToE? Why would the person that makes thermometers argue with the person you controls the temperature? Is it getting a little hot in here for you? (hehe, sorry couldn't resist!) Seriously! Whats your beef dude? If you've no theory in opposition to ToE, then by your own admission you've no reason not to let it get on with whats its doing (telling us how we came about). Love you !Nnoel_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

I asked:
What contribution to understanding is ID supposed to make?
To which Joseph, in his always helpful and courteous way, responded:
Information.
And yet ID's contribution to information has gone unnoticed by people in the science of, um, information.David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

And seeing that evolution doesn’t have a direction and nested hierarchy demands a direction of additive characteristics, only people who don’t understand nested hierarchy think it is evidence for UCD.
So I guess that’s the difference between you and an real scientist then. You think that it’s not evidence, real scientists disagree.
Dr Denton is a real scientist and he agrees with me. Even better not one of the scientists who disagrees with me can substantiate their claim. OTOH I and Denton have provided more than enough information yo refute their claim. And that you can't understand the logic pretty much exposes your position of willfull ignorance.Joseph_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

Joseph, All the PDF does is say ‘God Dun It!’, and if god did it, I ask, why do science? "Well just as Newton did, to understand what “God” did." That's a great summary. Postulating god doesn't end research, the how and why of it are still just as unknown as in neodarwinism.lamarck_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Joseph
And seeing that evolution doesn’t have a direction and nested hierarchy demands a direction of additive characteristics, only people who don’t understand nested hierarchy think it is evidence for UCD.
So I guess that's the difference between you and an real scientist then. You think that it's not evidence, real scientists disagree. Keep on with the good work! It's making a real impression out there with actual scientists. ROFL. Ever tried writing up your views in a paper and submitting it to a peer reviewed journal? Why ever not? Or are blogs it for you?Echidna-Levy_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

TBH IOW if you understood what a nested hierarchy was alot of this would be much simpler. The fact that all biological life fits into a nested hierarchy indicates that either “the designer” wanted to make it look like as if evolution did the job, or in fact evoltion did do the job.
Nested hierarchy was first used as evidence for a common design. And seeing that evolution doesn't have a direction and nested hierarchy demands a direction of additive characteristics, only people who don't understand nested hierarchy think it is evidence for UCD. Also Darwin used extinctions, not descent, to explain the distinct categories. Ya see he was smart enough to know that transitionals blur the line and NH violations occur. It is amazing how much devolution evolutionists have gone through. As I said ignorance is your position.Joseph_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

Scott
I’m signing off for the evening. But I’m very excited about all the scientifically obtained specifics of bird evolution I’m going to receive when I check back tomorrow.
http://dml.cmnh.org/2009Jun/threads.html http://dml.cmnh.org/2009Jun/msg00066.html http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=16321 http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/jdp.htm evidence of dinos *with* avian-like respiratory systems: http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=521053#post521053 http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=523164#post523164 It's called grown ups talking real science. I'll speak to you tommrow.Echidna-Levy_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

#72 ScottAndrews One more time before I go to bed. ID is not about how something was made. So it does not attempt to answer the question - how did birds come about? Or the question how did life begin? What question is it answering then? Inherited variation - that’s just another way of saying something changed and passed it on. You’re just saying the same thing in different words. What variation? You see it round you all the time. Do you have children? Are they identical to you? Will some of those differences be passed on to their children? Look!Mark Frank_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

Scott
You’re more than welcome to provide some solid details on the specifics of bird evolution - the mechanisms, selective forces, and intermediate steps. Perhaps you could even tell us where in the world bird evolution took place.
I'd suggest if you are that interested you go back to university and study some. Then you can invesigate for yourself. Or will you stay at the ID university and do science from your armchair?
I think that despite mocking ID, you don’t really have a clue how bird evolution happened.
Yet you know birds were designed right?
You’ll tell some stories, but if pressed for specifics your so-called science will come up empty.
Tell me a single specific thing about how the designer created birds then.
What was it you told someone over on the other thread? Oh yes, “man up.”
Indeed. I'm waiting for something specific.Echidna-Levy_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

I'm signing off for the evening. But I'm very excited about all the scientifically obtained specifics of bird evolution I'm going to receive when I check back tomorrow. ID has been repeatedly contrasted with evolution because ID doesn't explain how. Obviously no sane person would make such a contrast unless they were prepared to give just such an explanation. I expect to find it tomorrow. No excuses.ScottAndrews_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
Well, birds emerged probably late Jurassic or early Cretaceous. IDers won’t even say that for fear of offending their YEC brethren.
Emerged from what? The mud? Also there is evidence birds were around in the late Triassic.Joseph_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Joseph
What non-birds? That is the point!
You said
There isn’t any genetic data which demonstrates non-birds can “evolve” into birds via any mechanism.
How can you say there is no data if you don't think non-birds exist? Logically in that case there can be no data! Tell me Joseph, which is more likely Birds evolved from a ancestor that was not a "bird". Birds were created as-is by the designer, with feathers and everything.Echidna-Levy_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

1 That isn’t what I said (about the designer)
Your words. Tell me what we do know about "the designer".
2 It doesn’t fix anything
Fix what?
3 We won’t find the info if we don’t know to look for it and under your dogma no one will look for it.
Simply untrue. It is being looked for, it is being found.
IOW once again ignorance rules your position.
INA ignorance is your position. TBH IOW if you understood what a nested hierarchy was alot of this would be much simpler. The fact that all biological life fits into a nested hierarchy indicates that either "the designer" wanted to make it look like as if evolution did the job, or in fact evoltion did do the job.Echidna-Levy_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Echidna-Levy:
Can you put a name to these “non-birds”?</blockquote? What non-birds? That is the point! Once sexual reproduction was introduced, with 1/2 of each mates’ genomes being tossed out, the chance of accumulating mutations took a severe hit.
Introduced by “the designer”? Are you sure? Maybe it sexual reproduction evolved all on it’s own. How can you be sure?
That doesn't have anything to do with anything I said. My point is that sexual reproduction killed universal common descent. Now the anatomical data says birds did not evolve from dinos nor reptiles.
I guess that only leaves “design”? Right? Is that the best you’ve got?
It appears the best you have are ignorant laiden rantings against ID. So why even bother?
Joseph_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Echidna-levy: You're more than welcome to provide some solid details on the specifics of bird evolution - the mechanisms, selective forces, and intermediate steps. Perhaps you could even tell us where in the world bird evolution took place. I think that despite mocking ID, you don't really have a clue how bird evolution happened. You'll tell some stories, but if pressed for specifics your so-called science will come up empty. What was it you told someone over on the other thread? Oh yes, "man up."ScottAndrews_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

tribune7
Population genetics is good useful science and tells us a lot about how populations evolve. It can’t tell us how something can evolve into a snake, alligator and a lizard.
Well, how do you suggest such things could be investigated? Does ID have any insight into how such things happened? Or does ID say that they did not happen?Echidna-Levy_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Information that is not reducible nor explainable by matter, energy, chance and necessity. Echidna-Levy:
But if we postulate an “intelligent designer” that a few comments ago you said we know nothing about due to an “absence of direct observation or designer input” that fixes everything?
1 That isn't what I said (about the designer) 2 It doesn't fix anything 3 We won't find the info if we don't know to look for it and under your dogma no one will look for it. IOW once again ignorance rules your position.Joseph_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Joseph
There isn’t any genetic data which demonstrates non-birds can “evolve” into birds via any mechanism.
Can you put a name to these "non-birds"? Is it a dustbin? A diamond? A piece of quartz. All those are "non-birds"
Once sexual reproduction was introduced, with 1/2 of each mates’ genomes being tossed out, the chance of accumulating mutations took a severe hit.
Introduced by "the designer"? Are you sure? Maybe it sexual reproduction evolved all on it's own. How can you be sure?
Now the anatomical data says birds did not evolve from dinos nor reptiles.
I guess that only leaves "design"? Right? Is that the best you've got?
What mutations fixed the femur?
the designer.
And the fossils don’t help either…
the designer.Echidna-Levy_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

When did whatever was the ancestor of birds become birds
Well, birds emerged probably late Jurassic or early Cretaceous. IDers won't even say that for fear of offending their YEC brethren.David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Nakashima-san And how is that different from neo-Darwinism? Population genetics? OK, and how does population genetics tell us when the ancestor of birds become birds or what that ancestor was? :-) I was using NDE synonymously with "modern evolutionary synthesis" and I probably shouldn't do that. Population genetics is good useful science and tells us a lot about how populations evolve. It can't tell us how something can evolve into a snake, alligator and a lizard.tribune7_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

In the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to make any scientific determination(s) about the who, how, when, where is by studying the design in question. Echidna-Levy:
And what conclusions have you come to?
That you and your ilk are dishonest and couldn't substantiate their claims if their lives depended on it. To all anti-IDists: ID is based on observations and experience. ID can be tested. Your position, OTOH, is based on the refusal to accept the design inference. There now it is easier to see which is scientific and which is based on personal worldviews.
Indeed, for once we can agree on something. It’s nice of you to come out and say it however.
I've been saying that for years. Now don't you feel better admitting your position is based on a personal worldview?Joseph_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Joseph
Information that is not reducible nor explainable by matter, energy, chance and necessity.
But if we postulate an "intelligent designer" that a few comments ago you said we know nothing about due to an "absence of direct observation or designer input" that fixes everything? Yes, "a designer" explains "Information". So does a hublepmorkaet. Yet neither get us anywhere.Echidna-Levy_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
For birds as well, the evidence is from all sorts of directions: fossil, anatomical, genetic, and geographical evidence all suggest that birds are related to each other and to pre-avian reptiles.
Yes, via common design. There isn't any genetic data which demonstrates non-birds can "evolve" into birds via any mechanism. Once sexual reproduction was introduced, with 1/2 of each mates' genomes being tossed out, the chance of accumulating mutations took a severe hit. Now the anatomical data says birds did not evolve from dinos nor reptiles. What mutations fixed the femur? And the fossils don't help either...Joseph_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

Joseph
In the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to make any scientific determination(s) about the who, how, when, where is by studying the design in question.
And what conclusions have you come to?
There now it is easier to see which is scientific and which is based on personal worldviews.
Indeed, for once we can agree on something. It's nice of you to come out and say it however.Echidna-Levy_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
What contribution to understanding is ID supposed to make?
Information. As in living organisms are not reucible to matter, energy, chance and necessity. IOW ID allows us to view living organisms as they really are- information processing systems. Information that is not reducible nor explainable by matter, energy, chance and necessity.Joseph_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply