Ed and God

timsinclair wrote:

Oh come on Collin. I thought the play on words was quite good. Read the analogy again, the play on words is not important, I just thought it was helpful. There are 2 ways someone can die – one without an outside intelligent agent (murderer), and one with one. The forensic scientist will often have to determine which is responsible. Forensics are open to both possibilities. In origins science, naturalism is NOT open to both intelligent and non-intelligent causes, it rules out intelligent causes without empirical foundation and imposes this on science. That’s what the analogy is about, it works.

If you believe in the ‘Big Bang’ then we agree that there was a ‘singularity’, a beginning. If you do not, then I guess you must be a ‘steady state theory’ man but I thought you were a little bit more mainstream than that.

timsinclair wrote:

Hi Collin.
Good to have you back.

Well 150 years on, we still don’t have the ‘transitional fossils’. To illustrate this, consider this response, in 1979, to a letter to Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History]asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book on Evolution:

‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.”? I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.


This is one reason why Darwinism, which began as a credible scientific theory, is now anti-empirical, and supported only by naturalistic philosophy, which makes it ‘a fact’ regardless of empirical evidence. Peace.

timsinclair wrote:

Help. Moderator.

Seriously, all I can say is 'God Bless you'.

timsinclair wrote:

I thought you were better tan retreating to this 'science has been defined' mantra. I actually dont think either definition of science should rule, both options should be legitimate. I think the scientific controversy over origins should be taught in schools so pupils can make up there own minds. Evolutionists are scared of a level playing field cos they know they might lose.

We havn't realy discussed the evidence because you refuse to believe that there is any. If you admitted that ID has scientific evidence you would have to admit that it is science. Rather than engaging with evidence you have stuck with the 'ID is religion in disguise' tactic. I have demonstrated why this is untrue and you have ignored the evidence of this. You have stuck to your 'there is no discrimination in science against ID' line despite having a journal reviewer come on this thread and state that this discrimination exists. You have also repeatedly refused to watch the new film 'expelled' (about scientific discrimination against ID scientists) because you are afraid that it would shake your belief system. You cannot accept that 'real' scientists reject Darwinism and argue for design so its easier for you to dimiss them as 'creationists in disguise'. We both know that if they are in fact genuine, your worldview would be shaken so I dont think you want to believe they exist. I think its you who needs to be brave if you are realy interested in truth. Peace.

timsinclair wrote:

Forget supernatural, think intelligent vs non-intelligent, old age has no intelligent input, an axe in the head requires an intellgent cause. Please try again, it DOES make sense.

timsinclair wrote:

The fact that ID does not deal with dinosaurs does not make it unscientific. ID is, at present a relativly narrow field, it is not trying to explain everything, it does not have to explain everything in order to be good science.

P.s Why is it ridiculous to think that dinosaurs were on the ark?

KosmicJelli wrote:

OMG your all stoned!!!!

Cosmo wrote:

...


And given the nature of the predatory dinosaurs (sharp, pointed teeth to rip through flesh and binocular vision of a predator), the Ark would have been a floating buffet. Noah would have to be a fool to load a T.Rex on the same boat as his kids.

Keiran wrote:

I asked this question when I was a kid in Sunday School. The teacher told me God put them all in a deep coma like sleep so they didn't eat each other or need to defecate - yes I asked how they cleaned up all the poop. Even as a child, this answer seemed ridiculous. Almost fairy tale in nature.

And, by the way, Google the term "transitional fossils." The list of transitional fossils in existence is too fucking long to cut and paste. But maybe I will, because a wall of quoted text that obliterates the eyes is a sure way to prove I'm right!