[_ Old Earth _] Is ID science?

[Barbarian]

Just for laughs, Bob, why not try to tell us the four basic points to Darwin's theory, and then tell us what modifications to that theory were made to produce the theory used today?

You could look it up, if you want, but I'm pretty sure you'll give us an entertaining revision anyway.

Go for it.

 

[Snidey]

We really need some different creationists around here.

 

[Gabe]

Hi bob,
Are you sure you're a Christian? By your repetitive and frankly amusing posts one can only assume that you worship Patterson, not our Lord Jesus Christ. Maybe instead of cutting and pasting the same interview time and time again your time would be better spent studying our Holy scripture? Patterson is not the 'be all and end all' of the evolution theory and quite frankly the thought of someone labelling me as being on your side is embarrassing (me being on the same side as in my faith, not on my view of creation vs evolution: I have stated before that I am undecided but if the choice was solely based on your debating skills in this thread I think I would lean towards the latter)

Why do you keep shoving creation and Christianity in one box and evolution and Atheism in the other? As Barbarian and probably millions (not thousands) of BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIANS have proved this is simply not the case. I'm sure there are many Atheist out the who do not believe the evolution theory to be correct. We are not all clones and we do interpret scripture and the validity of scientific theories differently. Where do you get off assuming that Barbarian (or any other person) is not a Bible believing Christian because he/she thinks the evolution theory to be correct?

P-S: If you want people to read the same Patterson quotes in every other post: please make it more friendly on the eye, I'm getting a migraine.

God bless

 

[lordkalvan]

Hi bob,
Are you sure you're a Christian? By your repetative and frankly amusing posts one can only assume that you worship Paterson, not our Lord Jesus Christ.....

I have snipped the remainder of your post as all I really want to say is, Well said! :smt023

 

[Barbarian]

We really need some different creationists around here.

Selective pressure is a bit too much, if you want to establish a healthy population. The only ones that survive hereabouts are those that have evolved a sturdy shell.

 

[turnorburn]

Would this be considered off topic? http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html

 

[BobRyan]

Hi bob,
Are you sure you're a Christian? By your repetative and frankly amusing posts one can only assume that you worship Paterson, not our Lord Jesus Christ.

Patterson was a lifelong atheist darwinist -- AND senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural history -- a museum that is essentially a monument to Darwin "In Darwin's own backyard" as it were. Hint: That is "Home base" for darwinISM.

Is it your argument that as Christians we should "pay no attention to the frank statements of fact made by any leading atheist darwinist" that might indicate that even THEY can see the gaps in their own stories"??? OR do you argue that we should ONLY avoid the summations of those atheist darwinists at times when they express insights "not-pleasing" or "inconvenient" to the common darwinist religionist?

If you are arguing that in a discussion with atheists and agnostics THERE IS A BETTER more "well accepted source" to quote -- please identify it?

If you are arguing that being objective to the point that quoting the OTHER SIDE ADMITTING to the salient points of your own argument is "too objective" and we should instead resort to more subjective methods -- please make a cogent case for avoiding that high standard of objectivity. Do you really think that this "endless reference to fellow darwinists by the darwinists" shows even an ounce of objectivity? Couldn't all Christians just mindlessly "do likewise" and quote AIG all day long?

Maybe instead of cutting and pasting the same interview time and time again your time would be better spent studying our Holy scripture?

Is it your belief that each darwinist argument should be met with "Thus sayeth the Lord" from scripture instead of pointing out to them that their own leaders admit to some of the key points they turn from in theiir "deny-all" solution?

Paterson is not the 'be all and end all' of the evolution theory

If you have a "higher source" in darwinism being just as honest and frank about those blunders in the darwinist model -- I am open to whatever you can substantively show to be the case.

and quite frankly the thought of someone labeling me as being on your side is embarrassing

Are you quoting me??

(me being on the same side as in my faith, not on my view of creation vs evolution: i have stated before that i am undecided

There is a thread on the Bible vs Darwinism -- if you think there is a case to made that the Bible is preaching darwinism instead of "For in Six days the Lord made..." and since you do claim to have an interest in scripture -- I highly recommend "doing the math" on that thread -- "show your work" in the text of scripture... IF you think you can make a case for it.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31943&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=120#p392516

but if the choice was solely based on your debating skills

While I deeply appreciate your resorting to the same ad hominem methods of many of our darwinist posters here - that is no more "subtantive now" than it was each time they stooped to doing that.

Why do you keep shoving creation and Christianity in one box and evolution and Atheism in the other?

Look at the ID threads. There you have darwinists attacking evolutionists that ADMIT to ID SCIENCE methods -- methods that by definition "do not pandar to the dictates of atheist dogma" in their willingness to "follow the data where it leads EVEN if it leads to a conclusion in favor of design that does not mindlessly submit to atheism".

As Barbarian and probably millions (not thousands) of BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIANS have proved

The "mere existence" of millions of Christians that unwittingly attack any evolutionist scientist that would ADMIT to the SCIENCE FACT in ID SEEN in nature is no more "evidence" that such a thing is "Christian" than the "existence" of millions of Christians in the dark ages sent out to slaughter each other in the name of God would be considered today as "A Christian action" simply because "lots of Christians were doing it in the dark ages".

Darwinism is "distinctively atheist" in it's attack on ID Science BECAUSE as we see in Romans 1 even pagans are cleary aware of a level of ID far ABOVE the ID being addressed in ID science today.

Just stating the obvious here.

God bless

Bob

 

[Gabe]

I do not want to get in a debate with you as I fear it may never end but I will clarify what I meant:

Patterson may have been a leading life-long 'Atheist darwinist'. I am not suggesting that anyone should pay no attention to frank statements of fact or that anything be avoided if it is not pleasing or inconvenient

What I am saying is that your posts are repetitive to the point of utter boredom. Just because you post the same quote over and over again does not mean that someone who chose to disregard your post or thought it insignificant the first or fifth time around will suddenly find it any more more interesting

Your posts are ugly to the eye, rude in tone and not very constructive to a debate. Your replies rarely seem to have anything to do with the questions asked or the points raised.

I was not quoting you, I was simply stating that you continually manage to make yourself look closed-minded, judgemental and silly and it does not reflect well on other Christians (for example: myself) and I do not appreciate this.

And what is up with all the capital "ISM's"

 

[BobRyan]

Paterson may have been a leading life-long 'Atheist darwinist'. I am not suggesting that anyone should pay no attention to frank statements of fact or that anything be avoided if it is not pleasing or inconvenient

Then you are accepting the very thing our darwinist friends are most anxious to avoid.

The point is that easy.

Gabriel Ali
What i am saying is that your posts are repetative

That is the funny thing about a "silver bullet" unnanswerable point that leaves the Darwinist side utterly flummoxed. Their ownly remaining tactic is to "ask that they not be reminded of it".

I am not arguing that EVERY point turns into one that leaves them stuck in that way - but this is among the few that do.

AND the point is instructive for those who are not Darwinists - because it gives insight into the Darwinist playbook - it shows the methods that they use and instead of simply me saying "Hey I there is something fishy here - I think maybe you guys are just engaged in nothing more than stories EASY ENOUGH to make up about how one thing came from another -- stories but not science" I can have Patterson say it FOR ME -- leaving the Darwinists to attack him as "nothing of interest" (as silly and short-lived as that solution is) and to attack me for reminding them that he said it.

Recall that the "every-day-game" for darwinists is "just say nay to whatever creationists say" so having them twisted around on their own atheist darwinist source -- is a bit of a break from the "everyday boring" solution they try all the time.

G-A
Just because you post the same quote over and over again does not mean that someone who chose to disregard your post or thought it insignificant the first or fifth time around will suddenly find it anymore more interesting

I agree they will not "like the unnanswerable point better the second time" any more than the first. All they can do is ask that it not be posted so that any new readers of the thread will not be reminded of it.

I get that -

you continually manage to make yourself look closed-minded, judgemental and silly

As I said earlier the ad hominem solution has already been tried ad nausium by the Darwinists when they run across points they can not solve.. thanks again for reminding us of it.

and it does not reflect well on other Christians (for example: myself) and i do not appreciate this.

If you have some kind of 'genuine" interest in either Christianity vs Darwin or the Bible vs Darwin we have a thread were you can actually contribute instead of merely whining. There are a number of Christians posting there - maybe you should join them and enter into insightful cogent discussion on the point.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31943&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p374475

You will find topics on Romans 1 vs ID science as well as Ex 20:8-11 vs the timeline in Gen 1-2:3. If your interest is actually in exegeting the text of scripture on the point as you claim -- there is a good place to start.

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

AND the point is instructive for those who are not Darwinists - because it gives insight into the Darwinist playbook - it shows the methods that they use and instead of simply me saying "Hey I there is something fishy here - I think maybe you guys are just engaged in nothing more than stories EASY ENOUGH to make up about how one thing came from another -- stories but not science" I can have Patterson say it FOR ME -- leaving the Darwinists to attack him as "nothing of interest" (as silly and short-lived as that solution is) and to attack me for reminding them that he said it.

Bob, the day you make posts that don't deal with 50 year old fail theories is the day you may begin to get somewhere.

the only three things that you seem to be able to muster as your evidence are pilt down, simpson's horse, and patterson quotes that are plainly out of context.

First of all, trying to poke holes in the other side, without providing the evidence for your side, is a well known underhanded debating tactic. It only wins the debate in the eyes of people who were already inclined to believe your side in the first place.

But even then, your attempt to argue in that style is poor at best. First, the holes you try to pick at are a couple of failed theories that are over 50 years old. Secondly, those are DECENT theories for various species. If some one has a theory for a newly found fossil in regards to a species decent, and then that theory is proven to be false, the decent theory fails, not evolution.

In fact you will find many decent theories that fail, because this is science. Science is full of failed theories. That is why the scientific method is so strong.

Please bring out your scientific theories, I am still waiting for you to create the thread that pulls all of your evidence together FOR your side, or are you not planning on creating that thread?

Your method of debating is like someone saying that there are no such thing as other planets in our solar system because Pluto was down graded from being a planet. Silly.

 

[BobRyan]

Darwinism's failed Neanderthal blunder may be 30 years old -- but the mistake was "just confirmed" in the last two years.

Darwinism's horse series fraud may have been promoted long after it was not to be something that "never happened in nature" in fact 50 years afterwards... but it is still waiting a full retraction in some darwinist texts.

The fraudulent history of Darwinism speaks for itself as we see in the case of Neanderthal man, Simpson's horse series, Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Haeckles ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny farce ... you know the usual stuff.

Even Urey,Miller's wild claims are now hitting rock bottom.

First point - A system of junk-science such as Darwinism where fraud after fraud is exposed over time -- has to constantly keep "re-inventing itself" and arguing that people "should not notice it's track record" the same as you argue above --

Second point - I never bring up the gaffs, blunders and frauds of atheist darwinism as "proof for ID SCIENCE" rather I only refer to it when some devotee to darwinism takes a wild leap off the edge of reason claiming that Darwinism is some kind of proven science as compared to ID.

in that case I show that the proven track record of Darwinism is simply junk-science fraud after junk-science fraud.

I also argue Patterson's observations about the faith-based element in Darwinism and the anti-knowledge component in what Patterson called evolutionISM and of course the "stories easy enough to make up" central core of Darwinism that Patterson mentioned - as being key insights helping all objective unbiased readers better understand the Darwinist posts and methods used on the thread.

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Which again is another re-post of the same points you hold to.

You point to failed theories of decent. Ok. When are you going to debate evolution? When are you going to post your evidence?

Cosmology has had some failed theories as well. Shall we argue against this branch of science using the same method?

 

[lordkalvan]

....Darwinism's horse series fraud may have been promoted long after it was not to be something that "never happened in nature" in fact 50 years afterwards... but it is still waiting a full retraction in some darwinist texts.

The fraudulent history of Darwinism speaks for itself as we see in the case of Neanderthal man, Simpson's horse series, Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Haeckles ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny farce ... you know the usual stuff.

Even Urey,Miller's wild claims are now hitting rock bottom.

First point - A system of junk-science such as Darwinism where fraud after fraud is exposed over time -- has to constantly keep "re-inventing itself" and arguing that people "should not notice it's track record" the same as you argue above.....

I think that your blanket use of the word 'fraud' so frequently in this post is bordering on the libellous.

To take but one example in your list, if by 'Nebraska man' you are referring to the case of Hesperopithecus, I fail to see how this can be described as fraudulent in any sense of the word.

The discoverers of Hesperopithecus may have been guilty of a hasty publication of their findings, but Henry Osborn at least never identified Hesperopithecus as a human ancestor, did everything he could to ensure his discovery was fully debated and studied around the world, and devoted serious efforts to gathering further data.

Perhaps the greatest criticism that can be levelled against Osborn is that, when it became evident that Hesperopithecus was not a primate but rather a pig, he left it to his colleague W.K. Gregory to publish the retraction and take most of the heat. It is also the case that Hesperopithecus was a puzzle that was investigated and resolved by 'Darwinists', not by creationists. Scarcely an example of 'junk science', but rather an example of science doing something that it does rather well.

 

[BobRyan]

Which again is another re-post of the same points you hold to.

Turns out that pointing out the blunders of Darwinism just never gets old if you are NOT a darwinist.

Cosmology has had some failed theories as well. Shall we argue against this branch of science using the same method?

I am not talking about "stories that simply did not pan out" I am talking about fraud (and "yes" there is a difference).

Hint: Cosmologists do not MAKE UP the data the way that junk-science artists do.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

....Darwinism's horse series fraud may have been promoted long after it was not to be something that "never happened in nature" in fact 50 years afterwards... but it is still waiting a full retraction in some darwinist texts.

The fraudulent history of Darwinism speaks for itself as we see in the case of Neanderthal man, Simpson's horse series, Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Haeckles ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny farce ... you know the usual stuff.

Even Urey,Miller's wild claims are now hitting rock bottom.

First point - A system of junk-science such as Darwinism where fraud after fraud is exposed over time -- has to constantly keep "re-inventing itself" and arguing that people "should not notice it's track record" the same as you argue above.....

I think that your blanket use of the word 'fraud' so frequently in this post is bordering on the libellous.

How defensively "entertaining".

When atheist Darwinists admit that "Simpon's horse sequence NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE" even though it was fraudulently foisted onto the public "AS IF IT HAPPENED IN NATURE" without any "Here is a sequence for the horse that we have not found in nature but we do hope to find some day" disclaimer ANYWHERE -- they are admitting to fraud.

When the fraud of Piltdown and of Haekcle's display of Ontogeny and of the false yes fraudulent claims for Neanderthal man and for ...

Basically fraud and deceptive junk-science practice -- foisted onto the unsuspecting public for decades at a time before exposed and debunked appears to be the "core" of the junk-science methods used in Darwinism.

What part have we missed? OR do you argue that it is "risky to NOTICE"???

Osborn's contribution to the Scopes trial in Tennessee was to create public awarness of "irrefutable proof" of the American "Ape-man" Nebraska man --using a pig's tooth.

Ironically, the similarity between peccary teeth and those of hominids had been noted 13 years before Osborn published his description of Hesperopithecus. In 1909, W. D. Matthew and Harold Cook had the following to say in describing Prosthennops: [quotexatq4bp]"The anterior molars and premolars of this genus of peccaries show a startling resemblance to the teeth of Anthropoidea, and might well be mistaken for them by anyone not familiar with the dentition of Miocene peccaries."

(p. 390) Matthew was Osborn's younger colleague at the American Museum of Natural History, and there is no way that Osborn could not have known about this 1909 warning.

...

In May 1925 Osborn ... called on Bryan to honor his own dictum that Truth is Truth and must prevail. An element of Truth, Osborn argued, appeared as a diminutive tooth from Nebraska. .

Osborn - May 1925
What shall we do with the Nebraska tooth? Shall we destroy it because it jars our long preconceived notion that the family of manlike apes never reached the western world . . . ? Or shall we continue our excavations, difficult and baffling as they are, in the confident hope, inspired by the admonition of Job, that if we keep speaking to the earth we shall in time hear a more audible and distinct reply? Certainly we shall not banish this bit of Truth because it does not fit in with our preconceived notions and because at present it constitutes infinitesimal but irrefutable evidence that the man-apes wandered over from Asia into North America. (Osborn, 1925a, pp. 800-801)

[Five days later, just as the trial was beginning, Osborn produced another full-page defense of evolution in The New York Times (Osborn, 1925c). With Bryan's July 7 quote about the Nebraska tooth standing as a goad at the top of the article, Osborn nonetheless went through his entire argument without even a passing reference to Hesperopithecus.

What had happened? Quite simply, Hesperopithecus had come to the end of its short life, although most of the world would not learn of the demise for another two-and-one-half years. By mid-July, Osborn had undoubtedly received the first specimens from the renewed collecting at the Hesperopithecus discovery site. This material, as we have noted, probably caused doubts in the minds of Osborn and Gregory over the reality of Hesperopithecus.

And what if Bryan had found out about the uncertain status of Hesperopithecus? If such doubts had been raised at the Scopes trial, it could have led to disastrous consequences for Scopes's defense and even for the public image of evolution

Clearly, it would have been best for Osborn to back off and stay out of reach in New York. So, having fulfilled his obligation to Scopes's defense with the July 12 piece in The New York Times, Osborn sat out the Scopes trial, not even submitting written testimony.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html
[/quotexatq4bp]

 

[lordkalvan]

^ Bob, I notice you quote selectively from the TO article to support the arguments you want to make, while at the same time to all intents and purposes ignoring those I made in respect of your allegations of fraud in the case of Hesperopithecus. Further extracts from that commentary:

This spirited exchange sounded like a prelude to a spectacular confrontation between Osborn and Bryan at the Scopes trial. Osborn appeared to be gearing up for a clash with Bryan when, in a series of essays published in May 1925, he singled out the Great Commoner as the man who would be on trial in Tennessee (Osborn, 1925b). Late in June he was listed as one of eleven "scientists who will be called to testify in the defense of John T. Scopes." (Anon., 1925a)

Then a very odd thing happened, at least as far as the published record goes. As Boule (1928, p. 208) characterized it, "the silence descended" on Hesperopithecus at the end of June 1925. The Scopes trial was about to start, and a genuine American fossil hominoid from his home state could have, at the least, put Bryan and his colleagues on the prosecution on the defensive. Bryan, in fact, was prepared to take on Nebraska Man -- upon his arrival in Dayton on July 7, he repeated his comments belittling the "missing link" founded on a single tooth from Nebraska and, dredging up one of his favorite lines, told reporters that "these men would destroy the Bible on evidence that would not convict a habitual criminal of a misdemeanor." (Anon., 1925b, p. 6)

Five days later, just as the trial was beginning, Osborn produced another full-page defense of evolution in The New York Times (Osborn, 1925c). With Bryan's July 7 quote about the Nebraska tooth standing as a goad at the top of the article, Osborn nonetheless went through his entire argument without even a passing reference to Hesperopithecus.

What had happened? Quite simply, Hesperopithecus had come to the end of its short life, although most of the world would not learn of the demise for another two-and-one-half years.

Again I make the point that it was not creationists who analysed and revealed the problems with Hesperopithecus, but scientists doing what scientists do.

 

[BobRyan]

Don't get me wrong -- I freely admit that Osborn's " irrefutable evidence that the man-apes [/u] wandered over from Asia into North America. (Osborn, 1925a, pp. 800-801) " http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

-- as brought out in the link below -- are "just so many inconvenient details to be ignored" for the true believer in atheist darwinism.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31996&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=300#p395823

It is therefore no wonder that NOT ONCE do you reference it in your transparent efforts to "tell a better story" !!

What is also "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader is that the talkorigin site argues that the reader should join them in supposing that Osborn was wise to avoid letting the truth get out about Nebraska man in a way that would inform the general public on the need to be critical of the wild claims being made by believers in evolutionism about Nebraska Man.

Caveat Emptor when it comes to Darwinism.

Also notice that Osborn "should have known" segment in the quote from talkorigins since his own co-worker had ALREADY pointed out in 1909 the strong similarities to pig's teeth which would lead anyone with half-an-interest in science and truth AWAY from a "one-toothed claim" for "APE MAN" - or at the VERY LEAST it would lead them to ADMIT to the public the fuzzy level on which they were basing their wild claims when presenting "MAN APES" to the public!

Ironically, the similarity between peccary teeth and those of hominids had been noted 13 years before Osborn published his description of Hesperopithecus. In 1909, W. D. Matthew and Harold Cook had the following to say in describing Prosthennops: [quote:1jwkfujh]"The anterior molars and premolars of this genus of peccaries show a startling resemblance to the teeth of Anthropoidea, and might well be mistaken for them by anyone not familiar with the dentition of Miocene peccaries."

(p. 390) Matthew was Osborn's younger colleague at the American Museum of Natural History, and there is no way that Osborn could not have known about this 1909 warning.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html
[/quote:1jwkfujh]


But such essentials in "honesty" are totally lost when dealing with the fraudulent junk-science religion we call Darwinism.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^And once more, Bob, you accuse Osborn of fraud with no very good evidence to support your accusation. It is a good thing for you indeed that he is not alive to sue you for libel.

 

[BobRyan]

1. Take the 2 minutes to actually READ this post without glossing over the inconvenient details.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31996&start=315#p395873

2. pay attention to the section in RED (quotes from your own side's talkorigins site)

Hint L.K -- less smoke (harrumphing around) - more fire (substance)

3. Your own efforts to "tell a better story" are glossing over more facts than usuall.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ So, Bob, are you accusing Osborn of deliberate intent to deceive in the case of Hesperopithecus?