[_ Old Earth _] Creationists launch peer-reviewed journal.

[DavidLee]

I honestly have tried to find real challenges to ToE. I haven't found any.

Where are you looking? The textbook? Try looking anywhere that science is practiced without the discussion of evolution (this is not a jab). Evaluate for yourself the mechanisms of this world. Don't accept anything at face value, or because a certain professor said it.

And for science coming to the wrong conclusion, sure it does, but it works to correct it self. Thats the beauty behind science. Its the best way we know how to weed out errors and bias.

In every other field of science, yes. This correction process seems to break down in the field of evolutionary theory.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

So in other words ID has no testable predictions or applications, gotcha Bob.

Let me guess - you still live in the dark -- no TV nor Radio??

OR are you finally going to admit that these are indeed based on intelligent transmition of electromagnetic wave forms -- you know "intelligent design detected in one of the four primary forces in nature"??

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.

Bob

Seriously what are you about on this one Please expalin it. Youv'e alluded to it many times, but I haven't caught where you went into any detail other than the above.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I honestly have tried to find real challenges to ToE. I haven't found any.

Where are you looking? The textbook? Try looking anywhere that science is practiced without the discussion of evolution (this is not a jab). Evaluate for yourself the mechanisms of this world. Don't accept anything at face value, or because a certain professor said it.

And for science coming to the wrong conclusion, sure it does, but it works to correct it self. Thats the beauty behind science. Its the best way we know how to weed out errors and bias.

In every other field of science, yes. This correction process seems to break down in the field of evolutionary theory.

I do evaluate the mechanisms of this world, and honestly, ToE is pretty intuitive once you look at the actual theory and not the strawman that people have been using. Mainly the same people who use junk terms like "atheistic evolution", "evolutionary dogma".

You know, the kind of terms that make you go, hmm, maybe this guy doesn't have any argument here, therefore has to be colorful to hide that fact

 

[DavidLee]

I do evaluate the mechanisms of this world, and honestly, ToE is pretty intuitive once you look at the actual theory and not the strawman that people have been using.

Seems intuitive to who? I do not rely on my intuition to decide truth. I think no one should rely on intuition when fact is available. Evolution is, at arms length, an elegant solution. But, elegant and intuition are not synonyms for correct. There are many problems with the theory of evolution which people (in general) try to ignore.

Mainly the same people who use junk terms like "atheistic evolution", "evolutionary dogma".

You know, the kind of terms that make you go, hmm, maybe this guy doesn't have any argument here, therefore has to be colorful to hide that fact

The people who react in that way are simply frustrated by the subject at hand. Most of us have had this discussion many times before (I argued against ToE before I was a Christian). We let frustration get the best of us sometimes and I agree that it does nothing to foster civil discussion or the advance of science.

Try looking past the language and look at the argument. Indeed there may not be any substance behind a persons argument, but deciding they have nothing factual to convey because they are using words that you find distasteful is not going to get you any closer.

dogma |ˈdôgmə|
noun
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true : the Christian dogma of the Trinity | the rejection of political dogma.
ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: via late Latin from Greek dogma ‘opinion,’ from dokein ‘seem good, think.’

Unfortunately, the word dogma usually fits on this subject.

 

[BobRyan]

So in other words ID has no testable predictions or applications, gotcha Bob.

Let me guess - you still live in the dark -- no TV nor Radio??

OR are you finally going to admit that these are indeed based on intelligent transmition of electromagnetic wave forms -- you know "intelligent design detected in one of the four primary forces in nature"??

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.

Bob

Seriously what are you about on this one Please expalin it. Youv'e alluded to it many times, but I haven't caught where you went into any detail other than the above.

We have the "science of detecting intelligent design" so well mastered in the case of one of the four primary fources in nature (electromagnetism) -- that we can make commercial electronics that discriminate between "design patterns" vs "simple background noise that rocks can make" ( when the rocks are given sufficient time, mass and energy).

To blindly go around claiming that SCIENCE ITSELF can not possibly enable us to detect design in nature is to embrace a doctrine of "deny-all-in-science" for the sake of atheist darwinist dogma.

I prefer science facts and academic freedom to such poor religion.

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

We have the "science of detecting intelligent design" so well mastered in the case of one of the four primary fources in nature (electromagnetism) -- that we can make commercial electronics that discriminate between "design patterns" vs "simple background noise that rocks can make" ( when the rocks are given sufficient time, mass and energy).

To blindly go around claiming that SCIENCE ITSELF can not possible work to detect desing is to embrace a "deny-all-in-science" for the sake of atheist darwinism doctrine.

I prefer facts to such poor religion.

Bob

So this is your application of ID - XFM, GPS, and Sirus radio?

I am confused.

The ability to manipulate and decode signals has what to do with what?

 

[BobRyan]

So in other words ID has no testable predictions or applications, gotcha Bob.

Let me guess - you still live in the dark -- no TV nor Radio??

OR are you finally going to admit that these are indeed based on intelligent transmition of electromagnetic wave forms -- you know "intelligent design detected in one of the four primary forces in nature"??

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.

Bob

Are you really this dumb? Someone detecting the transmission of electromagnetic waves knows exactly what they are looking for. It is testable because the methods/techniques/tools used to create them are known. It's really not that hard to understand.

Compare that to so-called design by a supposed supernatural being which you have no knowledge of.

Your efforts to pretend that you don't understand the concepts we are dicussing is not a "compelling form of debate" or at least not as "compelling as you suppose".

The fact that we CAN freely persue science that IS ABLE to detect the difference between background noice vs eletromagnetic wave forms that show design function and purpose -- that convey informtion LEADS us to solid facts -- indeed commercially available products.

In the case of biochemistry the design is FAR more advanced because instead of OUR providing the decoding encodeing and transmit infrastructure it is DONE FOR US in nature!

You have unwittingly argued that because WE designed the encoding and decoding mechanism WE are free to SEE the design -- which only amplifies the point that even ATHEISTS (your icons) admit to the encoding and decoding and transmit of DNA via RNA and tRNA -- once you admit that WE NEED DESIGN to do that -- you have already lost the argument.

The far more ADVANCED example is easily compared to the far more simplified one -- for the purposes of this exercise.

Your efforts to pretend that you don't understand the concepts in these first principles is entertaining but does not form compelling argument in favor of your view.

think about it.

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Seems intuitive to who? I do not rely on my intuition to decide truth. I think no one should rely on intuition when fact is available. Evolution is, at arms length, an elegant solution. But, elegant and intuition are not synonyms for correct. There are many problems with the theory of evolution which people (in general) try to ignore.

Besides the typical "problems" (you werent there, fossils are imagination, apes can't birth humans), am I missing some?

I don't suggest that you use those arguments, but those are the only ones I have ever seen.

I have no mind to accept evolution. In fact, I grew up being taught those very things (YEC school (attended Hovind seminars actually), YEC family, YEC churches, etc.)

It wasn't until my late teens that I took into reading about evolution that I learned I had been fleeced for a while. I admit I am no gene specialist, I hated biology in school, and had no classes in college in regards to evolution. Just what I have tried to learn on my own. But, it makes sense, and since I haven't came across any competiting theorys with scientific merit or any serious flaws, I accept it.

If someone actually presented compelling reasons why evolution is completely and utterly wrong, I would accept it.

 

[BobRyan]

I do evaluate the mechanisms of this world, and honestly, ToE is pretty intuitive once you look at the actual theory and not the strawman that people have been using.

Seems intuitive to who? I do not rely on my intuition to decide truth. I think no one should rely on intuition when fact is available. Evolution is, at arms length, an elegant solution. But, elegant and intuition are not synonyms for correct. There are many problems with the theory of evolution which people (in general) try to ignore.

Fortunately not ALL atheist darwinist are so religionistly-dogmatic in their pursuit of their doctrine regarding the junk-science religion of evolutoinism that has done "more harm than good".

Colin Patterson said:
It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification).

If someone actually presented compelling reasons why evolution is completely and utterly wrong, I would accept it.

Well that "claim" was much easier to falsify than I had thought possible.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

We have the "science of detecting intelligent design" so well mastered in the case of one of the four primary fources in nature (electromagnetism) -- that we can make commercial electronics that discriminate between "design patterns" vs "simple background noise that rocks can make" ( when the rocks are given sufficient time, mass and energy).

To blindly go around claiming that SCIENCE ITSELF can not possible work to detect desing is to embrace a "deny-all-in-science" for the sake of atheist darwinism doctrine.

I prefer facts to such poor religion.

Bob

So this is your application of ID - XFM, GPS, and Sirus radio?

I am confused.

The ability to manipulate and decode signals has what to do with what?

Again - pretending not to understand the argument is not a compelling form of debate.

The fact that WE CAN decode encode and transmit signals requires that WE apply intelligent design.

The fact that WE CAN then ALSO DESIGN electronics to discriminate for that vs background noise proves that WE CAN DETECT the design put into those electromagnetic wave forms.

In the case of electromagnetism the DETECTION is still US detecting the patterns just as in the case of biochemitry the science of detection is the part WE do - we can observe we can discover.

The fact that what we are detecting IS being encoded, decoded and transmitted FOR US instead of BY US does not delete the first principles of the science that is limited to detection.

Obviously.

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I know what you are getting at, I have seen Dembski's analogy before. I just wanted you to get detailed with it.

Why use electromagnetic waves though?

A more pure and to the point example would be "You can look at a tree and see someone's initials on it. Those initials we created and you can decode them against the background of the bark of the tree them and realize that there was a creator who carved them in."

Why does the ID movement use electromagnetic waves? Because it sounds more fancy and technical

Correct me if I am wrong, but, this is core to "Specified Complexity" (Dembski) correct?

 

[DavidLee]

If someone actually presented compelling reasons why evolution is completely and utterly wrong, I would accept it.

I know you have not read any information from reputable sources because they won't publish contradictory articles. Evolution is regarded as fact and if it's not evolution, it's not science. This journal hopefully will be more than "(you werent there, fossils are imagination, apes can't birth humans)", but we will see.

BTW - Not being there when something happens doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means it's not possible to say when it happened without independent information. There are some fundamental problems with the dating methods used that render dates unreliable.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

If someone actually presented compelling reasons why evolution is completely and utterly wrong, I would accept it.

I know you have not read any information from reputable sources because they won't publish contradictory articles. Evolution is regarded as fact and if it's not evolution, it's not science. This journal hopefully will be more than "(you werent there, fossils are imagination, apes can't birth humans)", but we will see.

BTW - Not being there when something happens doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means it's not possible to say when it happened without independent information. There are some fundamental problems with the dating methods used that render dates unreliable.

If unreliable you mean not perfectly accurate than yes. Nothing is prefectly accurate.

By unreliable you mean 6,000 years gets mistaken for 6,000,000,000 years, then cite please.

Also, I hear about this PR conspiracy all the time. I see a fundamental problem with a group of people who do not print in PR journals because of a "conspiracy". I see this as a big excuse to not wanting to stand the real scrutiny it takes.

I feel it too close to the kid in school who did badly on his test and tells his parents its because his teacher doesn't like him.

 

[Barbarian]

I would be very interested in hearing about the "flaws" in dating methods, and some evidence that scientists don't know how to avoid those flaws.

Like any other method, there are pitfalls for the unwary. Pretty much like accepting the word of professional creationists.

 

[DavidLee]

I would be very interested in hearing about the "flaws" in dating methods, and some evidence that scientists don't know how to avoid those flaws.

If a calculator says that 3 + 3 = 7, how do you avoid that flaw? Do you ignore the answer? Do you adjust the calculator until it gives you the answer you expect? Do you invent a new calculator? Do you search for a formula that the calculator can perform correctly?
When someone points out the error, do you explain that they just don't understand calculators (or math)?

The evidence is mixed with words like "reasonably expected" and "might be" so you won't see anything new. I'm sure you've read what I've read.

 

[BobRyan]

I love it when devotees to atheist darwinism pretend to have a genuine critical interest in the PROBLEMS of evolutionISM.

Let's compare their pretense to an actual Atheist Darwinist who IS capable and willing to freely express his own discoveries about the weaknesses in THE religious system that he MUST cling to "at any cost to science and reason" --

Dr. Frair quotes Colin Patterson: NY American Museum of Natural History – talk - 1981.

Colin PATTERSON:

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view,well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

"...I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: 'Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing you think is true?'
"I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence.

I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: 'Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.' "...It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

(Patterson took the words of Neal C. Gillespie alleging that the "pre-Darwinian creationist paradigm" was "'...not a research-governing theory, since its power to explain is only verbal, but an anti-theory, a void that has the function of knowledge, but conveys none'" and suggested ")...It must seem to you that I'm either misguided or malicious to suggest that such words can be applied to evolutionary theory.

"...Most of us think that we are working in evolutionary research. But is its explanatory power any more than verbal?...I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely void, not just a lack of knowledge-I think it has been positively anti-knowledge. "...

What about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge but has it conveyed any?...It is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge, or if so, I haven't yet heard it.

"Well, here we all are with all our shelves full of books on evolution. We've all read tons of them, and most of us have written one or two. And how could it be that we've done all that, we've read these books and learned nothing from them? And how could I have worked on evolution for twenty years, and learned nothing from it?

"...There is some sort of a revolution going on in evolutionary theory at the moment...It concerns the possible mechanisms that are responsible for the transformation...natural selection is under fire, and we hear a rash of new and alternative theories..."

(Again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered with this- ) "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: (saying) 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, IF you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here... "...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

Frair provides his own testimony as a front-row attendee of this talk by Patterson

Dr Frair:
I was sitting in the front row next to an AMNH curator of mammals, Karl Koopman, who, obviously very agitated kept slamming his pencil down in front of him.

Niles Eldredge in the Department of Invertebrates at AMNH was standing by the left wall (as one looks toward the speaker). Beside Eldredge stood a high school biology teacher, Roy Slingo, from the prestigious Scarsdale NY district.

Slingo later informed me that at one stage of the talk Niles Eldredge (well known for his anti-creationist perspective) grabbed his forehead and slid down the wall proclaiming, "My God, how can he be doing this to us."

Oh if only we had actual Christian devotees to atheist darwinism that were as honest and objective as the comitted atheist darwinist Colin Patterson!


Bob

 

[Barbarian]

As you already know, Patterson himself acknowledged that he had been dishonestly quote-mined on this, with a few of his words carefully edited out.

And he gets to decide.

Quote-mining is the creationist's preferred method of argumentation; having no evidence, they are reduced to poring over the statements of scientists, hoping to find something they can edit and use.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I would be very interested in hearing about the "flaws" in dating methods, and some evidence that scientists don't know how to avoid those flaws.

If a calculator says that 3 + 3 = 7, how do you avoid that flaw? Do you ignore the answer? Do you adjust the calculator until it gives you the answer you expect? Do you invent a new calculator? Do you search for a formula that the calculator can perform correctly?
When someone points out the error, do you explain that they just don't understand calculators (or math)?

The evidence is mixed with words like "reasonably expected" and "might be" so you won't see anything new. I'm sure you've read what I've read.

An analogy is not citing. Show me the evidence of how millions of scientists from around the world using various radiometric dating techniques are all wrong, even though it is independently done all the time.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I love it when devotees to atheist darwinism pretend to have a genuine critical interest in the PROBLEMS of evolutionISM.

Let's compare their pretense to an actual Atheist Darwinist who IS capable and willing to freely express his own discoveries about the weaknesses in THE religious system that he MUST cling to "at any cost to science and reason" --

Dr. Frair quotes Colin Patterson: NY American Museum of Natural History – talk - 1981.

Colin PATTERSON:

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view,well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

"...I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: 'Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing you think is true?'
"I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence.

I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: 'Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.' "...It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

(Patterson took the words of Neal C. Gillespie alleging that the "pre-Darwinian creationist paradigm" was "'...not a research-governing theory, since its power to explain is only verbal, but an anti-theory, a void that has the function of knowledge, but conveys none'" and suggested ")...It must seem to you that I'm either misguided or malicious to suggest that such words can be applied to evolutionary theory.

"...Most of us think that we are working in evolutionary research. But is its explanatory power any more than verbal?...I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely void, not just a lack of knowledge-I think it has been positively anti-knowledge. "...

What about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge but has it conveyed any?...It is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge, or if so, I haven't yet heard it.

"Well, here we all are with all our shelves full of books on evolution. We've all read tons of them, and most of us have written one or two. And how could it be that we've done all that, we've read these books and learned nothing from them? And how could I have worked on evolution for twenty years, and learned nothing from it?

"...There is some sort of a revolution going on in evolutionary theory at the moment...It concerns the possible mechanisms that are responsible for the transformation...natural selection is under fire, and we hear a rash of new and alternative theories..."

(Again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered with this- ) "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: (saying) 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, IF you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here... "...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

Frair provides his own testimony as a front-row attendee of this talk by Patterson

[quote:c27a3] Dr Frair:
I was sitting in the front row next to an AMNH curator of mammals, Karl Koopman, who, obviously very agitated kept slamming his pencil down in front of him.

Niles Eldredge in the Department of Invertebrates at AMNH was standing by the left wall (as one looks toward the speaker). Beside Eldredge stood a high school biology teacher, Roy Slingo, from the prestigious Scarsdale NY district.

Slingo later informed me that at one stage of the talk Niles Eldredge (well known for his anti-creationist perspective) grabbed his forehead and slid down the wall proclaiming, "My God, how can he be doing this to us."

Oh if only we had actual Christian devotees to atheist darwinism that were as honest and objective as the comitted atheist darwinist Colin Patterson!


Bob[/quote:c27a3]

When will you stop quote mining and actually participate?

 

[Patashu]

We have the "science of detecting intelligent design" so well mastered in the case of one of the four primary fources in nature (electromagnetism) -- that we can make commercial electronics that discriminate between "design patterns" vs "simple background noise that rocks can make" ( when the rocks are given sufficient time, mass and energy).

To blindly go around claiming that SCIENCE ITSELF can not possible work to detect desing is to embrace a "deny-all-in-science" for the sake of atheist darwinism doctrine.

I prefer facts to such poor religion.

Bob

So this is your application of ID - XFM, GPS, and Sirus radio?

I am confused.

The ability to manipulate and decode signals has what to do with what?

Again - pretending not to understand the argument is not a compelling form of debate.

The fact that WE CAN decode encode and transmit signals requires that WE apply intelligent design.

The fact that WE CAN then ALSO DESIGN electronics to discriminate for that vs background noise proves that WE CAN DETECT the design put into those electromagnetic wave forms.

In the case of electromagnetism the DETECTION is still US detecting the patterns just as in the case of biochemitry the science of detection is the part WE do - we can observe we can discover.

The fact that what we are detecting IS being encoded, decoded and transmitted FOR US instead of BY US does not delete the first principles of the science that is limited to detection.

Obviously.

Bob

Why do we have to accept that life/the universe is intelligently designed to also accept that certain electromagnetic wave signals that we know and have recorded that humans have invented, designed, coded information into and sent are intelligently designed?
And why was the radio invented before intelligent design was thought up if intelligent design is fundamental to being able to receive signals from a radio? It's really not that hard, you just need a protocol, an agreed-apon method of sending your signal and of receiving it.