Calm Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) Kennewick Man: CFR for your claim it was the scientists and not the Native American group who interfere (or rather the government on their behalf) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4651831.stm http://books.google.com/books?id=IWT4_ZQ2grsC&pg=PR22&dq=Umatilla+creation%7Coral+kennewick&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Umatilla%20creation%7Coral%20kennewick&f=false Edited July 28, 2014 by calmoriah
thesometimesaint Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 No one has claimed that computers are living. The analogy is between engineered things. Many things are engineered, and their engineering is distinct from non-engineered things, based on this observation DNA is apart of that engineered category. The fact that DNA is also apart of a living structure only ads to the level of sophisticated engineering. Fact is we also engineer things to support human life (artificial lungs/hearts etc.), so just because it's alive doesn't disqualify DNA from being in that category. ID is only a religious concept if one posits a religious designer, which is not a necessary part of ID. This argument is rejected based not on scientific objections, but political and religious ones. Which only demonstrates that science is highly political. Living things change. Nonliving things generally do not. Your argument has been addressed many times before. It is a teleological argument "The Watchmakers Analogy". Incorrect. A specific subset of Christianity is part and parcel of ID.SEE. http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdfSEE http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists Incorrect. Here are just some of the scientific objections to Creationism/Intelligent Design. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.htmlhttp://www.nas.edu/evolution/http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=443
thesometimesaint Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 A very excellent point. Why would the CSUN (Northridge) staff not allow the peer review to continue its course and invite further examination of the evidence? Why would the Biology Department want to silence Mark Armitage? Especially when he has had a 30 year career of scientific work and publishing credits? This brings up a disturbing question: If a group of "professional" scientists or professor or researcher with a strong "commitment" to Evolutionary Theory were to unearth a fossil containing soft tissue, would she/he be honest enough to document the finding? Maybe some would be inclined to do so but knowing the intolerance and rigid "narrative" of most academic institutions, they would be fearful of being hounded out of their positions and ruin their careers? So either of those groups might be forced to suppress the find. Which would be a tragic thing to have happen. That would be unscientific behavior. We are faced with extremism in academia that is setting back science many decades. Remember what happened with the discovery of the Kennewick Man? As soon as it was mentioned the possibility of its descendancy from European continent as far back as 7600 B.C., the academics freaked out and went into overdrive to suppress the evidence. Because they did not want their favored politically correct view of the "noble" American "natives" to be challenged. So some federal agency sent bulldozers to "mess up" and "cover up" the river bank where the excavation was taking place. And they tried to lock up the Kennewick remains. So court battles had to ensue. Which was ridiculous and unscientific.It was NOT the scientists that tied the remains up in legal challenges.SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man
MormonFreeThinker Posted July 28, 2014 Author Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) Why is DNA evidence of a designer/engineer? Because I have observed things that are designed and engineered before, and DNA is equal to those things. That is not my point, you said that we cannot prove the distant past, so how does DNA prove that life was created in the distant past? That is my point. Do you remember when God created the earth and life? If DNA proves that life was created in the distant past, that means that we can prove the distant past, simple. In essence, evolutionists must claim that things like the computer are derived from non-intelligent sources. Has this ever been observed? No. The opposite is observed everyday. Computers do not grow, so computers cannot Evolve. Evolution is simply saying that life changes, Evolution is not about the origin of life. Your arguments are not a problem for Theistic Evolutionists. You claimed that God used evolution, but you still haven't answered my question why God didn't tell us that? God didn't tell us about the Milky Way, he didn't tell us about plate tectonics, he didn't tell us that the embryo becomes a fetus (that is also Evolution). The scriptures are not science textbooks, God has not revealed the details, but Evolution is a safe assumption because of the scientific evidence. Soft tissue in dinosaurs is but one data point among many that don't agree with the evolutionists point of view. Not at all, see http://www.burkemuseum.org/paleontology/publications_kaye/ You are correct, I am using a philosophical argument. And so are you. So also is every scientist who claims to make inferences about the past which can never be repeated or tested or observed. Okay, fair enough,, if you want to say that Evolution is a philosophy that is fine. However, scientists observe this facts1. DNA proves that all life is related2. DNA proves common ancestry, that has been tested so many times. DNA can prove who is your grandfather. 3. We share certain pseudogenes and Endogenous retroviruses with chimps. Edited July 28, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
danielwoods Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) That is not my point, you said that we cannot prove the distant past, so how does DNA prove that life was created in the distant past? That is my point. Do you remember when God created the earth and life? If DNA proves that life was created in the distant past, that means that we can prove the distant past, simple. Computers do not grow, so computers cannot Evolve. Evolution is simply saying that life changes, Evolution is not about the origin of life. Your arguments are not a problem for Theistic Evolutionists. God didn't tell us about the Milky Way, he didn't tell us about plate tectonics, he didn't tell us that the embryo becomes a fetus (that is also Evolution). The scriptures are not science textbooks, God has not revealed the details, but Evolution is a safe assumption because of the scientific evidence. Not at all, see http://www.burkemuseum.org/paleontology/publications_kaye/ Okay, fair enough,, if you want to say that Evolution is a philosophy that is fine. However, scientists observe this facts1. DNA proves that all life is related2. DNA proves common ancestry, that has been tested so many times. DNA can prove who is your grandfather. 3. We share certain pseudogenes and Endogenous retroviruses with chimps. How does DNA prove that life was created in the distant past? Our disagreement is in the mode of the created process. You believe God used Evolution, I don't. You buy into the atheistic view put forth that all of life is derived from this process. Your twist is that God used this process. The existence of DNA is evidence of an engineer behind our existence. Does DNA "prove" that it was created in six days? No. Does it "prove" that it evolved over eons of time? No. It is only is evidence of an engineer, because engineered things don't arise from natural processes. I haven't claimed that computers evolve. God didn't tell us about a lot of things this is true. He did clearly tell us that he created all that exists in six days. Clearly it isn't a description of evolution. If God used evolution, why say it was in six days? Why would Jesus say in the beginning we were created male and female? I didn't say that evolution was a philosophy. I said it uses philosophy. Here's an example, "DNA proves common ancestry and has been tested many times." Common ancestry means not who is your grandfather, but that we shared a common ancestry with chimps (as an example). Does DNA prove this? Of course not. Is it tested? Of course not!What your statement actually indicates is that you *believe* that it's tested. You look at the data and infer that this or that is true. That isn't observing the past, but the observing the present and making inferences about the past. inferences are not tests. If it was actually testable, it wouldn't be an inference, and it wouldn't be a debate. To further expose this folly, I could ask, what exact test was done to prove common ancestry? Edited July 28, 2014 by danielwoods
ERayR Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Kennewick Man: CFR for your claim it was the scientists and not the Native American group who interfere (or rather the government on their behalf)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4651831.stm Is that Jean-Luc Picard? 1
ERayR Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Living things change. Nonliving things generally do not. Your argument has been addressed many times before. It is a teleological argument "The Watchmakers Analogy". Incorrect. A specific subset of Christianity is part and parcel of ID. Not a good argument. Computers have change dramatically and so has watches. Not necessarily. You forgot about the ancient alien faction.
thesometimesaint Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 How does DNA prove that life was created in the distant past? Our disagreement is in the mode of the created process. You believe God used Evolution, I don't. You buy into the atheistic view put forth that all of life is derived from this process. Your twist is that God used this process. The existence of DNA is evidence of an engineer behind our existence. Does DNA "prove" that it was created in six days? No. Does it "prove" that it evolved over eons of time? No. It is only is evidence of an engineer, because engineered things don't arise from natural processes. I haven't claimed that computers evolve. God didn't tell us about a lot of things this is true. He did clearly tell us that he created all that exists in six days. Clearly it isn't a description of evolution. If God used evolution, why say it was in six days? Why would Jesus say in the beginning we were created male and female? I didn't say that evolution was a philosophy. I said it uses philosophy. Here's an example, "DNA proves common ancestry and has been tested many times." Common ancestry means not who is your grandfather, but that we shared a common ancestry with chimps (as an example). Does DNA prove this? Of course not. Is it tested? Of course not!What your statement actually indicates is that you *believe* that it's tested. You look at the data and infer that this or that is true. That isn't observing the past, but the observing the present and making inferences about the past. inferences are not tests. If it was actually testable, it wouldn't be an inference, and it wouldn't be a debate. To further expose this folly, I could ask, what exact test was done to prove common ancestry? DNA is the hallmark of all life on this planet. Find DNA you've found life. You are entitled to believe anything you want. However science doesn't support your belief. Science by definition is Agnostic when it comes to issues of God.SEE That is a teleological argument.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument We've found DNA in billions of year old plants and animals. DNA is the hallmark of all life on this planet. Find DNA you've found life. Computers can't evolve. You are jumping from that simple fact to claim that life doesn't evolve either. If "X" doesn't exist therefor "Y" must not exist. Another logical fallacy. Humans and Chimps share some 99% DNA.SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics Repeated tests confirm it. Inference is part and parcel of any science. The difference is that scientist then look for confirmation IE; No one here was alive when my great grandmother was. A logical inference is that she was. As the evidence for him I have very similar DNA and pictures of her.SEE http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/scientific-creationism-as-pseudoscience
danielwoods Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 DNA is the hallmark of all life on this planet. Find DNA you've found life. You are entitled to believe anything you want. However science doesn't support your belief. Science by definition is Agnostic when it comes to issues of God.SEE That is a teleological argument.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument We've found DNA in billions of year old plants and animals. DNA is the hallmark of all life on this planet. Find DNA you've found life. Computers can't evolve. You are jumping from that simple fact to claim that life doesn't evolve either. If "X" doesn't exist therefor "Y" must not exist. Another logical fallacy. Humans and Chimps share some 99% DNA.SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics Repeated tests confirm it. Inference is part and parcel of any science. The difference is that scientist then look for confirmation IE; No one here was alive when my great grandmother was. A logical inference is that she was. As the evidence for him I have very similar DNA and pictures of her.SEE http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/scientific-creationism-as-pseudoscience I've not claimed half of what you're saying I did. Let's put it this way. ID is agnostic too. You don't believe it, and I'm not going to worry about your lack of acknowledgment of the actual arguments I've made.
thesometimesaint Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) I've not claimed half of what you're saying I did. Let's put it this way. ID is agnostic too. You don't believe it, and I'm not going to worry about your lack of acknowledgment of the actual arguments I've made. I've refuted each and every one of your arguments you have presented. ID is a narrow Christian belief.SEE Wedge Document http://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-documentSEE Kitzmiller v Dover http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District Not a good argument. Computers have change dramatically and so has watches. Not necessarily. You forgot about the ancient alien faction. Computers, watches, are not living organisms. They change because man makes different ones. Aliens? Edited July 28, 2014 by thesometimesaint
ERayR Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Aliens? Certainly you don't classify this as either religion or christian
thesometimesaint Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Certainly you don't classify this as either religion or christian I don't understand what you mean by "this". Please explain.
ERayR Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 I don't understand what you mean by "this". Please explain. The Ancient Alien group is certainly an ID faction that is not connected with religion.
danielwoods Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 I've refuted each and every one of your arguments you have presented. ID is a narrow Christian belief.SEE Wedge Document http://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-documentSEE Kitzmiller v Dover http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District Computers, watches, are not living organisms. They change because man makes different ones. Aliens? Simply stating that ID is a narrow Christian belief doesn't make it so. But, alas the fact that you think you've refuted every one of my arguments means you win.
thesometimesaint Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 The Ancient Alien group is certainly an ID faction that is not connected with religion. I'll somewhat agree.
thesometimesaint Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Simply stating that ID is a narrow Christian belief doesn't make it so. But, alas the fact that you think you've refuted every one of my arguments means you win. Do you even bother to use the links I provide? SEE SEE Wedge Document http://ncse.com/crea.../wedge-documentSEE Kitzmiller v Dover http://en.wikipedia....School_District
longview Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Kennewick Man: CFR for your claim it was the scientists and not the Native American group who interfere (or rather the government on their behalf)It was NOT the scientists that tied the remains up in legal challenges.SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_ManThere were many groups that were involved. None operated on their own or acted in isolation. Alliances were formed on one side of the issue to content against various others. It appears that the first professionals to respond to were HONEST scientists who performed the proper excavation and wanted to make a full unrestrained study of the dig. I do not recall who got involved next. But I do remember that it was a long drawn out process taking weeks and months that was heavily reported in the news media. I am sure both of you remember the events. The Wikipedia is too sketchy and incomplete (you would have to look at the author to see what his biases are).Were there legitimate Indian protesters from actual tribal organizations? Maybe, maybe not. Were there token pretend agents claiming to represent tribal organizations? I think more likely. One example (among several) is Ward Churchill the famous "Fake Indian" who was finally ousted from CU at Boulder, Colorado (I am not claiming he was directly involved). Here is a bio from one of his websites:"Ward Churchill (Keetoowah Band Cherokee) is one of the most outspoken of Native American activists. In his lectures and numerous published works, he explores the themes of genocide in the Americas, historical and legal (re)interpretation of conquest and colonization, literary and cinematic criticism, and indigenist alternatives to the status quo. Churchill is a Professor of Ethnic Studies and Coordinator of American Indian Studies."Were academia involved? Of course they were. Most professors in departments like History, Social Studies, and other favored areas of radical social engineering tended to be vociferous in hating the dead white males of European ancestry and totally condemning the rise of the "American Empire" and glorifying the noble natives of the "New World" who were so shamefully pillaged by Columbus and his successors.Were there a number of Federal and State agencies involved? You bet your pantaloons they were. The vast bureaucracy is chock full of radicals who received their indoctrination from "progressive" universities. Radicals tend to desire employment in governmental areas. And conservatives/entrepreneurs tend to work for private businesses. Who filed for court action? I am pretty sure it were the HONEST scientists who wanted to continue with their studies. Who were the respondents? I do not recall.Which goverment agency was it that destroyed and covered up the dig? I do not recall but there is NO question that it happened. I plainly remember reading about it in the news reports back then. I am pretty sure no court ordered this action but I could be wrong. The point is there were multiple parties that support and reinforce each other. If you need further details, I am hoping others more capable than me will be able to dig it up (pun intended). I do not have the time or energy to do more (I am working two part time jobs). Thank you very much and God bless. {AND PLEASE do not MAKE this political, it is all about morality and keeping the integrity of the scientific process}
MormonFreeThinker Posted July 28, 2014 Author Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) God didn't tell us about a lot of things this is true. He did clearly tell us that he created all that exists in six days. Clearly it isn't a description of evolution. If God used evolution, why say it was in six days? Why would Jesus say in the beginning we were created male and female? so you believe that God created everything is 24 * 6 hours? I don't see how the word creation contradicts evolution. In creation we see how the embryo evolves to a fetus, the fetus evolves to a baby, a baby evolves to a child, that is evolution. Edited July 28, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
MormonFreeThinker Posted July 28, 2014 Author Posted July 28, 2014 Common ancestry means not who is your grandfather, but that we shared a common ancestry with chimps (as an example). Does DNA prove this? Of course not. Is it tested? Of course not! DNA can tell if you and your brother share the same grandfather, that is common ancestry. DNA can prove many things, and it has proven that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. It has not absolutely proven in philosophy, but I am not talking about absolute proof, I am talking about strong evidence. Again, there are no absolute 100% proofs in philosophy. To further expose this folly, I could ask, what exact test was done to prove common ancestry? Many,for example, see the video
danielwoods Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Do you even bother to use the links I provide? SEE SEE Wedge Document http://ncse.com/crea.../wedge-documentSEE Kitzmiller v Dover http://en.wikipedia....School_District Read them. It means you win. No need to engage in the arguments I've made.
danielwoods Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 so you believe that God created everything is 24 * 6 hours? I don't see how the word creation contradicts evolution. In creation we see how the embryo evolves to a fetus, the fetus evolves to a baby, a baby evolves to a child, that is evolution. Yes, I believe what God said he did. The word creation doesn't contradict evolution unless you define them differently, which most people do. The embryo doesn't evolve to a fetus or a baby. This is called growth. Evolution isn't growth, it's change over generations. Everything that baby will be is housed in the DNA the moment the egg is fertilized. DNA can tell if you and your brother share the same grandfather, that is common ancestry. DNA can prove many things, and it has proven that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. It has not absolutely proven in philosophy, but I am not talking about absolute proof, I am talking about strong evidence. Again, there are no absolute 100% proofs in philosophy. Many,for example, see the video There's no 100% proofs in science either. DNA hasn't proven that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. The video is blocked for me, so I'll have to watch it later. But, I'll wager a bet that any test that is done, is done in the present, not the past. Hence, the test isn't a test of the past, but of the present, and then and inference is made to extrapolate into the past. We call that, philosophy!
Calm Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 There were many groups that were involved. None operated on their own or acted in isolation... No relevant references, just your summary of alleged events. I am not impressed but don't care enough to require you to document your claims.
MormonFreeThinker Posted July 28, 2014 Author Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) The embryo doesn't evolve to a fetus or a baby. This is called growth. Evolution isn't growth, it's change over generations. Everything that baby will be is housed in the DNA the moment the egg is fertilized. The word Evolution has many meanings, one of them is simply change over time. There's no 100% proofs in science either. DNA hasn't proven that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. The video is blocked for me, so I'll have to watch it later. But, I'll wager a bet that any test that is done, is done in the present, not the past. Hence, the test isn't a test of the past, but of the present, and then and inference is made to extrapolate into the past. We call that, philosophy! Is not absolute 100% proof, it is strong evidence, you should watch it. I can also cite many peer-reviewed papers that prove Evolution. It is not useful to talk about absolute proofs, there are no absolute proofs in science, you cannot absolutely prove the past and present. When you say that we cannot prove the distant past, that is simply not useful, because we cannot absolutely prove anything in science. Edited July 28, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
ERayR Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 No relevant references, just your summary of alleged events. I am not impressed but don't care enough to require you to document your claims. Cal his account is a bit garbled see here: http://archaeology.about.com/od/kennewickman/a/introduction.htm But then the accounts are not entirely consistent. http://www.kplu.org/post/jawbone-found-near-kennewick-man-site-raising-specter-controversy
danielwoods Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 The word Evolution has many meanings, one of them is simply change over time. Is not absolute 100% proof, it is strong evidence, you should watch it. I can also cite many peer-reviewed papers that prove Evolution. It is not useful to talk about absolute proofs, there are no absolute proofs in science, you cannot absolutely prove the past and present. When you say that we cannot prove the distant past, that is simply not useful, because we cannot absolutely prove anything in science. If you wish to call an embryo to a baby evolution, then be my guest. It just confuses the issue. "Change through time" is a reference to change over generations, not embryos growing into babies. Nothing "proves" evolution (as in we all had a common ancestor in the distant past). Citing many peer-reviewed papers means what? That many people believe the same thing because they hold the same philosophical point of view, and as a result interpret the data exactly the same. None of that is impressive. What is impressive is that they all believe that intelligence is derived from non-intelligent sources. That high level engineering literally comes from stupidity. In essence, that computers build themselves out of their basic elements and write their own programs, now that is impressive! Ever study radar? It's an interesting history. The scientists literally reverse engineered the design used by the Bats. And yet we're supposed to believe that this is all just the result of random processes?
Recommended Posts