Intelligent design

[Stoney McFried]

Wait...what prove do creationists have to say that there is in fact a creator?They haven't even attempted to prove it.Yes, there is conclusive proof of evolution, but you won't believe it if it knocks you down and takes your wallet.You keep dodging my question.What proof is there of a creator,at all?And the Bible can only be taken as heresy, so please don't use that as an example.Please show me the mathematical equations, the formulas which point to the existence of a being who created this universe.Then, please explain to me, since you say something can't come from nothing, who created this creator.Where did this creator come from?

What does that have to do with people being able to verify that this fish actually evolved?

Is there any logical conclusive proof about evolution, or is it nothing but a theory that rests on a bunch of other theories, all of which can not be proven due to a lack of hard evidence?

Absolutely minphuk,excellent post.I've been trying to say the same thing, but apparently, I speak Greek.

Maybe it's because you don't understand that one constitutes a real scientific theory and the others are social movements as a way to introduce religion and a deity into school by masquerading as science.

I wouldn't have a problem with ID or Creationism as alternate theories if they were doing it honestly, dealing with physical evidence honestly, learning about what we already know and taking account of it in their own work, and not both lying to the public and slandering people in the field.

Both ID and creationism, however, are unable to do that. They rely utterly on people remaining ignorant of what actually exists in biology in order to support their case; to that end, proponents regularly lie about or ignore physical evidence, and they discourage people from looking at legitimate sources by a campaign of deliberate slander against people who are actually working in the fields of life sciences. Relying on the researchers who are deciphering the mechanisms of cancer to save the lives of people you love, on the one hand, and calling them incompetents, liars, and hacks whenever they talk about the science behind what they do, on the other, gets _really_ annoying.

Oh, yeah, and then there's the zombie problem. I mean, seriously. The first time someone says "there are no beneficial mutations", or the ever popular, "there's no fossils of transitional forms", it's amusing, and you don't mind going and digging up examples to correct that impression. The second time it happens, hey, no problem, you've already got the references. The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth times it happens, you can be patient. By about the 491st time you've heard that, by someone who obviously hasn't even cracked a HS textbook, you're ready to snarl "Google it!" and throw things at the idiot to make them go away. But the idea keeps getting revived, because everyone in the world is born not knowing, and most people never correct that. It's a zombie. The problem with killing zombies is, they may be dead, but they keep getting up again, and there always seem to be more behind them.

Oh, yeah, and then there is, really, seriously, the issue of what it takes to learn the subject, and the fact that (in large part because of the campaign of slander mentioned above) it is completely devalued in the public eye. I spent four years of caffeine substituting for sleep and spending every hour available to me reading through complicated material built up by many thousands of man-years of effort, testing it in experiments, and working out the shape of how it all works in such a way that I have a hope of being productive in a technical field, in order to even get an entry level position, and I know how much more there is to learn.

So for people like me that have spent the bulk of their adult lives working to master a technical subject to be approached by people who, maybe, had a semester about it in high school and who don't even know the basic terminology or concepts, much less the details, and to have those people tell the professionals that they are "deluded" and that Joe High School has a better idea about the subject than they do, it is quite annoying. As in, "I busted my butt to get here, and then someone who doesn't even know what an allele is tells me that "there's a problem with the dating of the fossil record....".....yeah.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Maybe it's because you don't understand that one constitutes a real scientific theory and the others are social movements as a way to introduce religion and a deity into school by masquerading as science.

I wouldn't have a problem with ID or Creationism as alternate theories if they were doing it honestly, dealing with physical evidence honestly, learning about what we already know and taking account of it in their own work, and not both lying to the public and slandering people in the field.

Both ID and creationism, however, are unable to do that. They rely utterly on people remaining ignorant of what actually exists in biology in order to support their case; to that end, proponents regularly lie about or ignore physical evidence, and they discourage people from looking at legitimate sources by a campaign of deliberate slander against people who are actually working in the fields of life sciences. Relying on the researchers who are deciphering the mechanisms of cancer to save the lives of people you love, on the one hand, and calling them incompetents, liars, and hacks whenever they talk about the science behind what they do, on the other, gets _really_ annoying.

Oh, yeah, and then there's the zombie problem. I mean, seriously. The first time someone says "there are no beneficial mutations", or the ever popular, "there's no fossils of transitional forms", it's amusing, and you don't mind going and digging up examples to correct that impression. The second time it happens, hey, no problem, you've already got the references. The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth times it happens, you can be patient. By about the 491st time you've heard that, by someone who obviously hasn't even cracked a HS textbook, you're ready to snarl "Google it!" and throw things at the idiot to make them go away. But the idea keeps getting revived, because everyone in the world is born not knowing, and most people never correct that. It's a zombie. The problem with killing zombies is, they may be dead, but they keep getting up again, and there always seem to be more behind them.

Oh, yeah, and then there is, really, seriously, the issue of what it takes to learn the subject, and the fact that (in large part because of the campaign of slander mentioned above) it is completely devalued in the public eye. I spent four years of caffeine substituting for sleep and spending every hour available to me reading through complicated material built up by many thousands of man-years of effort, testing it in experiments, and working out the shape of how it all works in such a way that I have a hope of being productive in a technical field, in order to even get an entry level position, and I know how much more there is to learn.

So for people like me that have spent the bulk of their adult lives working to master a technical subject to be approached by people who, maybe, had a semester about it in high school and who don't even know the basic terminology or concepts, much less the details, and to have those people tell the professionals that they are "deluded" and that Joe High School has a better idea about the subject than they do, it is quite annoying. As in, "I busted my butt to get here, and then someone who doesn't even know what an allele is tells me that "there's a problem with the dating of the fossil record....".....yeah.

Here, let me challenge you a bit.

Are there any FACTUAL errors made on this page?
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/human-evolution.htm

I mean clearly, if science is so full of fraud (as itemized on this page) then how can it expect to be regarded as factual?

It would seem that religion does not have the hegemony on BS.

 

[Stoney McFried]

If there was a master designer, as this website claims(which..by the way, doesn't seem to have any links to the things it seeks to disprove so the reader can assess this),then why were so many mistakes made?Surely an intelligent, omnipotent being can do better on a biology experiment?Why are things forced to adapt instead of being perfectly suited to the place they inhabit?Why are there deformities, birth defects, diseases?Why did this creator abandon us to our fate?Where did this creator come from?Who created this creator?

Here, let me challenge you a bit.

Are there any FACTUAL errors made on this page?
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/human-evolution.htm

I mean clearly, if science is so full of fraud (as itemized on this page) then how can it expect to be regarded as factual?

It would seem that religion does not have the hegemony on BS.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

If there was a master designer, as this website claims(which..by the way, doesn't seem to have any links to the things it seeks to disprove so the reader can assess this),then why were so many mistakes made?Surely an intelligent, omnipotent being can do better on a biology experiment?Why are things forced to adapt instead of being perfectly suited to the place they inhabit?Why are there deformities, birth defects, diseases?Why did this creator abandon us to our fate?Where did this creator come from?Who created this creator?

Read the question, I specifically said on that page, not on the site, and it was aimed and mindphuk.

 

[Stoney McFried]

Are there any factual errors?Hmmmm...I see omissions.What about Neanderthals?Cro magnon man?
How about this excerpt?
We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces. Many scientists argue that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained by natural evolutionary processes. However, they must realize that the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. Thus, the chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message.


What evidence does this site give that there is in fact, a message in DNA?What's the message?Who gets to decide how to interpret it?We look at how complex the double helix is and say that there is a secret code from god in there, that such complexity can't come from randomness?What about snowflakes?Are they messages, too?

Read the question, I specifically said on that page, not on the site, and it was aimed and mindphuk.

 

[mindphuk]

The problem with the presentation of the fossil record as portrayed in those high school texts that you mention in your emotional rant can be proven through carbon dating.

High school textbooks are not the pinnacle of evolution research. There are many errors in texts in every subject. The goal should be to correct the mistakes and miscomprehension, not throw away the theory.

TBT, all I keep seeing from you is accusations without anything to back you up. Can you deny the hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world? Show me scientifically, why dating methods are incorrect? Do you understand stratigraphy? Isn't it odd that when we test igneous rock at the K-T or any other specific boundary pretty much anywhere in the world, we end up with the same time frame?

Do you understand the limits of C-14 dating? Do you understand there is many more methods of dating besides carbon-14 including Argon-Argon, Strontrium-Argon, Potassium-Argon, Uranium-Lead, etc. Do you understand what isochron dating is? Can you explain how various dating methods will return consistant results?

Your claim that fossils are incorrectly dated is just another Creationist lie.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

High school textbooks are not the pinnacle of evolution research. There are many errors in texts in every subject. The goal should be to correct the mistakes and miscomprehension, not throw away the theory.

TBT, all I keep seeing from you is accusations without anything to back you up. Can you deny the hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world? Show me scientifically, why dating methods are incorrect? Do you understand stratigraphy? Isn't it odd that when we test igneous rock at the K-T or any other specific boundary pretty much anywhere in the world, we end up with the same time frame?

Do you understand the limits of C-14 dating? Do you understand there is many more methods of dating besides carbon-14 including Argon-Argon, Strontrium-Argon, Potassium-Argon, Uranium-Lead, etc. Do you understand what isochron dating is? Can you explain how various dating methods will return consistant results?

Your claim that fossils are incorrectly dated is just another Creationist lie.

Can you prove that those millions of fossils are not plaster replicas, thus reducing the number of real fossils considerably?

Now, there's an interesting question. How many of the "complete" fossils on display consist mainly of plaster molds created out of some one's mind in an attempt to fill the bones that were not found?

Or are you going to claim that it is common to find complete fossils set in the ground, instead of just a few pieces like femurs, and larger bones that more readily fossilize?

 

[mindphuk]

Here, let me challenge you a bit.

Are there any FACTUAL errors made on this page?
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/human-evolution.htm

I mean clearly, if science is so full of fraud (as itemized on this page) then how can it expect to be regarded as factual?

It would seem that religion does not have the hegemony on BS.

Yes, there are factual errors on that page. There are so many, I'm not sure where to begin

Neanderthal Man is not a 'stooped human' they were a close cousin, ie. we shared a common ancestor with them. They became extinct about 30tya.

Australopithecus afrensis was not a pygmy ape. It is ancestral to both the genus Australopithecus and the genus Homo, which includes the modern human species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis#cite_note-lucy-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis#cite_note-cambridge-1

The truth about Nebtraska Man, Piltdown Man, and the reclassification of Ramapithecus were all by scientists. Mistakes and fraud will occur, it is the unceasing, aggressive, questioning by scientists themselves that get to the truth.
That whole web page makes the same mistake I have seen in a lot of beginning biology students. It implies that the theory of evolution to dictate that a species is a distinct, well-defined thing, with sudden jumps from one species to another. But in fact, evolution says that a "species" is actually a fairly artificial classification, which is not at all well-defined in nature.

The idea of a 'transitional species' is even more artificial. It doesn't even mean anything on its own, unless you first define which groups the transition is between. Once you've done that, there is still no unambiguous way to slice up the family tree between those two groups, because the theory of evolution says that there are no clear dividing lines over time between species in the same line of descent. The lines are very fuzzy.

For example, you are descended from your parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on. You have some genes from each parent, who have some from each of their parents, and so on. Now, you might look a lot like your parents, you might look a bit like your grandparents, and you might have some resemblance to your great-grandparents... but you aren't likely to have any more resemblance to your great-great-great-great-grandparents than anyone else of your ethnic background. But, there is nowhere that defines a boundary of family similarity... you, your parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on could all look a lot like your respective parents, even though there is no family resemblance between you and a distant ancestor. Species in evolution are similar - there is no clear boundary between species.

Speaking of parents and grandparents, it is important to realize that it is highly likely that some of your genes are not the same as either of your parents, but are mutations. The same goes for everyone. So, while you are the same species as your great(x100) grandparents, you certainly have some number of genes that you did not inherit from them. This doesn't mean you aren't the same species, of course... but it does indicate that a 'species' is not a well-defined thing.

 

[mindphuk]

Can you prove that those millions of fossils are not plaster replicas, thus reducing the number of real fossils considerably?

Now, there's an interesting question. How many of the "complete" fossils on display consist mainly of plaster molds created out of some one's mind in an attempt to fill the bones that were not found?

Or are you going to claim that it is common to find complete fossils set in the ground, instead of just a few pieces like femurs, and larger bones that more readily fossilize?

Now you're just being ridiculous. If you want to try to show that there's a large number of plaster replicas in place of real ones, go for it. You do realize that these specimens are available for continued scientific research?

Amazing that you would try to bring such an argument into this discussion, when your side has absolutely NO EVIDENCE to back up their claims.

On that same website, they have a video titled: Creation Evidence Video.
Not one shred of evidence is given on that video, just a discussion of the physical constants and the antrhopic principle. This video is the same as every other creationist argument. We don't understand how this could be this way naturally, so it must be magic (god).

 

[lopezri]

I'm not sure if this was the same program I saw, with Christopher Hitchens, but if it was, In my estimation, the religious guy tore him a new ass. Like, beauty, how could that evolve?. What about The human soul, If you believe there is one, if not then I feel sorry for you and your coming nothingness. To look at this world and all the mayhem going on, cannot one see that this is only a temporary stopping off place for the soul. I can't believe that you only get one shot at life then you're born into a ghetto in Bangla Desh and starve to death before you reach three years of age. I did watch the other one also and if one was on the fence, the preponderance of evidence would have put one on the side of Darwin. The thing lacking in that arguement was the element of faith. Without blind faith, one cannot percieve of other existences after life on this plane has ended. For all of you that are thinking like that, I'm sorry. I don't attend church and I believe for the most part, religion is the root of all evil, but there are exceptions. Some of the more progressive christian churches teach one how to live and be happy in this world while maintaining a relationship with Jesus. I can't bring myself around to attend, although I realize my beliefs are basically in line with theirs.

Wow! I've never seen you post like that before MedMan! I couldn't agree with you more. Even if one doesn't necessarily agree with the religious aspect of it all. . . one can't let religion get in the way of faith. Even just to be spiritual is better off than discounting the whole thing and being sorry in the end. IMO.

You seem to be very enlightened on spirituality from what I've seen of your posts. Glad to see that there are people out there who think about it all.

 

[mindphuk]

Wow! I've never seen you post like that before MedMan! I couldn't agree with you more. Even if one doesn't necessarily agree with the religious aspect of it all. . . one can't let religion get in the way of faith. Even just to be spiritual is better off than discounting the whole thing and being sorry in the end. IMO.

You seem to be very enlightened on spirituality from what I've seen of your posts. Glad to see that there are people out there who think about it all.

The problem as I see it though, is that the 'belief' in a soul is just that. What is the quantifiable evidence for a soul? None of that matters anyway. You can believe in a soul and still accept the science of evolution. I know many scientists that have spiritual faith. I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[Stoney McFried]

Uh...haven't you ever found a fossil?I have.I've found fossils of little fish, clams,coral....because Iowa used to be covered by a shallow sea long, long ago,so that's the kind of fossils you can expect to find here.Since I'm not an expert, and don't have the tools to extract the bones,I can't tell you if I found a complete skeleton of a fish or not.Also, I haven't studied anatomy, so I don't think I could put it together...but scientists have.And they aren't doing it by interpretation;many of these bones are found in the position the animal died in.So they map it, and fit it together like a puzzle piece.If creationism is viable, why then doesn't the bible state facts we know are true?That the world is round, and not the center of the solar system?That dinosaurs did in fact exist at all, never mind the argument of whether they coexisted with man right now.Where does it say there were dinosaurs?Why doesn't it explain volcanism,the atmosphere,the effect of the moon on the tides?Surely the creator new this and passed it along?Surely, since we've recorded history for 6000 years,SOMEONE took notes?
That website attempts to imply deception by science, when in fact, science will be the first to admit it is wrong.Religion is the last.Took 500 years for the catholic church to apologize to Galileo (I'm thinking Galileo, may have been someone else, but the result is the same).

Can you prove that those millions of fossils are not plaster replicas, thus reducing the number of real fossils considerably?

Now, there's an interesting question. How many of the "complete" fossils on display consist mainly of plaster molds created out of some one's mind in an attempt to fill the bones that were not found?

Or are you going to claim that it is common to find complete fossils set in the ground, instead of just a few pieces like femurs, and larger bones that more readily fossilize?

 

[Stoney McFried]

Right, not mutually exclusive, but one is based on evidence, the other is based on the PERSONAL choice to believe.

The problem as I see it though, is that the 'belief' in a soul is just that. What is the quantifiable evidence for a soul? None of that matters anyway. You can believe in a soul and still accept the science of evolution. I know many scientists that have spiritual faith. I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[mindphuk]

Right, not mutually exclusive, but one is based on evidence, the other is based on the PERSONAL choice to believe.

So very true. I have no problem with anyone believing whatever fairy tale makes their life happier, as long as they don't try to extend that belief using government schools.

Evolution, in spite of what the deniers are saying, is a real scientific theory and based on the level of knowledge and the severe misconceptions about it I see here, we need to be teaching it a lot more.


If You're still convinced that design has any scientific merit to it, perhaps this reading from the Catholic News Service might help to convince you otherwise (even though I would rather you actually UNDERSTOOD why ID can't be considered science):

"Speakers invited to attend a Vatican-sponsored congress on the evolution debate will not include proponents of creationism and intelligent design, organizers said.

The Pontifical Council for Culture, Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University and the University of Notre Dame in Indiana [my alma mater, by the way] are organizing an international conference in Rome March 3-7 as one of a series of events marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's 'The Origin of Species.'

Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc, a philosophy professor at the Gregorian, told Catholic News Service Sept. 16 that organizers 'wanted to create a conference that was strictly scientific' and that discussed rational philosophy and theology along with the latest scientific discoveries.

He said arguments 'that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite supporters of creationism and intelligent design.'"

What I hope you get from this is that it is only natural that those most serious about religion take ID and evolution most seriously. Unfortunately for those harboring desires that ID be found scientifically practicable, however, there is no dearth of available information out there baring ID as the vacuous and dishonest attempt to mislead that it really is. All it takes is the will to search and a sprig of intellectual integrity.

 

[Stoney McFried]

Wow.That church basically smacked the ID folks in the face.

So very true. I have no problem with anyone believing whatever fairy tale makes their life happier, as long as they don't try to extend that belief using government schools.

Evolution, in spite of what the deniers are saying, is a real scientific theory and based on the level of knowledge and the severe misconceptions about it I see here, we need to be teaching it a lot more.


If You're still convinced that design has any scientific merit to it, perhaps this reading from the Catholic News Service might help to convince you otherwise (even though I would rather you actually UNDERSTOOD why ID can't be considered science):

"Speakers invited to attend a Vatican-sponsored congress on the evolution debate will not include proponents of creationism and intelligent design, organizers said.

The Pontifical Council for Culture, Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University and the University of Notre Dame in Indiana [my alma mater, by the way] are organizing an international conference in Rome March 3-7 as one of a series of events marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's 'The Origin of Species.'

Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc, a philosophy professor at the Gregorian, told Catholic News Service Sept. 16 that organizers 'wanted to create a conference that was strictly scientific' and that discussed rational philosophy and theology along with the latest scientific discoveries.

He said arguments 'that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite supporters of creationism and intelligent design.'"

What I hope you get from this is that it is only natural that those most serious about religion take ID and evolution most seriously. Unfortunately for those harboring desires that ID be found scientifically practicable, however, there is no dearth of available information out there baring ID as the vacuous and dishonest attempt to mislead that it really is. All it takes is the will to search and a sprig of intellectual integrity.

 

[misshestermoffitt]

People who believe in creationism always want to know, how exactly life start on earth where evolution is concerned. OK then I'll play. Where did god come from? Who created god? What caused to god to exist?

I'm anxiously awaiting an answer.......

 

[CrackerJax]

That's not conclusive proof. The problem is that the theory of Evolution rests on a bunch of other unprovable theories.

While there has been some demonstrated proof of evolution limited to one species, over a short period of time. There is a lack of proof of evolution resulting in new species over greatly extended periods of time.

The fossil record just proves that there were different species. It does not prove that there was an evolutionary link between those species.

There is nothing showing that those species evolved from one another, because there is no proof that those species existed at the same time (due to a lack of fossils) and there is no proof that those species had inter-species sexual relationships that produced offspring. For all we know all the fossils that we have found could represent unfertile hybrids, and thus unviable genetic lines.

Much like what you get when you try crossing a horse and a donkey.

TBT.... I usually agree with you on economic matters but here we must part company.

You wish to hold science up to a high degree of proof (natural enough), but yet wish no such standards applied to your side. Intelligent design could never hold up to the constant barrage of scrutiny that evolution has....for 150 years!.... Evolution is the perverbial Timex...takes a licking, but keeps on ticking.

Of course the very best part of REAL science is that if anyone (you?) can come up with something more viable...it will be tested and if proven accepted. So far, no alternatives of worth can be found.

Honestly, I find religion to be not comparable to science in any way, except both have the same goal...to explain the who, what, where, of our existence.

While science has plodded along with a steady buildup of evidence in every category, religion has not.

I put "intelligent design" theory right next to the kumbaya singing in the 70's when the church was trying to get hip....because people stopped going to church and monies were reduced (it's all about the money and power as usual). They church runs around and tries to fill the gaps in the dike as the leaks increase....any device will do, as long as it works (getting the people in the pews).

On a psycholgocal tangent, the church is feeling the breeze of the exit door and has responded once again with a version of kumbayah....the church needs to remain on top and feels the slippage occuring. They have made an error by getting creating an alternative "science" (it really isn't), and in the end this will go by the wayside to be replaced by the next straw of relevancy. Each time the credibility becomes more and more diluted I'm afraid.

Religion needs to step away from trying to explain the natural sciences...it is not helping them.



out.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

TBT.... I usually agree with you on economic matters but here we must part company.

You wish to hold science up to a high degree of proof (natural enough), but yet wish no such standards applied to your side. Intelligent design could never hold up to the constant barrage of scrutiny that evolution has....for 150 years!.... Evolution is the perverbial Timex...takes a licking, but keeps on ticking.

Of course the very best part of REAL science is that if anyone (you?) can come up with something more viable...it will be tested and if proven accepted. So far, no alternatives of worth can be found.

Honestly, I find religion to be not comparable to science in any way, except both have the same goal...to explain the who, what, where, of our existence.

While science has plodded along with a steady buildup of evidence in every category, religion has not.

I put "intelligent design" theory right next to the kumbaya singing in the 70's when the church was trying to get hip....because people stopped going to church and monies were reduced (it's all about the money and power as usual). They church runs around and tries to fill the gaps in the dike as the leaks increase....any device will do, as long as it works (getting the people in the pews).

On a psycholgocal tangent, the church is feeling the breeze of the exit door and has responded once again with a version of kumbayah....the church needs to remain on top and feels the slippage occuring. They have made an error by getting creating an alternative "science" (it really isn't), and in the end this will go by the wayside to be replaced by the next straw of relevancy. Each time the credibility becomes more and more diluted I'm afraid.

Religion needs to step away from trying to explain the natural sciences...it is not helping them.



out.

Is there something on this thread that renders people incapable of reading posts completely?

I never stated that I favored ID. I find its lack of proof of a benevolent creator greater than the same lack of interspecies evolution in evolution (as opposed to intraspecies evolution/natural selection.)

Oh well, it matters little. Archaeology is a stupid pointless science hell bent on determining what happened prior to recorded history. Frankly, I have to question the sanity of any one that spends that much time buried in the past.

Though the primary point is that as both are incomplete and thus should not be taught in schools, except maybe in the case of evolution, as an elective.

Whereas Intelligent Design does not require any scientific processes, except maybe knowledge of how to view the double helix of DNA, at least Evolution requires some scientific process. Even if both are a complete and total waste of time.

You know what everything buried has in common? Typically they're all, and unless it was relatively recent (with in the time frames of recorded history) then it's totally pointless to dig it up.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Uh...haven't you ever found a fossil?I have.I've found fossils of little fish, clams,coral....because Iowa used to be covered by a shallow sea long, long ago,so that's the kind of fossils you can expect to find here.Since I'm not an expert, and don't have the tools to extract the bones,I can't tell you if I found a complete skeleton of a fish or not.Also, I haven't studied anatomy, so I don't think I could put it together...but scientists have.And they aren't doing it by interpretation;many of these bones are found in the position the animal died in.So they map it, and fit it together like a puzzle piece.If creationism is viable, why then doesn't the bible state facts we know are true?That the world is round, and not the center of the solar system?That dinosaurs did in fact exist at all, never mind the argument of whether they coexisted with man right now.Where does it say there were dinosaurs?Why doesn't it explain volcanism,the atmosphere,the effect of the moon on the tides?Surely the creator new this and passed it along?Surely, since we've recorded history for 6000 years,SOMEONE took notes?
That website attempts to imply deception by science, when in fact, science will be the first to admit it is wrong.Religion is the last.Took 500 years for the catholic church to apologize to Galileo (I'm thinking Galileo, may have been someone else, but the result is the same).

Right Stoney, I'm assuming that you routinely find complete fossils of higher order vertebrates every day. Perhaps they come out of the ground for you, complete and 100% pre-assembled.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Here, let me challenge you a bit.

Are there any FACTUAL errors made on this page?
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/human-evolution.htm

I mean clearly, if science is so full of fraud (as itemized on this page) then how can it expect to be regarded as factual?

It would seem that religion does not have the hegemony on BS.

Oh, and when is this question going to finally answer that question?

For some one that supposedly read a lot of technical texts you are sure showing a lack of reading comprehension, mindphuk.

Oh, I'm waiting for an answer that doesn't involve changing the question to involve the site at large, or run off in some totally unrelated tangent to the exact question.

Surely, if you read as many technical texts (though I wouldn't call archaeology text, technical) as you claim, then answering such a question should be relatively easy. Hell, I'm willing to be that you have subscriptions to a few professional magazines so you can stay more current with what's going on in the rest of the world in your field.