Why isn't Intelligent design not allowed in public schools?

I aint never saw a munkee become a man, but I seen plentya men make munkees outta their selfs.

 

posted December 22, 2005 12:16 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bunyon:
Gold Dragon, without even looking at your sight I can tell you it does not prove anything and does not show one species becoming another species. Because if it did, evolution would not be a theory anymore.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought we had this discussion before about the scientific use of the word theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, Golddragon, insert the word qestionable before the word theory.

 

Bunyon, what Golddragon means is, evolution as a theory simply means that there is some kind of theory as to how evolution happens.

The theory is the part where we say "well, natural selection works on the mutations that have come along and selects some, discards others. .. "

The actual evolution is where you note "Hmmm, I see in the fossil record where earlier horses had three toes and current horses have morphed the middle toe into a big hoof, with the outer two now become mere shin splints . . . "

Then you say "I wonder how that happened" and you turn to the THEORY for explanation.

So evolution is observed and has a theory to explain it.

 

The problem with this is that it ASSUMES evolution took place. It is completely possible that early horses with three toes were a completely distinct type of horse which simply went extinct.

Not only is this alternate explanation possible, it is far more likely. Extinction has been observed many times. No species has ever been observed to evolve into another except in the imaginations of evolutionists.

 

doesn't a theory which hangs totally on missing evidence finally get to a point of being proven false once enough time has passed to conclude the missing evidence does not exist?

 

My point was is the theory is questionable. Most folks who give it lots of credence do so because they don't believe in a creator God. If I did not, I would push it to because it would be the only explanation if there were no God no matter how poorly substantiated it was. If we would have known what we know about DNA when the theory came out, it would not have gone to crazy extremes as it has.

 

"doesn't a theory which hangs totally on missing evidence finally get to a point of being proven false once enough time has passed to conclude the missing evidence does not exist?"

You would think so. But for some reason, some people have yet to give up on YE. Not to worry, though, eventually they will see the owerwhelming evidence for the fact of evolution even though we are still working through the theories to explain how it happens.

 

Words uttered by a man with vestigal digits on his feet.

 

"The problem with this is that it ASSUMES evolution took place. It is completely possible that early horses with three toes were a completely distinct type of horse which simply went extinct. "

As before, you are attempting to create a strawman by isolating a single fact. If the earlier three toe horses did not evolve into the modern single toed horses, then why are modern horses occasionally born with atavistic second and third toes?

You ignore the very detailed series of intermediates between the earliest of these three toed animals and the modern horses. Where all of these also animals that were sequentially created as is, lived for a time and then went extinct?

And if these fossils really are not as good of a series as is believed, then why does genetic testing confirm the close relationship between horses and rhinos that is shown by the fossil record?

We could go on. But the point is established that you are trying to cast doubt by presenting only a single fact. Much easier to doubt a single observation than to discount the wide range of observations supporting evolution. Even more difficult would be for an alternative, testible theory to be provided by YEers to explain our observations.

 

Well, at least I presented a fact.

Something no evolutionist can do.

"Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at 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 eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school.'"
-Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, leading cladistic taxonomist), Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5, 1981.

(emphasis mine)

And this quote was not taken out of context. Dr. Patterson was just being completely frank and honest about problems he had with evolution.

 

The king has no cloths!

 

UTEOTW

Here is an article that shows how this famous statement was procured and also shows it was not taken out of context.

http://www.creationdigest.com/summer2005/Patterson_Can_You_Tell_Me_Anything_About.htm

Dr. Patterson made MANY such comments you will see. And this from a life-long evolutionist.

 

The same question could be asked why some men are born with 3 fingers, 4 fingers even 6 fingers. The fact that horses today are born with atavistic second and third toes does not prove or disprove evolution...rather genetic mutation.

 

JWI

Enough of your quotes have been shown to be so false and so dishonest that I don't even bother with them.

Quotes are not evidence. Understand?

If you have a factual objection to make, then make. I don't care what quotes you can rip out of context.

If you want to convince me, go to the primary literature and prove your point. Quotes and secondary sources are useless. Yet such useless material is all the YEers seem to have. Not surprising when you consider that there is NO factual support for YE.

SO, since you brought up horses, can you point to anything in the primary literature that says that horses did not evolve?

 

The same question could be asked why some men are born with 3 fingers, 4 fingers even 6 fingers. The fact that horses today are born with atavistic second and third toes does not prove or disprove evolution...rather genetic mutation. </font>[/QUOTE]Still trying to take an observation and remove it from its context. In this case the context of ontogeny specifically. Of course you still have the context of the other supporting data.

An extra finger in a human is a different mechanism. In horses, the two former toes can normally be found as shin splints that begin developing as toes should in every single horse. Normally these become shin splints instead. But occassionally they revert to their former state as toes. On extra human finger does not come from any such normal process but from an abnormality. The shin splints are vestigal. There are not extra, vestigal fingers normally present in humans.

 

I know it won't convince YOU, but here it is anyway!

If you aren't satisfied with this, take it up with the Author!!!!

 

That's my favourite chapter of the Bible. Elsewhere in the Bible we have a speech recorded as God's first-hand lecture on creation to Job:
</font>

• Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:
  
  "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
  Dress for action like a man;
  I will question you, and you make it known to me.
  
  "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
  Tell me, if you have understanding.
  Who determined its measurements--surely you know!
  Or who stretched the line upon it?
  On what were its bases sunk,
  or who laid its cornerstone,
  when the morning stars sang together
  and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
  
  "Or who shut in the sea with doors
  when it burst out from the womb,
  when I made clouds its garment
  and thick darkness its swaddling band,
  and prescribed limits for it
  and set bars and doors,
  and said, 'Thus far shall you come, and no farther,
  and here shall your proud waves be stayed'?
  
  "Have you commanded the morning since your days began,
  and caused the dawn to know its place,
  that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth,
  and the wicked be shaken out of it?
  It is changed like clay under the seal,
  and its features stand out like a garment.
  From the wicked their light is withheld,
  and their uplifted arm is broken.
  
  ...
  
  "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow,
  or have you seen the storehouses of the hail,
  which I have reserved for the time of trouble,
  for the day of battle and war?
  What is the way to the place where the light is distributed,
  or where the east wind is scattered upon the earth?" (Job 38:1-15, 22-24, ESV)</font>

And yet, in spite of what the Bible clearly records as the words of God himself, many have accepted the atheistic science of meteorology regardless of its complete dismissal of literal storehouses for the snow and hail. Amazing!

But wait, is it possible that even God himself could condescend to speak of creation to us in ways that are not entirely literal, while still being entirely truthful? I think so!

 

What is atheistic about meteorology?? It does not contradict the Bible whatsoever.

I can look up on a cold winter day into the grey sky and see a storehouse of snow. I can see dark rainclouds in the summer before a storm.

The seas and oceans are usually held in check. The recent Tsunami shows what would happen if they were not.

Meteorolgy is science. It can be measured and tested. It can be observed.

Evolution is not science. It cannot be measured or tested, and has never been observed.

 

Here is a good article in True.Origin Archive to rebut the flimsy claims made by evolutionists at Talk.Origins Archive claiming that evolution has been observed. (emphasis mine)

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

 

[YAWN]

"Evolution is not science. It cannot be measured or tested, and has never been observed."

This is nothing more than a naked assertion, a fallacy. You have been shown over and over examples of the data that shows this unsubstantiated assertion to be a false assertion. I know you disagree with said evidence but you have yet to factually challenge it and to offer a testible, falsifiable alternative.

Do you have the ability to go to the primary literature and support your claims? If not, well thanks for playing but all you are doing is continuing to make unsubstantiated claims.

You made a claim above that the horse did not evolve. Can you substantiate it with primary source material? You can try Google Scholar and PUBMED as two nice search engines for the primary literature. The PNAS also has a nice search feature.

"Here is a good article in True.Origin Archive to rebut the flimsy claims made by evolutionists at Talk.Origins Archive claiming that evolution has been observed."

Another secondary source.

Can you go to the primary literature and make your case? It does not appear that you, or any other YE support, can do so.

BTW, here is a critique of your link. Give it a read.

http://www.mindspring.com/~duckster/evolution/

Emphasis in original.