-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Intelligent Design = evolution without a commitment to materialism
- Thread starter Gup20
- Start date
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says:
"both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct protohippus"
O. C. Marsh, 'Recent polydactyle horses', Amer. Journal of Science 43, 1892, pp 339.
Today horses range in size from Clydesdales to Fallabella (17 inches tall). All are members of the same species.
Regarding some horses living in the 19th century:
"both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct protohippus"
O. C. Marsh, 'Recent polydactyle horses', Amer. Journal of Science 43, 1892, pp 339.
Today horses range in size from Clydesdales to Fallabella (17 inches tall). All are members of the same species.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
The draconian measures being taken in Pennsylvania to circle the wagons around evolutionism are worth noting.
Such biggotry is only needed when their own argument has grown so weak as to have "no other defense". When it must admit that it can not tolerate exposure to the light of day and that science itself "must be censored' to expunge all "reference" to the disconfirming facts against evolutionism -- then they are near their end.
Such is the case with the evolutionist establishment banishing freedom of thought, and censoring objective inquiry that would COMPARE the myths and fables of the simplistic theory of evolutionism to the ID alternative.
A more telling example of their weakness could hardly be imagined. To so "fear" that 4 paragraph statement promoting objective thought (even if it was only for a microsecond) shows the fragile nature of the evolutionist platform.
In Christ,
Bob
Such biggotry is only needed when their own argument has grown so weak as to have "no other defense". When it must admit that it can not tolerate exposure to the light of day and that science itself "must be censored' to expunge all "reference" to the disconfirming facts against evolutionism -- then they are near their end.
Such is the case with the evolutionist establishment banishing freedom of thought, and censoring objective inquiry that would COMPARE the myths and fables of the simplistic theory of evolutionism to the ID alternative.
A more telling example of their weakness could hardly be imagined. To so "fear" that 4 paragraph statement promoting objective thought (even if it was only for a microsecond) shows the fragile nature of the evolutionist platform.
In Christ,
Bob
Do you just go around posting the same dishonest, lying, misrepresenting, mischaracterized, false quotes in every situation that you come upon regardless of whether or not the quote even have nay application to the subject being discussed?
We covered most of these quotes already on the Genentic Information thread. Let's see what else we might have here.
Rensberger is a journalist, not a scientist.
Berlinski is a creationist, so it is hard to say that this is a real scientists "admitting" something as you normally claim.
Ah, the Simpson quote. You have used this one for years. And for years I have hit you with the full quote everytime that shows how badly you must mischaracterize the quote in order to use it. It is another example of the utter depravity that YE can force some to sink to and why it is an evil worthy of being forcefully stomped out.
YE is built upon such lies.
We covered most of these quotes already on the Genentic Information thread. Let's see what else we might have here.
Rensberger is a journalist, not a scientist.
Berlinski is a creationist, so it is hard to say that this is a real scientists "admitting" something as you normally claim.
Ah, the Simpson quote. You have used this one for years. And for years I have hit you with the full quote everytime that shows how badly you must mischaracterize the quote in order to use it. It is another example of the utter depravity that YE can force some to sink to and why it is an evil worthy of being forcefully stomped out.
You have to remove the parts where he talks about the changes that are observed in the fossil record of the horse. How these changes are in the record but that they do not agree with the smooth, gradual process that was expected two centruies ago now. There are a lot of details of the actual transition of horses in there. YOu also must leave out the part of the quote where he calls the horse series "a classic example of evolution in action."
YE is built upon such lies.
"Today one may see the platypus as the intermediate between ducks and mamals and might "imagine" it floppying about with the ducks as ducks continued to give birth to platypus offspring -- IF ONLY they were extinct!"
That is so funny I nearly fell out of my chair. Only a creationist would result to such an extreme strawman as to suggest that anyone with half a brain would think that there was any connection between a platypus and a duck.
"Regarding some horses living in the 19th century:
"both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct protohippus"
O. C. Marsh, 'Recent polydactyle horses', Amer. Journal of Science 43, 1892, pp 339.
Today horses range in size from Clydesdales to Fallabella (17 inches tall). All are members of the same species."
This one is almost as funny as well. The two extra atavistic toes that ocasionally show up are evidence FOR evolution. Just where did the genes for making those extra toes come from other than from the three toed ancestors.
Even better is the reference you make to the size range of horses seen today under the forces of artificial selection. Such blatent obfuscation you must resort to. It might be a good answer if size was the only thing that changed. But in the real world that were wholesale changes to the body between Hyracotherium and modern horses. Bones fused and changed length. The shape of the head changed. The number of molars changed. The shape of the teeth changed. The animals went from walking on pads like a dog to hooves. And so on.
That is so funny I nearly fell out of my chair. Only a creationist would result to such an extreme strawman as to suggest that anyone with half a brain would think that there was any connection between a platypus and a duck.
"Regarding some horses living in the 19th century:
"both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct protohippus"
O. C. Marsh, 'Recent polydactyle horses', Amer. Journal of Science 43, 1892, pp 339.
Today horses range in size from Clydesdales to Fallabella (17 inches tall). All are members of the same species."
This one is almost as funny as well. The two extra atavistic toes that ocasionally show up are evidence FOR evolution. Just where did the genes for making those extra toes come from other than from the three toed ancestors.
Even better is the reference you make to the size range of horses seen today under the forces of artificial selection. Such blatent obfuscation you must resort to. It might be a good answer if size was the only thing that changed. But in the real world that were wholesale changes to the body between Hyracotherium and modern horses. Bones fused and changed length. The shape of the head changed. The number of molars changed. The shape of the teeth changed. The animals went from walking on pads like a dog to hooves. And so on.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Hey Me too!! It is good to see that at some point you do know the dupicity of evolutionism's tactics with fossils!
Only someone who actually READ the Arhaeoraptor hoax stories of evolutionism would quickly see that the "eggs" and "duck bill" issue with the Platypus WOULD Be co-opted EVEN FASTER than the HOAXES in harmony with the deceitful practices of evolutionists!!
But of course "they can't" in this case since the animal is STILL ALIVE and can BE SHOWN to have no link!!
"IF ONLY it was EXTINCT!!" Eh UTEOTW!!!
Oh no wait! This is REALLY funny! You probably want to show WHY HOAXES are EVEN BETTER suited for Evolutionism than an ACTUAL specimen extinct in the fossil record like Platypus (if the ACTUAL animal were actually extinct 10 million years ago of course)
(Long live Archaeoraptor!!)
It is always a pleasure to exhange views with you UTEOTW because you seem to be so happy to "confirm" the duplicity and blinders-on philosophy of evolutionists that "I suspect" but just need a post/quote to confirm.
My hat is off to you sir!
Well done!!
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
#1. WE have dogs with long legs and dogs with short legs - the Creator's book SHOWS that all came from a single pair of unclean ancestors for the canine at the flood.
#2. BUT IN This case with horses we show that BOTH animals exist at the same time in the 19th century ONE NOT giving birth to THE OTHER.
Get it "yet"?
You "need a story" that says "one came FROM the other" so failing to find it IN nature - you merely "tell the story".
How "unnexpected".
In Christ,
Bob
"Hey Me too!! It is good to see that at some point you do know the dupicity of evolutionism's tactics with fossils!
Only someone who actually READ the Arhaeoraptor hoax stories of evolutionism would quickly see that the "eggs" and "duck bill" issue with the Platypus WOULD Be co-opted EVEN FASTER than the HOAXES in harmony with the deceitful practices of evolutionists!!"
Well you have appaarently warped you own mind as to not see what is so funny.
Let's try a different approach.
There is absolutely nothing about a platypus and a duck that would lead anyone to possible believe that they are transitionals from one to another. It is such a gross mischaracterization in order to make the weakest of all strawmen that the humor is owerwhelming. It is extremely revealing that you must resort to such extreme fallacious arguments to try and build a case. It does go along well, though, with your dishonest, lying, misrepresenting, mischaracterized and false quotes.
So where might you be going. I am guessing that you are going for the bill and the eggs.
Well the bill is nothing like a duck's bill, except perhaps in its gross shape. It forms diffeently, it is made from different materials and it serves a very different function.
The eggs are nothing like a ducks egg, either.
But there is something stronger that can be said. Something much closer to the truth if you were going to try and set up the platypus as a possible intermediate.
Now I would not call the platypus a transitional at all, but I would suggest that it preserves many of the features that were present in some of the transitionals between reptiles and mammals.
It has the ability to regulate its body temperature, but it is a poor system.
The eggs that it lays are very similar to the leathery eggs of a reptile as opposed to the live births of other mammals.
The eggs are laid through an opening common to the one which expels solid wastes, just as in reptiles.
It produces milk as a mammal is expected yet it lacks nipples.
It has hair like a mammal.
Unlike other mammals, it is poisonous.
I could continue...
"Only someone who actually READ the Arhaeoraptor hoax stories..."
I believe there was only one.
A hoax was perpetrated by someone in China. Hoax may not even be the best word to use since I suspect that it was for profit. Some people were fooled. National Geographic even ran an article which is what you are referring to. But the actual science journals refused to let the "find" be published. So there was no hoax or false reporting on the side of science. They caught the error before it was ever even published. You can only point to the popular press for the false reporting.
You also must overlook the best part of all. The hoax was made but splicing together parts of two different FEATHERED DINOSAURS. So while it was a hoax, even the hoax contained parts of two key transitional fossils!
[snip my point that atavistic horse toes are evidence for evolution and questioning where the genes for the extra toes came from]
"WE have dogs with long legs and dogs with short legs - the Creator's book SHOWS that all came from a single pair of unclean ancestors for the canine at the flood."
What do long legs and short legs have to do with extra toes? Absolutely nothing. More obfuscation from you. I guess you live for the red herring based on the way the quotes that you throw around usually relate to the topics being discussed.
You still have not told us why a one toed horse, perfectly created just that way, should be carrying around genes for making those two extra toes.
"BUT IN This case with horses we show that BOTH animals exist at the same time in the 19th century ONE NOT giving birth to THE OTHER."
No, I'm pretty sure that we are talking about atavistic toes here. If there was a lineage of three toed horses running around, just why would there be a paper wanting to look at recent examples of the three toed variety? They would be like the other three toed horses in the lineage.
But you snipped the stringest part of the argument against you quote about horse size. Here, let me put it back in for you.
"Even better is the reference you make to the size range of horses seen today under the forces of artificial selection. Such blatent obfuscation you must resort to. It might be a good answer if size was the only thing that changed. But in the real world that were wholesale changes to the body between Hyracotherium and modern horses. Bones fused and changed length. The shape of the head changed. The number of molars changed. The shape of the teeth changed. The animals went from walking on pads like a dog to hooves. And so on."
I suppose you'll just snip away that part you don't like next ime, too. The part the destroys your hypothesis.
Only someone who actually READ the Arhaeoraptor hoax stories of evolutionism would quickly see that the "eggs" and "duck bill" issue with the Platypus WOULD Be co-opted EVEN FASTER than the HOAXES in harmony with the deceitful practices of evolutionists!!"
Well you have appaarently warped you own mind as to not see what is so funny.
Let's try a different approach.
There is absolutely nothing about a platypus and a duck that would lead anyone to possible believe that they are transitionals from one to another. It is such a gross mischaracterization in order to make the weakest of all strawmen that the humor is owerwhelming. It is extremely revealing that you must resort to such extreme fallacious arguments to try and build a case. It does go along well, though, with your dishonest, lying, misrepresenting, mischaracterized and false quotes.
So where might you be going. I am guessing that you are going for the bill and the eggs.
Well the bill is nothing like a duck's bill, except perhaps in its gross shape. It forms diffeently, it is made from different materials and it serves a very different function.
The eggs are nothing like a ducks egg, either.
But there is something stronger that can be said. Something much closer to the truth if you were going to try and set up the platypus as a possible intermediate.
Now I would not call the platypus a transitional at all, but I would suggest that it preserves many of the features that were present in some of the transitionals between reptiles and mammals.
It has the ability to regulate its body temperature, but it is a poor system.
The eggs that it lays are very similar to the leathery eggs of a reptile as opposed to the live births of other mammals.
The eggs are laid through an opening common to the one which expels solid wastes, just as in reptiles.
It produces milk as a mammal is expected yet it lacks nipples.
It has hair like a mammal.
Unlike other mammals, it is poisonous.
I could continue...
"Only someone who actually READ the Arhaeoraptor hoax stories..."
I believe there was only one.
A hoax was perpetrated by someone in China. Hoax may not even be the best word to use since I suspect that it was for profit. Some people were fooled. National Geographic even ran an article which is what you are referring to. But the actual science journals refused to let the "find" be published. So there was no hoax or false reporting on the side of science. They caught the error before it was ever even published. You can only point to the popular press for the false reporting.
You also must overlook the best part of all. The hoax was made but splicing together parts of two different FEATHERED DINOSAURS. So while it was a hoax, even the hoax contained parts of two key transitional fossils!
[snip my point that atavistic horse toes are evidence for evolution and questioning where the genes for the extra toes came from]
"WE have dogs with long legs and dogs with short legs - the Creator's book SHOWS that all came from a single pair of unclean ancestors for the canine at the flood."
What do long legs and short legs have to do with extra toes? Absolutely nothing. More obfuscation from you. I guess you live for the red herring based on the way the quotes that you throw around usually relate to the topics being discussed.
You still have not told us why a one toed horse, perfectly created just that way, should be carrying around genes for making those two extra toes.
"BUT IN This case with horses we show that BOTH animals exist at the same time in the 19th century ONE NOT giving birth to THE OTHER."
No, I'm pretty sure that we are talking about atavistic toes here. If there was a lineage of three toed horses running around, just why would there be a paper wanting to look at recent examples of the three toed variety? They would be like the other three toed horses in the lineage.
But you snipped the stringest part of the argument against you quote about horse size. Here, let me put it back in for you.
"Even better is the reference you make to the size range of horses seen today under the forces of artificial selection. Such blatent obfuscation you must resort to. It might be a good answer if size was the only thing that changed. But in the real world that were wholesale changes to the body between Hyracotherium and modern horses. Bones fused and changed length. The shape of the head changed. The number of molars changed. The shape of the teeth changed. The animals went from walking on pads like a dog to hooves. And so on."
I suppose you'll just snip away that part you don't like next ime, too. The part the destroys your hypothesis.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
That is really good news UTEOTW - glad to see you coming around.
I think that IF the BILL of a platypus (webbed feet, eggs rather than live birth etc) IS NOT sufficient evidence (from the argument of similar form) to chuck it in with ducks THEN the 5 inch anomaly on one or two whales (not a real leg mind you) does NOT toss them in with land mamals!!
Basically if they can't get past "the Platypus test" on similar morphology then -- they are not linked!
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
BAck to the subject of the thread --
ID as a theory.
What in the WORLD motivates a supposedly CHRISTIAN evolutionist to deny that the PAINTER has any brains at all as revealed IN HIS Painting???
Do you do that just because atheist evolutionist tell you to?
In Christ,
Bob
ID as a theory.
What in the WORLD motivates a supposedly CHRISTIAN evolutionist to deny that the PAINTER has any brains at all as revealed IN HIS Painting???
Do you do that just because atheist evolutionist tell you to?
In Christ,
Bob
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Bob, God is a spirit, not flesh and blood, except as He incarnated Himself in Christ. Therefore, God as God the Father doesn't have physical "brains". However, He is omniscient anyway. He is pure mind, pure truth, pure wisdom.
If you ask why folks such as Ute and I keep pointing out the falseness of the so called science from creationists, it is simply an earnest desire to share the truth and spare fellow christians from feeling they have to give up their christianity in order to acknowledge the truth found in God's creation.
Every discussion board on the internet that allows pros and cons to be discussed now has worthy cristian supporters of the truth as discovered in the fossils and in nature as a whole. Never again will creationists be able to distort and blaspheme against what honest and able scientists have found about God's creation without somebody pointing out the hollowness and vapid emptiness of their arguments.
Should our Lord tarry, the evolution argument will be won, in time, as completely as the rotating earth argument was won before it.
And those in the church of a pharisee type mind set will have to find other ways to seek to impose their control over others.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Obfuscation.
Step 1 - admit that intelligent DESIGN is SEEN in nature and that the AUTHOR of Nature (God) is the intelligen Designer. (That would be the CRHISTIAN evolutionist version of Romans 1).
Step 2 - feel freem to reduce that back to its bare minimum "WE SEE intelligent Design in nature" and that is fact. But "believing" that it is the God of the BIBLE that is the "designer" is an act of faith.
Why stumble on the "obvious" time after time just to serve atheism?
As a Christian Evolutionist Behe would make that kind of argument. I would reject it.
In Christ,
Bob
Paul of Eugene
New Member
But not a theory in science, it a religous or philosophical theory.
Certainly this christian evolutionist doesn'd do that. Its just that my opinion that God designed things isn't science.
Indeed. God is the designer, I see his handiwork in the stars and in the genes and in the rocks. But saying that is going beyond science, which I have every right to do, and I also invite anybody else to do that as well.
Just don't claim its science, that's all.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Evolutionism itself is pseudoscience - not actual science at all.
This is seen in the debunked horse series as "stories are told as IF they were fact" for things that "never happened in nature" -- AND THIS is the "summation" by atheist darwinists THEMSELVES on that subject!!
A more bogus system could hardly be "imagined in thought experiments".
But those glaring failures in evolutionism do not substantiate the obvious scientifice basis for the theory admitting to the ID CLEARLY SEEN in nature even by pagans themselves.
Rather it is the fact of the OBSERVATION of complex machines that DO NOT simply "occur in the lab" nor can they be "fabricated USING intelligent design" because our ACTUAL science is not advanced enough to MAKE THE MACHINES!
The "blinders-on" true believers in evolutionism have to "pretend not to see that point IN THE LAB" and they have to "pretend" that what is "beyond REAL science" can be "imagined to happen on its own" in nature!!
Such bogus belief systems are thankfully not part of any science known to mankind just the pseudoscience of atheist darwinism!
In Christ,
Bob