No, I am not doing this. I am not promoting nor defending ID or creationism.

Silas said:

Granted, he's just citing or paraphrasing Darwin, but the implication that he agrees with the concept is there. "No 'intelligent designer' could possibly have . . ." This is what I was responding to.

Again, not me.


_________________
SeanF

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SeanF on 2002-06-13 13:02 ]</font>

Well, to begin with, I didn't say that whales' hip-bones prove that God could not have created the universe.

I said that whales' hip-bones prove (or suggest strongly) that an "intelligent designer" did not create whales.

Here is the reasoning: an "intelligent" design uses functioning parts for rational purposes. Hip bones have a function: to support legs. Whales have no legs. Whales have no use, function, nor need for hip bones. And yet they have hip bones... Ergo...

The "ID" notion can't explain it. It can only beg the question. "Maybe there is a use we are unable to perceive." Maybe. But "Maybe" is not an explanation; the ID concept has no explanatory value.

Evolution, on the other hand, is easily capable of embracing the concept of vestigial organs and structures, and "explains" the mystery without raising a sweat. Whales are descended from animals that had legs.

Thank you for that; it is reassuring! I sometimes get grumpy and cranky and lose sight of the fact that this isn't "World War Three." Please forgive me for those times that I seem like a fussbudget!

Silas

Okay, that's too much information. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Conceded (although I will suggest that your original statement was quite absolute -- a "suggest strongly" in place of "could not possibly" would not have provoked such a response from me).
No argument here -- evolution seems a more logical explanation than ID, and I have not seen any evidence which favors ID over evolution.

However, to suggest that it's impossible for there to be "rational purposes" within the concept of ID which we do not yet understand (or maybe even can not understand) is, to me, illogical and short-sighted.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence . . .

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

12,000 year old trees? None shown to be older than 4,600 years
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/546.asp

The evolution of whales has always been a problem for the evolutionists as they are a sea creature that is nevertheless classified as a mammal because they suckle their young. When Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species" in 1859, he had difficulty in explaining how whales could have evolved from a land
into a sea creature. He assumed that they evolved from land animals, as the possiblily of a fish evolving directly into a mammal
was too much even for him to accept. He mentioned that bears had been swimming in rivers catching fish and suggested that over
millions of years they could have gradually evolved so that they developed the fins, tail and other features of whales. How they did this without leaving a single intermediary fossil is a question that
never been answered. In the first edition of his book, Darwin obviously felt that he
should put some explanation forward for the evolution of these unusual animals. He was well aware how weak his however, for after the first two editions he quietly dropped
it from the text.
One would have thought that this whole question of how whales would have been carefully ignored. However the National Geographic Magazine, throwing caution to the
wind, declared that "The whale's ascendency to sovereign size apparently began 60
million years ago when hairy, four legged mammals, in search of food or sanctuary, ventured into water. As eons passed, changes
slowly occurred: hind legs disappeared, front legs changed into flippers, hair gave way to a thick, smooth blanket of blubber,
nostrils moved to the top of the head, the tail broadened into flukes and in the bouyant water world the body became enormous"
Once again the imagination is stretched beyond breaking point in order to support the theory of evolution. One cannot but have a degree of admiration for the indominable faith of the evolutionist in his theory in the face of so much opposing evidence!

This one here, Named Methuselah, is 4,767 Years Old.

Even more importantly, Dead Trees, have been Correlated with the Living Trees, and Give a very Clear Record, for at least 10-, if not 12,000, Years!

_________________
If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ZaphodBeeblebrox on 2002-06-13 17:12 ]</font>

Your inability to understand something does not constitute evidence, either for or against.

Well, I see that the Bad Astronomy board has devolved into yet another useless discussion between reality (evolution) and fantasy (creationism). The biggest problem with advocates of "intelligent" design is that, despite the clever monicker, their arguments are sorely lacking in, dare I say, intelligence.

For instance ...

Prince (on page 4): The oldest rocks (Pre-Cambrian) have been searched for many years but no undisputed fossils have been found.

That is a trivial falsehood, invented by unintelligent advocates of design, who think the rest of us are dumb enough to fall for the gag. The precambrian rocks are chock-a-block (as the Crocodile Hunter would say) with fossils. I draw the attention of the interested reader to Prelude to the Cambrian Explosion, James W. Valentine, Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Science 30: 285-306, 2002.

Dunash ("unprovable assumptions" of radiometric dating from page 5): (A) Radioactive conditions are the same today as they were millions of years ago. (B) The "half life" of the elements is constant. (C) No products of the radioactive decay were originally present nor have been added since the formation of the rock.

As for "(C)", it is simply another of those invented falshoods. Radiometric dating methods do not necessarily require any such assumption. As for "(A)" and "(B)", one is motivated to say "so what"? All assumptions ever made are "unprovable", for any sufficiently restrictive definition of "proof". The criticism is totally meaningless, repeated as a mantra for it propaganda value.

The real question (the one creationists never bother to ask) is "Are the assumptions reasonable?". Why assume that the decay rate ("half life") is a constant? How about "why not"? Under what know theoretical or observational conditions could either change? The answer is "none". And what are "radioactive consitions" anyway? Is that a reference to the mechanism of decay? Is there any reason to believe it should be different? As a matter of fact, there is not. As a matter of fact, the assumptions are eminently reasonable. See "A Radiometric Dating Resource List" for lots more stuff about radiometric dating & creationism.

And since this is the "astronomy" board, keep in mind that there are astronomical age measures too, based on stellar evolution models, HR diagram, white dwarf cooling & etc. All of them (and I do mean the inclusive all) indicate a universe that is at least several billion years old, quite a bit older indeed than the paltry 4.5 billion for Earth.

Young earth creationism is a bad joke.

Aye. Well, I'm dropping out of it, since Prince insists on calling me a liar, and that isn't how I believe an honest debate ought to be handled.


Silas

Not "Living" trees. Living tree's ring record overlap with dead ones.

Tom

My posts seem to have a magical ability to kill off threads, so we'll put a stop to this one. (not from force of wit, mind [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] )

Creationists argue from what they regard as revealed knowledge. If the facts do not fit this body of wisdom, then whatever steps are necessary to make them fit (or disappear)will be taken. They see science as a direct threat to their system of beliefs, so they try to strike back under the guise of scientific argument. They seem to imply that if one were not deluded or a hide-bound contrarian, it would be obvious that only the creationist point of view could possibly be true.

I have wondered what would arise given the same "anomalous" evidence so beloved by creationists if it were examined by a non-Christian culture which had never been exposed to Christian referents at all. Would this culture independently arrive at the notions of ID, a young earth, a universal flood covering the highest peaks on earth, a radiation of all living creatures from a single geographic point 5,000 years ago and so on? Any bets on that?

Further, the piecemeal nature of creationist argument is always evident, yet they like to claim they are more scientific than the institution of science itself. Very well. Let them go head-to-head doing actual science out on the leading edge of all the disciplines. How successful would they be in formulating useful hypotheses which can be falsified and which can lead to fruitful predictions, predictions which cannot be anticipated at this time? I think in such a a hypothetical case, creationists would stand revealed in their true nature as 'antagonist symbionts'...incapable of any worthwhile contribution to our understanding of nature, while depending on science for insignificant scraps of debatable worth to use as their fodder while attacking the source of their sustenance.

Now, we can all go someplace else and talk about astronomy.

Yeah, mine too; especially, if I include, Cute Little Quotes:

"I Bring you Love!" - Charles Montgomery Burns

__________________
If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.

Whale hip bones are alleged to show that whales evolved from land animals. However, Bergman and Howe point out that they are different in the male and female whales. They are not useless at all, but help penis erection in the males and vaginal contraction in the females. "He would be a rash man indeed who would assert that any 'vestigial organ' is uselesss" (Professor Goodrich, Oxford)

My take...

(My posts have been known to kill threads too...)

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif[/img]

__________________
If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.

The evolution of whales has always been a problem (1) for the evolutionists as they are a sea creature that is nevertheless classified as a mammal because they suckle their young (2). (Darwin) assumed that they evolved from land animals... How they did this without leaving a single intermediary fossil is a question that
never been answered.

No intermediary fossils?

How about rodhocetus, durodon and basilosaurus?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...kingwhale.html

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence...to2_zoom4.html

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence...oto_zoom2.html

However the National Geographic Magazine, throwing caution to the wind (3)...

Earth’s largest animals are sometimes born with a leg or two, a startling genetic reminder of the time, 50 million years ago, when their ancestors walked on dry land.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/...0011101.4.html

Once again the imagination is stretched beyond breaking point in order to support the theory of evolution.

Not really. All it takes is a close and unprejudiced examination of the evidence.

One cannot but have a degree of admiration for the indominable faith of the evolutionist in his theory in the face of so much opposing evidence!

I'm sorry, I must have yawned.

What opposing evidence?

(1) I was unaware that explaining the origins of whales had ever been a problem, more of a challenge.

(2) There is much more to the definition of "mammal" than "they suckle their young." Cetaceans in general meet all the requirements of placental mammals.

(3) The National Geographic does not "throw caution to the wind." When they report on a subject, it has been researched out the wazoo and their article stands on pretty firm ground. They are very careful to delineate between fact, theory, supposition and opinion.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Professor Goodrich is right. Medical science has even found a use for the human appendix... although many people live normal lives after removal.

However, to assume that the cetacean hip-bone is there for a "designed" purpose is also rash. Could this function have not been performed much more easily some other way? Was the Grand Designer so lacking in imagination and creativity that copying the design of a land mammal was the only possibility? Is it not at least as possible that the reason the cetacean hip-bone has not disappeared altogether is that it also serves this function?

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

No, they don't. That's simply a bald statement from the creationist camp that is not supported by any scientific research. There is a bone that helps with penile erection - the os penis - absent in females, obviously. As for the leg bones in whales helping with vaginal contraction, I always understood it was muscle, not bone that caused movement.

The request for a donation at the end of that article says it all.

I think the oldest Bristlecone Pines that have had their tree rings counted were a tad over 5,000 years but it isn't necessary to quibble. Tree rings are consistent with the weather. Tree ages overlap, in other words, you can find a tree that is no longer living and match the ring pattern to find when it did live. Tree rings have been matched which overlap to show a continuous weather history going back much more than 5,000 years. I think there are some tree ring maps back 10,000 years or more. I will find a reference to be more precise.

One Bristlecone might be 4,700 years but we didn't just luckily find the one first tree to regrow after the supposed world wide flood.

Wow, we said the same thing. I posted a reply to Caryn before I got to page 6.

Hey, Great Minds think alike; of course, so do Crazy Ones, Cheers!

__________________
If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.

Well, now I see why these threads get locked. You try to discuss evidence, and it deteriorates. I would say, those without evidence seem to get mad first but that would be difficult to show without provoking more anger.

I picture the person with their hands over their ears saying, "I can't hear you."

Its like I said, evolution is a fact, not a theory, get over it. Isn't it un-religious like to get mad a people just because they don't believe you?

I know this sounds rudely blunt, but that is one of my communication traits I am reluctant to give up for the sake of social niceness. My friends are used to it.

All right, guys, if you are really getting annoyed with this post, why do you keep posting on it? I mean, that's like trying to kill a fire by throwing a log on it!

And speaking of adding fuel to the fire:

OK, I thought you guys wanted to keep religion out of this scientific discussion. So what's this post for? I may have been born yesterday, but this looks like a theological argument to me. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

Well, all right, if you really want to know an answer to this, let me refer you to the book of Job chapters 38-42. If you have a problem with that explanation of things, then complain to the source. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Of course, I'm going to have to ask you about your bird argument, too, because in my experience, the adult bird will try to still try to feed the baby out of the nest if it knows the baby is there, but it does end up becoming a lost cause because it is just too unprotected on the ground.

_________________
o/ Nebulas & Rain
“I haven't been droppin' no eaves, sir, honest.”

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-06-14 22:43 ]</font>

Yeah, especially since they're Supposed, to Think of Frankness, as a Virtue. Proverbs 24:26/26:18,19/27:5,6/28:23

_________________
If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ZaphodBeeblebrox on 2002-06-15 04:33 ]</font>

The archaeopteryx bird is claimed to be the link between reptiles and birds. But it had perfectly formed feathers which are very complex in design. There can be over a million minute hooks on one feather. Nothing which is half way between a feather and a
reptile's scale has ever been found. An animal with half developed wings could
neither run nor fly properly and would be quickly eliminated.Evolutionists cannot determine how birds evolved by studying existing species. Special types of skulls, feathers, hollow bones, etc., appear 'randomly' in existing species making classification impossible. Nesting habits of some birds cannot be learnt, e.g. the mud nest of the House Martin has to be right first time or the eggs will fall.

The world is flat. There were no dinosaurs; they were all fake, like Piltdown Man and the Cardiff Giant.

(Oh, wait, I believe in the Cardiff Giant...)

The moon is only 3,000 miles high. Proof! I was in Los Angeles and looked straight up and saw the moon. But my sister was in New York at the same time, and she saw the moon at 45% above the horizon! Since it is 3,000 miles from LA to NY, anyone capable of simple geometry (which excludes NASA, of course!) can figure out the truth.

By the way, the world is only 2,000 years old. The "Middle Ages" were a hoax written by fraudulent historians in the 1500's. (Actually about A.D. 510.) This happened at the same time that Pope Gregory changed the calendar. The change of a few days was only a smoke-screen for the BIG change of over 1,000 years. The year that we think of as A.D. 1660 was actually the year "666," and Oliver Cromwell was the Anti-Christ.

There are no chemical elements; everything is made of fire, water, earth, and air.

(I am certain of this because of the amount of fire-water I have consumed.)

There are no planets. "Jupiter" is just a reflection of your own eyeball in the mirror of your own telescope. The "great red spot" is just the fovea of the eye. The rings around Saturn are evidence of incipient glaucoma; you ought to see a doctor.

Evolutionists admit that their dinosaur bones aren't really bones. They're made of stone. Is anyone so stupid to think that big lizards had bones made of rock?

(Although the explanation supplied by Sister Rossetta, the Lavendar Nun, is also pretty good: dinosaur fossils are rocks that come from the blown-up planet between earth and Mars: they are proof of prehistoric life *on another planet.*)

Remember: be absolutely sure to put the shiny side of the tinfoil *away* from your head, otherwise you will simply amplify the mind-control rays and fry the few brain cells you have left.

("My brain? That's my second favorite organ!" Woody Allen.)

Silas

[Johnny Carson voice]
I-I-I did not know that.
[/Johnny Carson voice]

_________________
When all is said and done - sit down and shut up!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-06-15 20:57 ]</font>

Penguins seem to have done just fine without flying or running.

Tom

Shiny side out alone will amplify the radiation of your own though waves, causing your thoughts to be broadcast to everyone around you. Ideally you should be using a double-layered setup, with a shiny-side-out layer on the outside, and a shiny-side-in layer on the inside, to both block mind-control rays and shield your own thoughts.