Quote:

---

Recent discoveries of fossil whales provide the evidence that will convince an honest skeptic.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Recent discoveries of fossil whales provide the evidence that will convince an honest skeptic.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Recent discoveries of fossil whales provide the evidence that will convince an honest skeptic.

---

If I say God was an alien that played with and accellerated genetic realities s/he found in progress on Earth, is that Creationist, or Evolutionist....?

Curious Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I didn’t say there was no evidence for Evolution. I’ve never said that. What I said was that there was no evidence that Evolution is a fact

---

Any intelligent person will describe evolution as a theory, not a fact, so I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
i kind of feel as if the evidence is cherry picked

---

Quote:

---

maybe im naive, but our ancestors all believed in divine creation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Recent discoveries of fossil whales provide the evidence that will convince an honest skeptic.

---

If I say God was an alien that played with and accellerated genetic realities s/he found in progress on Earth, is that Creationist, or Evolutionist....?

Curious Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I didn’t say there was no evidence for Evolution. I’ve never said that. What I said was that there was no evidence that Evolution is a fact

---

Any intelligent person will describe evolution as a theory, not a fact, so I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.

---

Actually, it's both.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:
An alien mated with an ape. Think about it. Take your average hairy stupid assed ape and mix with your average bald smart alien....

---

Quote:

---

: SergeantX-

Cool! We get evolution! Can we have gravity and relativity as well? (two of my favorites).

---

Quote:

---

Just so it's fair you can have the flat earth and crop circles, ok?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
So, if we change it to 'atheistic' gravity, does that mean only non-believers will fall? Hmmm

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
Finn... I've commented a few times on various folks twiddling the two; I may or may not comment on a specific instance depending on if I think the semantics is causing a problem.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
Hmmm... I'm not sure I agree it is a 'fact' that man descended from a common 'ape like' ancestor; I do subscribe to the theory it is so. I feel the above URL overstates the 'fact' of this matter.

For example, I would say it is a 'fact' that mitrochonal DNA is 'statistically significantly more similar' between apes and humans than horses and humans, and this fact strongly supports the notion that humans and apes are more closely related. I see they define 'fact' as ... "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." hmm. Perverse. Well. I'll have to ponder that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
So, if we change it to 'atheistic' gravity, does that mean only non-believers will fall? Hmmm

---

Haha. Check this out:

Intelligent Falling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_falling



Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
lead me to think that Anti is pretty much a full-on Creationist obfuscating his/her viewpoint with an attempted blurring between ID, Creation, and science.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
[...] being unable to substantiate his/he tenets without resorting to the Bible, which most of us already agree is a myth. (And not science.)

---

Quote:

---

Signym- Anti, I've been very clear about my position. But your position is kinda murky. Sometimes you claim to be an IDer, but most of your references require- as I said before- a pretty full-blown literal intepretation of the Bible.

---

Quote:

---

So for the sake of discussion, would you please elucidate your opinion on the following:

How old is the universe?

---

Quote:

---

How old is the world?

---

Quote:

---

How did life come about?

---

Quote:

---

How many species did we start out with? All of the species represented by fossil records plus our current list?

---

Quote:

---

How did humans come to know about "The Creation", if that is your belief?

---

Quote:

---

How do you account for the fossil record? (I know we touched on this already)

---

Quote:

---

Does mountain-building occur? Does erosion occur? Does sedimentation occur?

---

Quote:

---

Do you think that evolution is occurring today?

---

Quote:

---

What- in your opinion- is the scientific process?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:

Well...the whole point of ID is to obfuscate Creationism by hiding it behind science, so you've just given a fairly good representation of ID there.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Does mountain-building occur? Does erosion occur? Does sedimentation occur?

---

i dont doubt the basic science.. but why, does matter spontaneously occur?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
I think the main reason I don't quite 'get' where Antimason is coming from is he attempts to distinguish between...

a) 'Atheistic evolution'
b) Evolution as subscribed to by many theists,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
While there's a number of points above I don't necessarily agree with, I 'follow' most of them. This item loses me. Where does the 'traditional' proposition of 'mountain building' come up with 'matter spontaneously occur'ing? The standard scientific theory is that one of earth's 'plates' collides with another; one is 'pushed down', the other 'pushes up'; the one pushing up is the 'mountain' side. There is conservation of matter throughout the process.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
While there's a number of points above I don't necessarily agree with, I 'follow' most of them. This item loses me. Where does the 'traditional' proposition of 'mountain building' come up with 'matter spontaneously occur'ing? The standard scientific theory is that one of earth's 'plates' collides with another; one is 'pushed down', the other 'pushes up'; the one pushing up is the 'mountain' side. There is conservation of matter throughout the process.

---

i was being rhetorical. i find it insulting that because im a Creationist, im percieved as lacking an understanding of natural processes; im apparently retarded to consider 'intelligence' a possibility

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
I think the main reason I don't quite 'get' where Antimason is coming from is he attempts to distinguish between...

a) 'Atheistic evolution'
b) Evolution as subscribed to by many theists,

---

and there is a difference. either their was a creator force, a supernatural presence that guided the universe and its foundations into being, or their wasnt. Creationists do believe in evolution, to an extent... but atheists have to rely on it for everything in the absence of a transcendent origination of life. is my view really that complicated? if this were a scale, with Creation on one end, and athiestic evolution on another, a 'believer' would settle in the middle, knowing that their was a Creator envolved at some point. an atheist would never consider the possibility, and that is the distinction i make. if there was no Creator force at all, and we could "prove" it, then you will have invalidated ID as a theory, but until then its still a possibility

---

Quote:

---

posted by- LEADB

" Yes... the great chicken and egg debate... if the matter was always here, how is that so?

---

Quote:

---

Or if a creator started this thing with a big bang, fine, but then where did the creator come from?

---

Quote:

---

I've yet to hear either 'side' really give a convincing one for that; and, as you might guess based on previous comments, I'm quite inclined to say our universe, as we know it, was created with good design.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

posted by- LEADB
Yes... the great chicken and egg debate... if the matter was always here, how is that so?

---

is there a third option? otherwise the odds are 50/50, which makes ID seem kinda appealin', right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
im a Creationist... because i 'believe' in a literal interpretation of the bible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
if youre saying ID and Creationism are the same, then you must know their was no supernatural cause to the universe, and can show it

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How do you account for the fossil record? (I know we touched on this already)

---

i believe they were preserved by settling sediment during the worldwide floods

---

Quote:

---

i do, but here is the difference: only to the extent that it stays within the species programmed archetype; i dont believe their are infinite variations of evolution possible within any given species. i believe they have 'codes' to follow. i know its happening today, but my prediction is that a cat will never evolve into something beyond its current, known archetype.

---

Quote:

---

fred, what evidence to you have that disproves a Creator? since you know there is no 'science' behind ID, you must also know that their is no Creator intelligence, and that everything happened naturally.. so what are you basing that on?

---

Quote:

---

i dont doubt the basic science {geology, earth science, chemistry}

---

Quote:

---

... i have not come up with a date on the 'cambrian' layer, but i cant prove its millions of years old

---

Quote:

---

most fossils are found beginning in the cambrian layer, which makes me doubt there were any preceding eras of 'evolution'... one of each archetype.... i believe they (fossils) were preserved by settling sediment during the worldwide floods

---

Quote:

---

.. but why, does matter spontaneously occur?

---

Quote:

---

i have the right, just as an atheist, to apply my worldview, or lens, to the study of science, and it provides me with a different explanation.

---

Quote:

---

posted by LEADB-

ID? Depends on what you mean by ID. ID Vs Evolution, for me, is no contest; the evidence supporting evolution tosses the odds way to the favor of evolution. ID (if you mean, was the universe designed by the creator's hand in triggering the big bang) Vs 'just' Big bang... then perhaps.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
"perhaps".. but theres no evidence of this? why do you consider it then?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:

I think this is the core of your position that makes it so hard to take seriously.

---

Quote:

---

I've never understood this urge to defend the bible as a literal explanation of all truth. Isn't it possible for a Christian to consider truth that isn't contained in the bible?

---

Quote:

---

Even if we accept the premise that the bible is the 'word of god', why would a god bother to explain his creation in explicit scientific detail, especially when he's telling the story to people who have no understanding of things like genetics and evolution?

---

Quote:

---

Why is it inconceivable to you that god might have used evolution and genetics to create the wide array of species on the planet?

---

Quote:

---

You're right to point out that you don't have to be a fundamentalist Christian to believe in ID, neither do you have to be an atheist to accept evolution. But if you're looking for ID to be taken seriously as science, you need something more substantial than "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:


Can you explain your reasoning? It seems like a non-sequitur to me. Stating that ID and Creationism are the same doesn't need to prove that they are wrong, just that they are very similar.

---

Quote:

---

As for whether or not ID is creationism, I refer you again to: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_2.html . ID is not identical to YEC, but it's pretty damn close.

---

Quote:

---

The amount of sediment needed for even a small portion of the strata we observe would be extreme, plus that doesn't account for the stratification at all, if the sediment was deposited in the space of less than a year then fossils should be mixed up instead of perfectly stratified.

---

Quote:

---

And what evidence do you base this on?

---

Quote:

---

What mechanism has been found that would prevent an "archetype" shift from occuring?

---

Quote:

---

Would the transition from land animals to whales be an "archetype" shift? We have a very good fossil record of that occuring.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:"perhaps".. but theres no evidence of this? why do you consider it then?

---

I can't speak for leadb, but I’m a big advocate of the Creator initiated Big Bang. You’re right there is no evidence that a Creator initiated the Big Bang, but at far as science is concerned, nothing (literally) initiated the Big Bang from nothing (literally). If there is a perfect point at which religion intersects science it is this. The Big Bang just seems to scream to me “In the beginning, God created the heavens...” It just works for me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
Well put Finn; my exception is that I think the Creator was busy doing things before creating the heavens, etc.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Here's another question you could have asked, which I have no frigging clue how to answer: If uranium decay is one possible "clock" by which we can measure time, and uranium is widely considered to have been formed in a supernova explosion, doesn't the amount of uranium date back to the time of the explosion, NOT the the formation of the earth? If you'd asked that, I would have had to spend all kinds of time googling up the answer. I might have even concluded that the age of the earth is wildly overestimated.

---

Quote:

---

secondly, i think a flood could cause the stratifications and erosion we've seen

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
If all of the uranium daughters are equally volatile as uranium, there would be no way of distinguishing between when the urnanium was formed and when the planet coalesced because the daughter elements would accumulate at the same rate whether in space or in planet. If you mix in other elements, like carbon, silicon, hydroven, iron, and oxygen, the picture with regard to uranium still stays the same.

---