Evolutionists and "cdesign proponentsists"

Post Reply New Topic

I am such an idiot, I misspelled the title... Actually, "cdesign proponentsists" was Creationism's next evolutionary stage. I'm not gonna spoil this potential lollercoaster for you, so watch the video and laugh your ass off when it gets to that point.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg[/youtube]

Warning: It's 2 hours long. Lecture ends at 1:09:30, rest is questions. You you will gain an absolute perspective on the Evolution/Creationism "debate", what drove/drives it, how pathetic and actually downright devious Creationism is, and the absolutely uphill battle Creationism has fought to directly circumvent the First Amendment of the American Constitution.

I don't have two hours right now, but I am curious as to what point you are trying to make.

Them there's some broken images, Billy Bob!

Anyway, 0hanrahan - You should take some time and watch it, but I'll spoil it for you if you insist: Creationism outlawed? No problem, just follow these easy steps

Creationism is banned, so they replaced words like "Creationism" and "Creationists" in their Creationist textbooks with "Intelligent design" and "design proponents", respectively. Problem was, after the publisher was subpoenaed to present all versions and revisions of the book, they found something interesting: One one page, the revision of the textbook was just a classic copy paste job, which explains why "Cdesign proponentsists" was found on one page of the book of the Creationist-turned-Intelligent Design book "Of Pandas and People."

Gah.

Creationism is NOT banned. Go to any Fundie church and you can hear all about it. It is not permitted to be taught in the tax funded elementary schools. That is not BANNED. That is the enforcement of the First Amendment.

ruveyn

Blame Jack Chick....they worked elsewhere.

Intelligent Design is just creationism trying to present itself as science. Sorry, I don't think I can watch a 2 hour video because it will use up a lot of my internet cap.

Intelligent Design is stealth creationism.

ruveyhn

Stealth?

Way back when I first heard the term I thought, "cool, they are getting closer," as in reconciling faith with science and seeing the reality of the concept of evolution. But, then, we found out what they were actually teaching ... it is creationism covered in an attempt to sound like science, but it still isn't what I believe, which IS evolution, with God thrown in as the one who nudges it along.

It's about as stealthy as a pink elephant.

Good point. I.D. is an attempt to disguise creationism as something else. In particular to disguise creationism as science, which it is not. It is based on a kind of fraud or deception.

ruveyn

ID proponents mostly are in the middle and will not say who created something, but question simple origins. The amount of Eukaryote fossil evidence is scant in comparison to the number of species living and extinct since the Cambrian explosion. We still have the issue of a lack of an intermediate form linking prokaryotes to eukaryotes. We can't talk about descent from single celled non-nuclear prokaryotes that leads to complex eukaryotes.

What I think has happened is creationists are latching on to ID because it better fits their schema. I don't find ID proponents rushing out to embrace creationism. There is still an expanse between the ID proponents who don't believe in a young earth and the fundamentalist creationists who embrace a young earth. Id proponents actually never mention God by name, but instead still leave the designer question open. For fun look up irreducible complexity.

The fundamentalists really have nothing to stand on for the Bible never mentions a date or records time literally in the book of Genesis. In or around the mid AD 1600s, James Usher an archbishop of Armagh of the church of Ireland constructed a timeline based on the generations of Adam. This was all he had to go by and since then this scant method has been used. Most Catholic bibles in the modern era have commentaries discounting the absolute dating of the Earth.

I don't doubt the chronometric dating systems as far as they are able to date geological materials, but dating something fossilized in rock or in layers of earth is something else that needs to considered carefully. The Leakeys were notoriously famous for making mistakes dating juxtaposed hominid remains.

I'm not anti-evolution. I merely think that as far as origins are concerned alternative hypotheses should be welcomed. The modern synthesis of Darwin and genetics has it's own schema to protect, which inherently makes their followers protective and biased against anything that challenges it. I'm not against microevolution making many changes in isolated populations that leads to macroevolution but we can't assume more than we can prove with genetic evidence.

What can we fairly assume about ancient hominids? Does their smaller brain size really seak to less intelligence?
Can we reconstruct their cranial moprhology from 1000s of bits of bone, as in the recent Ardipithecus case, that are smaller than watermelon seeds and fit in the palm of your hand? This wouldn't occur in modern forensic labs using forensic anthropologists, yet we allow Paleo pepoel to be free with their imaginings of old human-like relatives. What if Ardi isn't related at all to us, but was an early Chimp? Chimps and humans are not related but they may have had an ancient ancestor, what if the ancestor was actually something in the trees that would look and act like something between the two species, but one line became more "human", and one line became more "chimp" and led simpler lives.



I do not find it logical to judge by association: judge ID by their unintentional associations. Judging ID solely on the basis of who latched on is basically a stealth ad hominem attack.


Are potassium argon and other geologic dating methods reliable for carbon lifeforms? Geological processes occur all the time be it through plate tectonics, ground water, or flooding and other processes of environmental change.

Do we have intermediate forms between prokaryotes and eukaryotes?

Do people like Michael Behe and Guillermo Gonzalez deserve to be discredited so mercilessly because other groups associate with their ideas?

Many assumptions have to be made for pure Darwinism and fossil record constructions. We can easily test living animals to find their mitochondrial first mothers if we desired and had the money.

Do we have enough on newly found broken bit ancient forms for reliable reconstruction? Obviously this question does not apply to nearly complete skeletal remains. Only 33% of Lucy was found.

Can we comment on intelligence, lifestyles, and phenotypic traits like skin color, or amount of hair with scant bone alone?

No. But the potassium argon dating tells us that this planet is over for billion (with a "B") years old. Far older than the nonsense inferred from a literal interpretation of Genesis.

ruveyn

As I stated before, most religious scholars don't claim to date the earth; only fundie new types do that. Most ID'ers and modern religious scholars admit to an old earth. There is not a grand unified coalition against Darwinism but a diversity of ideas out there that still debate.

Here is an interesting article out that pitches two Catholics against one another:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p64.htm

Open a genetics or cell/molecular biology book sometime. The evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes is very strongly supported- for example, the eukaryotic mitochondria has some remarkable similarities with simple eubacteria. Note: "prokaryote" isn't quite an accurate term. There are eubacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes.


Even when these alternative hypotheses have been demonstrated to be piles of BS?


If we share an ancient ancestor, then we are related.


No. They deserve to be discredited because they are morons and insist on promulgating nonsense.