The flaws in Intelligent design

[Subduction Zone]

Well then maybe the first thing the two of you should do is agree to what the term "creationist" means. I know theistic evolutionists oftentimes don't like to be referred to as "creationists" because of the connotations with the term, even though technically they are. But that can usually be resolved pretty easily.

I am trying to do that. I have been explaining and now have linked various sources on the origin of the term "ID". I would not personally call most believers in theistic evolution "creationists". And I definitely would not call them ID believers.

 

[Jose Fly]

I am trying to do that. I have been explaining and now have linked various sources on the origin of the term "ID". I would not personally call most believers in theistic evolution "creationists". And I definitely would not call them ID believers.

Okay. Have fun.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay. Have fun.

Maybe it worked.

 

[We Never Know]

Has anyone ever gave thought that we made up sounds for dinosaurs even though no one's ever heard any?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Has anyone ever gave thought that we made up sounds for dinosaurs even though no one's ever heard any?

Movies do that for entertainment purposes. The sounds that one years in a video on dinosaurs are there for similar reasons. They are not evidence themselves. No one has used these sounds as evidence so why do you even ask? Pointless questions are an indication of a lack of understanding.

 

[tas8831]

Has anyone ever gave thought that we made up sounds for dinosaurs even though no one's ever heard any?

Coincidentally, I attended an evolution conference a couple of years ago and one set of talks was about dinosaur vocalization. The talks focused on the nasal and associated cavites and how such structures produce resonating chambers. One of the talks ended with a guy using a cast of a dinosaur skull and making a sound through a tube (simulating where vocal cords of a sort may have been) to demonstrate.

The chambers did produce interesting effects, even if the only 'sound' produced by the dinosaur was via air being forced out of its lungs.

Yes, what we hear in movies is for entertainment - just like movies about Jesus show a white dude with long hair wearing colorful cloaks. But there is at least some understanding of the sounds they might have made.

 

[Audie]

Really. I see people providing him with explanations and evidence and he has even accepted some of the evidence, but for all the good it has done, he might as well be continually posting 'I like cake'.

It is as childish as saying "I like cake".
I enjoy a lively debate with a well informed person,
and losing is as good as winning, except for my ego.

There is no quality in debate / discussion with someone
who just says things (makes things up), has no idea
what he is talking about, and cannot even tell that
they are completely outclassed.

 

[Audie]

Has anyone ever gave thought that we made up sounds for dinosaurs even though no one's ever heard any?
]

In some movies dinosaurs speak English, or, as it may be,
other languages.

Speculation is fun, as is fantasy.

Dinosaurs being related to our birds does sugges
that they may have vocalized in at least vaguely
similar ways. Alligators are the closest reptiles
relatives of birds, and they at least bellow.

The way T rex always goes about with mouth open.
and then does this display of roaring, esp after
he has just killed something is kind of silly.

Hollywood.

Some dinosaurs to seem as if they have
structures adapted to noise-making.
This odd crest is not solid bone, but has
nasal passages running up, then down the
length of it. Sort of a trumpet? Who knows.

duckbill dinosaur - Google Search:

 

[Audie]

Movies do that for entertainment purposes. The sounds that one years in a video on dinosaurs are there for similar reasons. They are not evidence themselves. No one has used these sounds as evidence so why do you even ask? Pointless questions are an indication of a lack of understanding.

That is kind of rude and dismissive, bud.

 

[Audie]

Coincidentally, I attended an evolution conference a couple of years ago and one set of talks was about dinosaur vocalization. The talks focused on the nasal and associated cavites and how such structures produce resonating chambers. One of the talks ended with a guy using a cast of a dinosaur skull and making a sound through a tube (simulating where vocal cords of a sort may have been) to demonstrate.

The chambers did produce interesting effects, even if the only 'sound' produced by the dinosaur was via air being forced out of its lungs.

Yes, what we hear in movies is for entertainment - just like movies about Jesus show a white dude with long hair wearing colorful cloaks. But there is at least some understanding of the sounds they might have made.

yeek, i said pretty much the same thing but you said it first.

 

[dianaiad]

I gotta jump in here. I've only been glancing at the back and forth with @dianaiad but even at that level of perusal, I thought it was pretty clear that he saw his views on God and design as his personal religious beliefs, and wasn't saying in any way that they were scientifically valid and should be taught as such.

Unless I missed something.

You didn't.

..........except that I'm a 'she,' and that's certainly forgivable!

 

[dianaiad]

No, the proper term for that would be believers in theistic evolution. That is not ID. If you check some of the sources that I have supplied you will see the origin of that term. It does not mean what you think that it does.



Yet that could be an area of valid research. Once again one would have to approach the problem using the scientific method that means that one would have to have a test that could refute that belief. By the way, proving that belief wrong would not "disprove God". A mistake that many creationists make and a test that I have never even implied.



Never even thought of that. But one question. Do you realize how the Chixiclub meteor hypothesis was scientific, unlike some of the concepts that you have asked about, and that it has been strongly confirmed? By the way the use of the term "idiotic sidetrack" would be against the rules here. I have tried to politely correct obvious errors.

"Polite" is not a word I personally would use, no. Condescending and dismissive? Those are good words.

You have misunderstood those corrections because you did not realize that you were using a term incorrectly. Once again what you believe in is theistic evolution. ID goes much further than that.

Certain forms do, yes. Would you call a classic deist a believer in ID? Possibly not, but a deist would be very much a believer in 'Intelligent Design." He just thinks that once the universe was designed, God went away and left it to its own devices.

If you are so determined to use the correct definitions, then YOU need to define your terms better. You. Personally...and then you need to clarify things so that we all know that a: you are talking only about literal creationists, and b: actually read the posts of those you are arguing with, so that you are arguing with them, not some imagined creationist whose dialogue you have already invented and which bears no resemblance to the positions that person actually holds.

Just sayin'.

Once again please check out some of my sources on the origin and meaning of the term "ID". Just like the term "blackface" even using it in a more appropriate term does not change its meaning.

that statement is a bit self contradictory, I think.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

It is as childish as saying "I like cake".
I enjoy a lively debate with a well informed person,
and losing is as good as winning, except for my ego.

There is no quality in debate / discussion with someone
who just says things (makes things up), has no idea
what he is talking about, and cannot even tell that
they are completely outclassed.

I have found that it always goes about the same way in these debates. One particular guy on another forum is the classic example to me. Wasting no time in our interaction, he basically limited his whole argument to little more than two statements repeated over and over.

1. There is no evidence that God exists.

2. Every life form and every fossil is evidence of evolution.

And he really did save us both some time and effort in reaching the conclusion that neither of us would be convinving the other of anything. He did it without throwing in personal insults, too. I appreciated that.

 

[Audie]

I have found that it always goes about the same way in these debates. One particular guy on another forum is the classic example to me. Wasting no time in our interaction, he basically limited his whole argument to little more than two statements repeated over and over.

1. There is no evidence that God exists.

2. Every life form and every fossil is evidence of evolution.

And he really did save us both some time and effort in reaching the conclusion that neither of us would be convinving the other of anything. He did it without throwing in personal insults, too. I appreciated that.

Not that your post addresses what I said, but-

As that is your ideal, why are you even here?
You seem to take pride in not learning and
in being utterly intractable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Polite" is not a word I personally would use, no. Condescending and dismissive? Those are good words.

You have been obviously wrong in your use of "ID". I understand that it sounds good, but sounds good is not a proper reason to try to redefine a term. I have not put you down in any way. You got mad at me because you did not realize it but by relatively using a well understood term incorrectly you kept calling yourself a creationist.

Certain forms do, yes. Would you call a classic deist a believer in ID? Possibly not, but a deist would be very much a believer in 'Intelligent Design." He just thinks that once the universe was designed, God went away and left it to its own devices.

No, I would not. Again ID has a specific meaning. Unlike you that believes that God has a hand in it but it was a subtle one, ID believers claim that certain steps are impossible without God.

If you are so determined to use the correct definitions, then YOU need to define your terms better. You. Personally...and then you need to clarify things so that we all know that a: you are talking only about literal creationists, and b: actually read the posts of those you are arguing with, so that you are arguing with them, not some imagined creationist whose dialogue you have already invented and which bears no resemblance to the positions that person actually holds.

Just sayin'.





that statement is a bit self contradictory, I think.

Sorry, but the obligation to use a term correctly is upon the person using a term. If a person uses a term incorrectly and is corrected getting mad at the person that corrected him or her is counterproductive

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have found that it always goes about the same way in these debates. One particular guy on another forum is the classic example to me. Wasting no time in our interaction, he basically limited his whole argument to little more than two statements repeated over and over.

1. There is no evidence that God exists.

2. Every life form and every fossil is evidence of evolution.

And he really did save us both some time and effort in reaching the conclusion that neither of us would be convinving the other of anything. He did it without throwing in personal insults, too. I appreciated that.

His first claim would have been correct if he added the qualified "reliable".

And number two could have used a qualified too. If he used the term "scientific evidence" and the phrase "found to date" it would have been correct.

I have found that creationists will not let themselves understand the rather simple concept of scientific evidence. If they did they would have to admit that there is endless evidence for the theory and no evidence at all counter to it.

 

[Jose Fly]

You didn't.

..........except that I'm a 'she,' and that's certainly forgivable!

Oops, sorry 'bout that!

I figure that when it comes to one's personal religious beliefs, you can call yourself whatever you want.

 

[Audie]

Oops, sorry 'bout that!

I figure that when it comes to one's personal religious beliefs, you can call yourself whatever you want.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oops, sorry 'bout that!

I figure that when it comes to one's personal religious beliefs, you can call yourself whatever you want.

I tend to assume "he" as well. But I have been bitten by that bad assumption myself so I do at least try to check. The user name had me leaning female.

 

[Jose Fly]

I tend to assume "he" as well. But I have been bitten by that bad assumption myself so I do at least try to check. The user name had me leaning female.

I kept seeing her name as some variation of "dad".