Scientists in the Kansas intelligent design hearings make their case public

AP ^ | 5/9/05 | John Hanna

[mlc9852]

I personally never heard of Anthony Flew before he decided he believed in God so it really doesn't matter to me what the man believes in. I was responding to another post about him. I in no way think that what Anthony Flew believes or does not believe about evolution changes anything. Others may - I don't.

[Dimensio]

I am a creationist liar like all the rest.

Yet again a dishonest claim that I have said or implied that all creationists are liars when I have neither said nor implied any such thing. And now you drop the whole Antony Flew issue. Apparently you are utterly incapable of accepting that there are a good number of people on the creationist front who are shameless liars.

No attempt to refute my claims about Matchett-PI, hosepipe or nmh. Just drop the subject and pretend that it never existed. Better dishonestly evade the point than admit that someone on the evolution camp was right about something, is that it?

[mlc9852]

I was responding to your post at 201.

[Doctor Stochastic]

What makes you think I've mistaken fossils for chicken bones?

Projection of inadequacy?

[PatrickHenry]

No - faith is belief in what someone else tells you

If you want to invent your own definitions, then you will win every argument -- in your own mind. But you will find that no one wants to converse with you.

[Thatcherite]

I personally never heard of Anthony Flew before he decided he believed in God so it really doesn't matter to me what the man believes in.

Neither had I heard of him before then, and neither, probably did 99.9% of Freepers. Yet the Freeper creationists seemed to believe suddenly that his views are tremendously important.

BIG NEWS, 85 yo guy who is a lifelong atheist wonders if there might be some kind of deity after all.

[Thatcherite]

Well, certain Freeper creationists anyway.

[js1138]

I know you were posting to 201, but did you read it. Science cannot and does not attempt to contradict God.

It might, however, contradict what people say about God. In the long run, some people are going to have to change what they say about God.

[mlc9852]

You evos have absolutely no sense of humor. Sorry. I'm sure you found a perfectly good fossil.

[mlc9852]

I guess I should have said "contradicts the Bible".

[narby]

Then you clearly don't understand it. You're just hacking along to get the job done.

Sure. And certianly your prejudice on math challenged folks like me will come into play.

The guy in the office with the Phd in Math (and uses it), has his talents, and I have mine. I have far more "vision" than he does. But he certianly can generate algorithms that I can then take and do work he would never have had the creativity to concieve.

[wallcrawlr]

youre scared the 1500's are coming back too, huh. oooooo-okay....

[mlc9852]

You misunderstand my point. Some of what scientists assume about evolution is based on a small amount of physical evidence. Case in point -

DESCRIBER


Harrison & Walker,1975 vide Le Loeuff, Buffetaut, Mechin & Mechin-Salessy, 1992

TIME


Cretaceous Late
Maastrichtian

CLASSIFICATION


Saurischia Theropoda Tetanurae Coelurosauria Maniraptora NOMINA DUBIA

DIET


Carnivore

FOSSILSITE


Sinpetru Beds, Judethean Hunedoara, Romania

FALL UNDER


ELOPTERYX nopscai

INFO

Elopteryx nopscai > Bradycneme draculae (Harrison & Walker,1975)

Le Leouff et al. 1992 showed that Bradycneme is a junior synonym of Elopteryx nopscai. However, Elopteryx is based on two proximal femora that cannot be compared to the distal tibiotarsus of Bradycneme.



...based on two proximal femora... Not that means it isn't correct - just that there often isn't a lot of evidence. This is just one example. It wouldn't make sense to try to look up every fossil from every supposed animal, now would it?

Anyway, I'm off to lunch now. Have a nice afternoon.

[narby]

The sheer improbability of it suggests divine intervention. For 2-3 billion years of random molecule interaction to firmly arrive at humanity is a statistic impossibility. If a divine plan isn't being followed there, then that was a really foolish gamble on God's part. There is more than enough ample room for God and evolution to co-exist.

The way I look at it, God created "chance" itself. If the weather is "scattered showers", did God make it rain in one place, but not the other? Or was it "chance" that decided it?

You can answer that question just about any way you like. But the bottom line is that Gods creation is where the evidence for evolution was derived. Evolution is fact, whether the creationists believe it or not.

[wallcrawlr]

Well, at least I now understand your view a little more.

Thanks for responding. I dont agree with any of it.

your mind is already made up and no amount of discussion, evidence or facts will change your faith.

I find it odd that you wouldnt think of yourself in the samy way...as if only certain people are so "closed-minded". ha. I wont see you in heaven but maybe we can work on other similar goals down on earth.Later...

[js1138]

Or contradicts what people say about the Bible. I happen to believe the Bible can be true without being a science textbook, or even a literal history book.

[js1138]

I wont see you in heaven ...

Reminds me of the Oracle's prediction -- If you invade Persia, a great kingdom will be destroyed.

[narby]

Along with the homosexual agenda and abortion on demand. Now I just need to decide which side I want to be on.

Remember what I said about throwing rocks from glass houses? Trying to make the "other side" look bad by pointing out a few excesses can easly be carried over to Christianity where you find the Jim Joneses and faith healers with radios in their ears so they can "divine" details of the members of the audience.

[daysailor]

I've got a great sense of humor. To prove it I'll ask again:

In your opinion, how many fossils has science led us to believe exist? How much are they exaggerating?

You must have some kind of numbers on this. Of course, if you want to say that your accusation of mass fraud on the part of paleontologists is simply your *opinion* and that you have no facts to back it up, well, I'll understand.

But it would be really cool if you could prove how many fossils there really are, compared to how many scientists *say* there are.

I really hope you can "dig up" those numbers...

[mlc9852]

I didn't accuse anyone of "mass fraud" as you call it. You missed my point. Re-read and if you still don't understand, then it is my fault for being obtuse. Sorry.