NationStates Jolt Archive

adapted from the panda's thumb (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.html#more)

Some people have argued that the lack of fossil evidence of a connection between creationism and ID shows that common descent is false. indeed, if we look at the record preserved in early drafts of the book "of pandas and people" it appears as if there was a near instantaneous change in the face of some unknown cataclysm, which could only be explained through intelligent intervention.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/forrest_chart2.png


others have argued that the data shows a classic example of punctuated equilibria, and that we haven't been able to find fossils of the intermediate forms because they occured in a limited area before spreading back across the landscape and quickly outcompeting the earlier form.

dramatic new evidence has been unearthed in strata dated to the era of the 19987 cataclysm. a new intermediate form has been unearthed, showing a clear evolutionary pathway between creationism and ID, and also demonstrating that the pathway is an example of punk-eek. the new form, first published here (http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?p=80), is known as a “cdesign proponentsists”.

the following is a look at the fossil record in the area where this new form was discovered.



Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34:
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/img/1983_Creation_Biology_p3-34_clip.png




Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33:
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/img/1986_Biology_and_Creation_p3-33_clip.png



Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38:
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/img/1987_Biology_and_Origins_p3-33_clip.png



Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40:
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/img/1987_Pandas_creo_p3-40_clip.png



Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41:
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/img/1987_Pandas_ID_p3-41_clip.png


to sum up, what we have is:
Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34:
“Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”

Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33:
“Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38:
“Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40:
“Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41:
“Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”

it appears that some mutation occured at some point around 1987 leading (perhaps indirectly through as yet undiscovered forms) from 'creationists' to 'cdesign proponentsists'. a further speciation occured leading to 'intelligent design proponents' and it's related forms, which then quickly outcompeted both the original forms, and the transitional forms until they were the only forms left.

both creationists and IDiots are expected to point out that the discovery of this transitional form merely creates two more gaps that evilutionists will forever be unable to fill.

Ha! That's pretty funny. I get kinda annoyed when people try to say that ID and creationism are not one-and-the-same. I think we could all benefit if we stopped making the issue "religion v. science" and admitted that it is about worldview. People can believe in evolution and reject the naturalist worldview. But I digress. Funny story. Ten points to you.

Awesome post, Free Soviets!

you bastards. not only did i post before all those other creationism posts, but mine is funnier and full of embarassing ID facts. make fun of IDiots here, damnit

you bastards. not only did i post before all those other creationism posts, but mine is funnier and full of embarassing ID facts. make fun of IDiots here, damnit

It's a common ID tactic to bombard the public with so many claims as to hide the claims of thier detractors. You're just another in a long line of deaths.

Will creationists become an endangered species? Should we build reservations for them?

you bastards. not only did i post before all those other creationism posts, but mine is funnier and full of embarassing ID facts. make fun of IDiots here, damnit
Maybe if you didn't run around labeling people who disagree with you "idiots"...

Anyway, we get it. ID is creationism. We know it, you know it. Hoorah, it's funny! But let's move on. We're here, whether you or I or some guy in Podunk thinks we were created or are a product of evolution. Nothing we can do about it, so let's all roast some marshmallows, sing some songs, have a beer if you want, and work on using science to do beneficial things like cure disease, not win arguments about who's smartier.

Will creationists become an endangered species? Should we build reservations for them?

i believe rpp made a thread about this very question. unfortunately, the topic of creationist preservationism is apparently taboo, as it was quickly locked. but i think we can risk discussing it here again.

i'm in favor of creationist preservationism, but not at the expense of jobs or the environment. therefore, i propose we set up a massive wild creationist preserve where they can roam free, safe from the dangers of science and learnin', but without infringing on our modern way of life more than is necessary. i'm thinking alabama would do nicely.

Olara']Maybe if you didn't run around labeling people who disagree with you "idiots"...

this isn't about mere disagreement. the only way to believe in creationism or IDiotism is to be either ignorant, stupid, or insane (and you can probably throw in 'cynically using it to further your own goals of wealth, fame, and power' too).

i believe rpp made a thread about this very question. unfortunately, the topic of creationist preservationism is apparently taboo, as it was quickly locked. but i think we can risk discussing it here again.

i'm in favor of creationist preservationism, but not at the expense of jobs or the environment. therefore, i propose we set up a massive wild creationist preserve where they can roam free, safe from the dangers of science and learnin', but without infringing on our modern way of life more than is necessary. i'm thinking alabama would do nicely.
What if they found gold or oil in Alabama? Would you let us have it?

Olara']What if they found gold or oil in Alabama? Would you let us have it?

it's all yours. good luck finding it through the use of creationist geology though.

IDiotism

thats a good one :D

this isn't about mere disagreement. the only way to believe in creationism or IDiotism is to be either ignorant, stupid, or insane (and you can probably throw in 'cynically using it to further your own goals of wealth, fame, and power' too).
I disagree. I've got a fairly good understanding of evolution, I doubt most people would consider me stupid, and I'm quite certain I'm not insane. And, I don't really have any goals of wealth, fame, or power. The experiences I've had have just led me to believe that God is real, he cares, and he could create the universe in six days if he wanted to. That, and I don't think that whether we were created or we evolved makes a lick of difference on how I live my life. So we disagree, but you seem like a nice enough guy, this is still a funny story, and I hope we can still be NS friends.

it's all yours. good luck finding it through the use of creationist geology though.
A creationist can dig in the ground just as well as an evolutionist.

Olara']A creationist can dig in the ground just as well as an evolutionist.

but what are creationists looking for? a rock that says "made by god?" (reference to Red Planet)...

but what are creationists looking for? a rock that says "made by god?" (reference to Red Planet)...
No, silly. Gold and oil.

Olara']A creationist can dig in the ground just as well as an evolutionist.

but geologists use their knowledge about the age and formation of rocks in order to figure out where to look for certain minerals/compounds/whatever. creationists have either flood geology or magic, neither of which is any help whatsoever. but you've already hit on the solution. strip mine the entire creationist preserve - there must be something somewhere.

but geologists use their knowledge about the age and formation of rocks in order to figure out where to look for certain minerals/compounds/whatever. creationists have either flood geology or magic, neither of which is any help whatsoever. but you've already hit on the solution. strip mine the entire creationist preserve - there must be something somewhere.
Again, a creationist can use geological equipment and interpret the readings to figure out where oil or gold or copper is with or without believing that the earth is four billion years old. The equipment still functions the same way, and the readings still look the same.

Olara']Ha! That's pretty funny. I get kinda annoyed when people try to say that ID and creationism are not one-and-the-same

They arent.

Intellegent Design - The belief that life is to complex to have arisien without an intellegent force driving it

Creationism - The skeptical examination of various flaws in mainstream models of origins of life and the universe to arise to diffrent conclusions.

They arent.

Intellegent Design - The belief that life is to complex to have arisien without an intellegent force driving it

Creationism - The skeptical examination of various flaws in mainstream models of origins of life and the universe to arise to diffrent conclusions.

i think what you meant to say was:

creationism - god did it

intelligent design - the gointelligent designerd did it

They arent.

Intellegent Design - The belief that life is to complex to have arisien without an intellegent force driving it

Creationism - The skeptical examination of various flaws in mainstream models of origins of life and the universe to arise to diffrent conclusions.
So you wish to say that an intelligent designer is not a creator?

i think what you meant to say was:

creationism - god did it

intelligent design - the gointelligent designerd did it
Free Soviets, you crack me up.

i think what you meant to say was:

creationism - god did it

intelligent design - the gointelligent designerd did it

No. Intellegent design was not originally a religous point of view.

Creationism is however. The point of creationism is far more general than intellegent design. Intellegent design uses the arguement of irriducable complexity as its centre piece (which is valid to an extent)

No. Intellegent design was not originally a religous point of view.

...

You should probably read the first post again.

No. Intellegent design was not originally a religous point of view.

Creationism is however. The point of creationism is far more general than intellegent design. Intellegent design uses the arguement of irriducable complexity as its centre piece (which is valid to an extent)
To the extent that it is not a scientific theory

You should probably read the first post again.

it looked too much like science, so the special creationist glasses turned on and went black

Free Soviets, your thread is indeed better than Argesia's. ;)
I suspect that such mutations have also occured randomly in the biblical texts as well This would fully explain some of the Bible's more contradictory and outrageous statements.
I think you're onto something. You should cash in now.

bump

tag

(it is late, and the thread tools drop down menu isn't working)

That was ammusing.

Awesome post :D

I suspect that such mutations have also occured randomly in the biblical texts as well This would fully explain some of the Bible's more contradictory and outrageous statements.

ooh, like the passage fusion that occured between gen 1 and gen 2. which is a lot like the chromosome fusion that occured between the chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q to form human chromosome 2 (http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm).

bump

Olara']I disagree. I've got a fairly good understanding of evolution, I doubt most people would consider me stupid, and I'm quite certain I'm not insane. And, I don't really have any goals of wealth, fame, or power. The experiences I've had have just led me to believe that God is real, he cares, and he could create the universe in six days if he wanted to. That, and I don't think that whether we were created or we evolved makes a lick of difference on how I live my life. So we disagree, but you seem like a nice enough guy, this is still a funny story, and I hope we can still be NS friends.

I actually know some really intelligent people who believe in ID and have extensive science training, but I think they are making a mistake when they think believing in God and evolution are incompatible. Though a litteral interpretation of Genesis is incompatible with evolution, one does not have to take the Genesis account literally to believe in the Christian God.

No. Intellegent design was not originally a religous point of view.

Creationism is however. The point of creationism is far more general than intellegent design. Intellegent design uses the arguement of irriducable complexity as its centre piece (which is valid to an extent)

Well as far as I can tell intelligent design theory was created by Christians and is only supported by Christians. I know dozens of people who are ID advocates and all of them are also creationists. The Discovery Institue (the ID research place) is made up of Christians. Michael Behe is a Christian.

Oh and do I have to point out the very clear evidence the original poster made that very nicely shows that Inteligent design is the same as creationism.

Intelligent Design is just an attempt to get as close to creationism as one can get away with. It is sufficently vaguely defined that details of creationism can be droped until it is accepted. Then they can try to add them back in until it is rejected again. There is nothing wrong with this approach, it is a way of making compromises. While the "rebranding" of creationism isn't wrong, I still think it is wrong to teach in science class.

ID is too loaded, it elaborates on the unknown with faith-based guesses, whereas all guesses should leave openings for later, physical-based interpretation.

Therefore, go with "Spontaneous Generation" in the classrooms!

Olara']Ha! That's pretty funny. I get kinda annoyed when people try to say that ID and creationism are not one-and-the-same.It does not have to be.

Most ID theories depend on a god figure but not all, eg. quantum evolution (life itself is the intelligent designer) or Gaia (life on Earth could be considered a kind of single self-preserving superorganism).

Most ID theories...

there are no ID theories

none

there are no ID theoriesTheory as in normal use - as an extended idea, not as a scientific theory.

However, one could argue that Quantum Evolution might even pass as a theory: It proposes a studiable method which could lead into a more selective evolution.