Evolutionists Appropriating ID?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And what is wrong with a best guess? When our 'best guess' is supported by mountains of evidence, then what is wrong with it? It certainly doesn't warrant the label 'fairy tale'.

[b]Then it all boils down to once again the theory will change to match the data no matter what the data says the theory is true and we will find a way to prove that with ever ...[text shortened]... hether or not life would have survived and you are the one who made up a fairy tale.

Nothing is wrong with a best guess, as long as you continue to identify what
you are doing is nothing but a best guess. Evidence or no if it is all nothing but
a best guess don't claim it is something so solid you can claim you KNOW what
happened when reality is nothing but a best guess.

I'd say it is on par with a fairy tale it most certainly is something made up in the
mind of man just like a fairy tale, there maybe some reason behind it, but bottom
line I'd put it on par with one. It is a story, a tale of what the distant past must
have,could have, might have, may have looked like and in this dream world these
things may have happened this way, or that way, but always there is this thing you
accept happened even if how you thought it did gets shot down...that just means
then we have to take the data make it mean something else so the story goes on,
there you go another story that promotes the event your sure took place much
better than the last one which got shot down like the one before it and so on.

It can never been shown to be wrong, it can only be shown to be possible this
way or that.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Nothing is wrong with a best guess, as long as you continue to identify what you are doing is nothing but a best guess.

You seem to believe that there are two types of knowledge:
1. That which you know for sure.
2. That which is 'nothing but a best guess' and has no real value.
I disagree. I believe there is a continuum of knowledge from that which we know nothing about to that which we are sure about. At any point in that continuum we can make a 'best guess'.
I see no reason for dismissing something or belittling it simply because it is a 'best guess'.

Further, I know of no other way of obtaining knowledge about which we can reasonably say 'I know' except when it is a best guess based on evidence.

Evidence or no if it is all nothing but a best guess don't claim it is something so solid you can claim you KNOW what
happened when reality is nothing but a best guess.
I do not claim to know exactly what happened. I do claim to know that life arose from somewhere and survived an evolved to what we have today. I admit that this is a 'best guess' but it is such a good guess backed up by sufficient evidence that I claim it as factual knowledge.

I'd say it is on par with a fairy tale it most certainly is something made up in the mind of man just like a fairy tale, there maybe some reason behind it, but bottom line I'd put it on par with one.
Why? Are fairy tales 'best guesses' based on the evidence? I fail to see the reason behind your comparison. You know perfectly well that fairy tales are fictional stories not intended to be taken as fact and that what we are talking about is something that is based on evidence. I really don't see why you think they should be given equal weight. Can you explain it?

It is a story, a tale of what the distant past must
have,could have, might have, may have looked like and in this dream world these
things may have happened this way, or that way, but always there is this thing you
accept happened even if how you thought it did gets shot down...that just means
then we have to take the data make it mean something else so the story goes on,
there you go another story that promotes the event your sure took place much
better than the last one which got shot down like the one before it and so on.
I am not really sure what your criticism is here.

It can never been shown to be wrong, it can only be shown to be possible this
way or that.
Kelly
You keep repeating this claim over and over and ignoring my responses to it. Do you honestly believe that simply repeating something makes it true? Or do you finally realise that you are wrong, but don't have the guts to admit it?

I'll ask you again:
Do you admit that you do not know what the environment was like and that your claim that it would have been hostile to life is unfounded and not based on evidence?
Do you admit that you have no valid reason for calling the current scientific narrative a 'fairy tale' and that as far as you know it is the best narrative for the available evidence and that you know of no evidence that contradicts it or proves it wrong?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You seem to believe that there are two types of knowledge:
1. That which you know for sure.
2. That which is 'nothing but a best guess' and has no real value.
I disagree. I believe there is a continuum of knowledge from that which we know nothing about to that which we are sure about. At any point in that continuum we can make a 'best guess'.
I see no nce and that you know of no evidence that contradicts it or proves it wrong?

Best guesses are not without value.
We do a great deal acting on what we think or believe is true and right.
I'm not dismissing something just because it is someone's best guess, they may
have gotten it right and I just cannot confirm it, but if no one else can either than
all we are still dealing with is a 'best guess".

With respect to evidence, that only means that you've have a story that fits what
you think is around you. I would say that does not make your views on evidence
correct, you can have evidence, you can paint a picture on what you think it means
which does not mean you grasp what you are looking at, you can still be wrong.

When people start telling us what the universe was like billions of years ago, they
are giving a story filled with their beliefs about things, telling us their ideas
they can paint a pretty picture about the past that makes it sound possible. They
can put in what they call truth just like the writters of fairy tales did when they
wanted to get their beliefs about life across. They both come from the imagination
of man, they both are people's views about life and talk to its meaning on many
levels.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
You seem to believe that there are two types of knowledge:
1. That which you know for sure.
2. That which is 'nothing but a best guess' and has no real value.
I disagree. I believe there is a continuum of knowledge from that which we know nothing about to that which we are sure about. At any point in that continuum we can make a 'best guess'.
I see no ...[text shortened]... nce and that you know of no evidence that contradicts it or proves it wrong?

I'll address your two questions later.
Kelly

Originally posted by itsurmov
Absolutely, Natural Selection. And absolutely Evolutionists appropriate ID, because ID has really existed since 1859, amply explained by Darwin's "other" theory, Sexual Selection through Mate Choice -- the idea shown throughout nature that 'males compete, females choose.' Both theories are indispensable to understanding life on earth, and the curious will b best possible stuff, the DNA that has survived to this day in an unending river of life.

There must have been a time when there was only one mate to choose from. That is what the Holy Bible is talking about when it said there was no suitable mate for the man Adam and so God took a rib from the man Adam and made him a suitable mate, called woman. Adam's only choice for a mate was the woman.

P.S. It appears that that rib contained all the DNA necessary for God to make a mate for the man in an hour at most.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You seem to believe that there are two types of knowledge:
1. That which you know for sure.
2. That which is 'nothing but a best guess' and has no real value.
I disagree. I believe there is a continuum of knowledge from that which we know nothing about to that which we are sure about. At any point in that continuum we can make a 'best guess'.
I see no ...[text shortened]... nce and that you know of no evidence that contradicts it or proves it wrong?

"Do you admit that you do not know what the environment was like and that your claim that it would have been hostile to life is unfounded and not based on evidence?"

I admit that billions of years ago is a story being told by people who claim they
know what was here that long ago.

I admit that without knowledge on how everything got here, when everything got
here, under what conditions it was in when it did get here, that NO ONE myself
included really knows that was even a billion years ago for any enviroment to be
real or not during that time frame.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
You seem to believe that there are two types of knowledge:
1. That which you know for sure.
2. That which is 'nothing but a best guess' and has no real value.
I disagree. I believe there is a continuum of knowledge from that which we know nothing about to that which we are sure about. At any point in that continuum we can make a 'best guess'.
I see no ...[text shortened]... nce and that you know of no evidence that contradicts it or proves it wrong?

"Do you admit that you have no valid reason for calling the current scientific narrative a 'fairy tale' and that as far as you know it is the best narrative for the available evidence and that you know of no evidence that contradicts it or proves it wrong?"

The stories about the beginning of time come from the mind of man just like all
the stories in fairy tales. If man didn't imagine them we would not be talking about
them. You cannot prove God didn't create the universe nor can you disprove it,
you cannot prove everything came from nothing and you cannot disprove it.

Evidence can be explained and even if I someone describes it spot on according
to reality the next guy can deny it still.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The stories about the beginning of time come from the mind of man just like all
the stories in fairy tales.

No, they are not 'just like' each other. A fairy tale is not intended to be a factual account and is not based on evidence. Your only reason for wanting to label scientific accounts 'fairy tales' is because you want the scientific accounts to be seen as purposely fictional accounts. This is dishonest of you as you know it is untrue.

For example, you would probably object to me calling the Bible a 'fairy tale' based on the fact that both the Bible and Hans Christian Andersens Fairy Tales are books. A similarity does not warrant labelling one with the other. The term 'fairy tale' refers to a particular class of fiction. It does not apply to scientific accounts of the past.

Let me also take you back to some of the things you said when this discussion started:
Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't believe life could start off simply (single cell), but under go all the changes
required to get the diversity we see today through random change and natural
selection so that things like the heart, brain, just develops and are nicely
complimented with other complex body parts.
Now you are not saying 'it didn't happen this way', you are saying 'it couldn't have happened this way'. Yet since then you have admitted that you know next to nothing about what things were like and how it happened yet you claim to know what would not have been possible. At no point have you been able to justify this claim. Can you justify it, or are you withdrawing it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, they are not 'just like' each other. A fairy tale is not intended to be a factual account and is not based on evidence. Your only reason for wanting to label scientific accounts 'fairy tales' is because you want the scientific accounts to be seen as purposely fictional accounts. This is dishonest of you as you know it is untrue.

For example, you wo ...[text shortened]... u been able to justify this claim. Can you justify it, or are you withdrawing it?

You claim to be a computer programmer. Now you would not claim that computer code got into a computer by random chance would you? I don't think that is possible. Neither do I think it is possible for DNA code, which scientist say works like a more sophisticated computer program than has ever been devised by man, got there by random chance. I believe someone put it there.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, they are not 'just like' each other. A fairy tale is not intended to be a factual account and is not based on evidence. Your only reason for wanting to label scientific accounts 'fairy tales' is because you want the scientific accounts to be seen as purposely fictional accounts. This is dishonest of you as you know it is untrue.

For example, you wo u been able to justify this claim. Can you justify it, or are you withdrawing it?

People look at the universe around them all the time and make up stories on what
this means or that trying to come up with reason to justify their beliefs about how
all of the unvierse got here. People make up stories to show lying is wrong, stealing
is wrong, being loyal is right and so on. Both of groups of people are using what
they see around them to come up with their stories.

You seem to be complaining that stories the evolutionist tell are being called stories
which is really all they are. It isn't like anyone has seen life spring from non-life
and then later over time change into something else to document the process. It
isn’t like we have seen changes in species over time to show the major shifts from
an asexual creature into a species that now requires male and females to
procreate, or that we have seen something along the lines of a dog becoming a
bird over time. Yet the stories are here suggesting some life forms used to be
others.

To claim it is based on evidence makes these stories better than fairy tales, I'll
just say they are still stories that like some movies that are based upon facts.
Movies that are based upon facts does not all mean the movies themselves are
factual they are still just something someone came up with. Fairy tales where they
base their meaning on what they see around them are still a made up to paint a
picture on what they think is true or entertaining, the stories evolutionist tell are
made for different reasons, but they are still just stories.

I'd also point out that life is like that, there are going to be several people talking
about the nut job that killed 12 people and shot 70 I believe in that movie opening.
There will be others that will listen and believe them or not, and do to that nut job
what the law then requires. Just because you think evidence was used does not
make the story true, it only means that evidence was used in the making of the
story.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, they are not 'just like' each other. A fairy tale is not intended to be a factual account and is not based on evidence. Your only reason for wanting to label scientific accounts 'fairy tales' is because you want the scientific accounts to be seen as purposely fictional accounts. This is dishonest of you as you know it is untrue.

For example, you wo ...[text shortened]... u been able to justify this claim. Can you justify it, or are you withdrawing it?

"Now you are not saying 'it didn't happen this way', you are saying 'it couldn't have happened this way'. Yet since then you have admitted that you know next to nothing about what things were like and how it happened yet you claim to know what would not have been possible. At no point have you been able to justify this claim. Can you justify it, or are you withdrawing it?"

The stories I've heard describing what the world was like when it was without life
and all the changes that were required seems so beyond reality I think it to be
completely false. If you can tell me how it began, be specific maybe you can
enlighten me or other readers here on why you believe it to be true.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Nothing is wrong with a best guess, as long as you continue to identify what
you are doing is nothing but a best guess. Evidence or no if it is all nothing but
a best guess don't claim it is something so solid you can claim you KNOW what
happened when reality is nothing but a best guess.

I'd say it is on par with a fairy tale it most certainly is some ...[text shortened]... n never been shown to be wrong, it can only be shown to be possible this
way or that.
Kelly

Is the above your best guess?

Originally posted by JS357
Is the above your best guess?

We are creatures of faith.
In the end yes.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
We are creatures of faith.
In the end yes.
Kelly

Is the above your best guess?

We are creatures of faith.
In the end yes.
Kelly

So it could be the case that what we claim to be reality is more than just a best guess.

Then the issue is, what makes a particular guess the best guess.

Lily Tomlin, noted ontological scholar, said “What is reality, anyway? Just a collective hunch”.

I prefer "collective hunch" as it emphasizes that reality is an intuitive group guess.

Originally posted by JS357
Is the above your best guess?

We are creatures of faith.
In the end yes.
Kelly

So it could be the case that what we claim to be reality is more than just a best guess.

Then the issue is, what makes a particular guess the best guess.

Lily Tomlin, noted ontological scholar, said “What is reality, anyway? Just a collective hunch”.

I prefer "collective hunch" as it emphasizes that reality is an intuitive group guess.

Reality is what is actual and true. There is no guess work there. We have all our senses to identify what is actual and true in the material world. Christ came and gave us an idea of what is true in the spiritual world, but we can only guess what that spiritual world is actually like. When we wake from a dream, we quickly realize we have been dreaming and that what we were experiencing in our dreams were not true actual happenings in our physical world, but these happenings were occurring in our mind only.

What I think KellyJay is trying to identify is like the difference between our dream state of mind and our actual true state of mind when we are awake. We can imagine stories, like in our dreams, and write them down, but that does not make them true happenings the same as written history.

The fact that some person sees something real, like a bone buried in the earth, then imagines something about it in his mind does not make it real either. This is what evolutionists do all the time. They use real things that they see in nature to imagine how it might have happened and sometimes we refer to that kind of thinking as our "best guess".

These evolutionist do not know what they imagined happened is real and true, but sometimes they declare it to be true anyway. Then they begin to believe evolution is a true and actual happening and anyone that does not believe that is refusing to deal with reality.

When we read things written in books we can view the information as real history or as things made up in the mind of men, like fiction and fairy tales. Some of us believe what is written in the Holy Bible is real history, but others believe it is mainly fairy tales.

I believe these are the two main opposing worldviews that we are dealing with here. This means we have a conflict between the worldviews of Christians, who believe in creation by God, and the Atheists, who believe in evolution because God is not real to them.