I hate intelligent design

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Forum' started by YAYitsAndrew, May 8, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Maddogg6

    Maddogg6 Tail Razer

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    4,027
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nah - I think (no proof, just logical thought) kids are physically maturing more rapidly because of our diets, all the hormones that get added to just about anything we eat now. (rapid milk production hormone in cows, rapid reproduction hormones in chickens - for more eggs and more baby chicks for KFC to pander etc. - huge tomatos, genetically altered to increase their growth rates/ overall sizes. etc..)

    But yes - we are still evolving, to adapt to our environment. But I never look at it as a 'direction', more of a 'cause - effect' situation.

    And to say we as a race are getting dumber - is not an indication of evolution, its an indication of educational systems effectiveness.
    To me - society in general (religion, marketing/advertising) promotes having others do your thinking for you.

    In reality, science has made WAY more significant breakthroughs in the past 200 hundred years, and is still increasing rapidly. Look how long it took to go from inventing the wheell, to inventing the automobile - compared to inventing penicillian - to Chemotherapy. WAY shorter of a time frame.

    Actually, in some ways, I beleive the knowledge needed to function in society warrents a 20 year education system as opposed to the 12 years currently. Because of all the recently accuired knowledge that could be taught in schools but isnt because of time/money restraints, takes more time to learn - but the length of our education system has not changed. Not to mention there are those insisting to waste class time on a theory with NO evidence to support it at all, would waste precious time that could be spent on 'real' knowledge or theories that at least have some evidence to support it.

    So, if we are 'dumber' its because the increased available knowledge isn't being ALL being taught. So I beleive its more of a matter of what was taught in the limited time frame in school, not what were capable of learning. Not that were dumber - just not as smart as we could be with all the available knowledge avaiable these days.
     
  2. SFOSOK

    SFOSOK 939 Goin Strong

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,005
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for not answering my question

    My objective was mearly to show that there is the same or more proof that God exists (if you view the bible as fabricated or not it is still there) when compared to the theory of evolution.

    I also wished also to show you how foolish it is to simply not do something because of principle and to continue to whine about it instead of doing something. Truthfully it should be required for all students to read, examine and debate religion and its most prominent texts. This will never happen though as it is a sensitive subject.





    Also some food for thought, since everything is moving away from the center of the "supposed" big bang couldn't we locate where the start was based on the movements of the stars away from the center?

    It is a theory and remains to be a theory because it cannot be proven and the only evidence is logical thinking. Saying that everything was formed by a giant explosion from nothing in nothing is about as plausible as saying there was a God who created everything.

    I do keep my mind open, just because I do not change my stance on a subject does not mean I am closed minded. I consider everything you say and I don't judge the information by the person who is stating it. You just have not convinced me that your whining about taking a class that you think should not be required of you is a valid arguement.

    That is pretty much all I have to say on this matter though
     
  3. Maddogg6

    Maddogg6 Tail Razer

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    4,027
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    - no problem, just returning the favor...
    The bible is THE ONLY thing you offer as 'proof' HA!

    The bible is a book, just like mary poopins - so, do women fly around with umbrellas too? - Not here they don't. Both books have good wholesome moral messages, that mankind can beneift from - and thats IT. Only one, would have us take it literally, the other is admitedly just for entertainment.

    A REAL theory, has experiments decribed that demonstarte or support a theory - whats experiments are described in the bible? - my bible didnt have any of those. Just, 'God told Moses.... ' - FAIRY TALES.
    Like I said, one can learn ALOT about living as a moral human being. BUT its got that added guilt that I despise.

    Taking the bible literally at its words is like going out and looking for the x-mens headquarters.

    My objective is
    1) to keep religion out of public schools - and keep ID where it belongs - in church or private schools. THE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS THERE FOR A REASON. Teaching ID in public school is ILLEGAL.

    2) to point out fabricated evidense in NOT evidense.

    3) A lack of understanding in something, IS NOT evidence of god. Its simply iggnorance. But to claim to have an answer is NOT encouraging further investigation.

    4) that religious orginizations have used guilt and fear to control people and bilk the more gullible out of their assets to the point of reckless endangerment, yet get away with their scam for sooo long its not even funny. ID is a way for the religious orginizations to skirt the seperation of church and state laws - It SOOO obvious.

    Did you use the 'inviso-font' - because I dont see any such thing.

    And YES! - It should never happen because it rediculous. And SHOULD ONLY be an elective and NOT a requirement. But you ARE free to study what you like.

    AND - Im not the one posting 'pro-ID' remarks in a thread labled 'I HATE ID'
    Im not whining either, well, maybe the OP was, but I feel his pain, and its my right to jump in and support his point of views.

    So whos foolish again?? Its looking more like your just a troll. And to have you no longer participate this thread wont cause me any lost sleep.

    The observation that supports big bang - is the expansion of our universe - which ultimately leads to conflict with religious beliefs. It opens the proverbial can of worms that WILL lead to the end of church as we know it the states. Its happening as I type. Its the 'reasonable doubt' that forces me into looking at alternative points of view. And when I do - I see MUCH more logic than what religion offers. And we know, those things we do understand - are VERY MUCH logic driven.

    Why doesnt your god, make an appearance and set us all straight?
    Why would he choose a few 'representitives' to do his speaking?.
    (The old saying, if you want something done right, you gotta do it your self)
    Ill tell you why, because ITS A FREAKING FAIRY TALE.

    No, god creating everything because we dont understand it or becuase a book with no accountable author/editor, is NOT evidence of anything.

    You only think your open minded - you only echo'd what you've been told to. You didnt even try to understand my or Sandoks points.
    If you were open minded - you would see that ID should be an elective and NOT a requirement, as THE ONLY basis it has is a book - no OTHER pice of evidence so much as removes reasonable doubt to the theory of evolution.
    THATS WHY EVO HAS BEEN TAUGHT AND ID HAS NOT ALL THESE YEARS.

    Ah.. you said this before...
    yet here you are again...

    And btw, you havent analysed anything - you ONLY echod what your priest told you. Thats it.

    You selectivly avoid points that you obviously can't, with good conscience, argue (Huh, interesting - theres SCIENCE in conscience)

    Theres SCIENCE IN EVERYTHING! (execpt this according to you - what a narrow minded notion that is - and its obvious some religious leader has their thoughts in your head. And you don't even question their motivations.

    At least with science - the scientist could care less if I beleive their theory or not. But if the majority don't embrace it or understand it, instead, he would look for more ways to prove or explain it to the masses, use experiments to demonstrate it - and NOT make statements like 'Its how it is and thats I have to say' like a spoiled child who isnt getting their way.

    I understand the pain one experiences to awaken from the daze religion puts us in - been there done that. - Its painful at first, and Step 1 is denial - but then eventually a sense of guiltless bliss will follow, and the weight of all those sins jesus died for falls off your shoulders.

    But be my guest - carry the proverbial cross - me, I got mine delivered fed-ex, next day air. Ya know, via scientifically sound delivery systems. (airplanes, cars, computer tracking etc..) And its surpisingly in-expensive to do so. You really should give it a try some time when your ready for 'the truth'. Or better stated - the freedom from guilt inducing lies and fairy tales.
     
  4. Nacht

    Nacht ein Krieger

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Well, thats not entirely true..but even if it was...

    isn't that what it's supposed to be? The product of LOGICAL thinking? Does that make religion the product of ILLogical thinking?
     
  5. BryonB

    BryonB New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It seems pretty clear from the tone of this discussion that we should have read the original post more carefully. 'I hate intelligent design...' That much is clear. One thing I've observed over the years is that people usually see only what they want to see in any given situation, even if the evidence is overwhelming. This shows up all the time in dating relationships.

    There is an amazing amount of credible physical evidence for the relative young age of the earth that casts doubt on the theory of evolution, however much of it is either never reported, or is patently ignored.

    Just a few examples:


    • Discovery of soft tissue within partially fossilized dinosaur remains embedded within sandstone thought to be 70 million years old is evidence for recent rapid burial and fossilization. Read more...
    • Stratification of sediment and rapidly petrified forests at Spirit Lake in the aftermath of the eruption of Mount St. Helens is evidence for rapid and recent burial and fossilization. Read more...
    • The moon is moving further from the earth at a known rate. If the distances are extrapolated into the past, we find that the moon is not far enough away from the earth to account for the kind of time periods claimed for the age of the earth by the theory of evolution. Read more...
    • The sun is shrinking by approximately 0.1% each century. If this is extrapolated back in time, the earth would be engulfed by the sun a mere 20 million years ago. Read more...
    But this evidence means nothing to those who don't want to see it. If we are to simply believe this theory in spite of credible evidence against it - then this requires faith. This is why I think we should really reclassify the theory of evolution as a religion, and teach it in world religion classes instead of in science classes, instead of being taught as though it were an undisputable fact.

    My previous post using the analogy of cars evolving into airplanes was in no way suggesting that inanimate objects are the same as life - only that in the absence of credible evidence that simple life can be transformed into incredibly complex life through the 'miracle' of evolution - going against the known physical law of entropy - one would have to make a similar leap in logic to suggest that a car could somehow be transformed into an airplane through environmental forces.
     
  6. Sandok

    Sandok New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    9,259
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hmmm now if that was the case we'd have the entire DNA genome (or a good part of it) available at our hands and this would have made world news but ummm... Never heard about it but ANYWAYS, let's say it's true and that red blood cells and all were found. That doesn't disprove anything. It might disprove the way some forms of fossilzation happen (under extreme conditions) but we date old things with radioactivity (and most often with carbon dating) so it still doesn't change that fact....
    Again, this is very true and fossilization can happen under EXTREME curumstinces BUT dude, we don't say: Oh it's a fossil it's 5000 years old... We do carbon dating with radioactivity which can't be wrong what so ever... :rofl:

    And sedementation is used too... Now look at the GRAND CANYON. You have many layers of different coloured rocks that make it pretty. Now the ones at the bottom of the canyon are older than the ones at the top, agree? Now, you find a fossil in the lower segments, you know it's older than the top segments and then, carbon date the rocks around the fossil for example (or count the segements like in a tree) and voilà, you got yourself a REAL timeline.

    Hmmmm what you fail to understand is that nothing if constant in the universe. What might be true now (and it IS true I won't deny that) wasn't necessarily very true 100 million years ago. Anyways, the formation of the moon is still under question and nobody knows how it was made... Yet :p

    Same as the last link, what is a fact now doesn't mean it was constant throughout the ages. And just to say, I've mastered my year in Astronomy and well, it's my subject and the fact that the sun shrinks isn't a fact for the simple reason that it's not true entirely. If it were, it'd be in textbooks but the sun is more or less constant. Proof is that we can even look at other stars and the same thing applies to them. So excuse me if I take your "links" with a pinch of salt.
     
  7. BryonB

    BryonB New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sandok,

    I don't doubt that you didn't hear about the dinosaur tissue discovery, because such stories are often left untold. Too many in the scientific community have too much of their reputations on the line to allow "spurious" facts that might disprove their precious theories to come to light. And the majority of the public doesn't care about such stories anyway, so it's never big news. I remember hearing about it at the time, however.

    That's one of the issues I have with the theory of evolution being taught as though it were established fact. The facts aren't all in yet, and the facts currently in evidence don't clearly prove any theory, based in the facts alone. To believe either theory of the origins of the universe requires faith.

    Your statement "...what is a fact now doesn't mean it was constant throughout the ages" can also be applied to the assumptions that are the basis for radio carbon dating. It is based on assuptions that we can't say with certainty have always been true. For one thing, it assumes that the ratio of
    [font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif]carbon-14/carbon-12 in the atmosphere has always remained constant. This is simply not a safe assumption. Carbon-14 is formed when[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif] cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. There are a number of factors that could affect the amount of such radiation reaching the atmosphere, such as the strength of the earth's magnetic field, which is not constant, and other factors. Read more...

    We used to think that the speed of light was a constant. Now, it appears that that assumption is also in question: More here... and here...

    [/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif]You don't have to be ignorant or poor to doubt some of the claims of evolution, as there are many in the scientific community who are not satisfied that it explains everything they observe.
    [/font]
    [font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif]I don't expect you to change your mind, since you've clearly staked your position (and your future) on evolution - you've placed your faith in it. I can only try to show you evidence that helps to support the theory on which I've placed my faith. We come to a better understanding of these things as we engage in thoughtful debate without having contempt for one another.

    [/font]
     
  8. Maddogg6

    Maddogg6 Tail Razer

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    4,027
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They're not reported or ignored because - Those are some of the lamest examples of 'evidence' to support ID, its at best 70% 'fluff' and 30% fact based.

    Example:
    Um - expalining the arguments about the claim, ARE NOT facts that support the claim. AND - its all trying NOT to prove ID, but to disprove EVO. And SOO typical of pro-ID - and leads to 'well, if evo isnt true - GOD/the bible must be'. Ha!

    1) Biological materi-al (??) found on fossiles: First, THE ONE refernce to support this article was a broken link, but OK. (Bone details not indicated)

    Did any one entertain the possibility of those samples being frozen at some point in time?

    A mamoth was recently found, frozen and alomst perfectly preserved - even green plant material was found with it. Which further supports the Ice-age notion btw.

    What if others were frozen as well, but drifted in an iceberg until finally hitting land, thawing out THEN start to decompose? - Please provide references how this was ruled out. What about other potential way of natural preservation for any period of time.

    OR

    Did anyone consider those bones picked up the biological material, from other means? (Bone details not indicated)
    A- eaten much later by another animal - Ive seen dogs and other animals east strager things.
    B - used as a weapon to and picked up the material this way.
    C- Im one person, I cant think of ALL possible ways to get such material on the fossils. But how about 'spilled onto'. A wounded animal or even a human.

    2) Rapid burial: There are many things that can cause rapid burial; volcanos, earthquakes, storms (mud and rock slides), hurricanes, tornados. Rapid burial DID happen no one disputes it, what caused it IS.

    NOT evidence of 'acts of god', but the earth reacting to physical stresses and conditions.

    3) The moon - we know that that huge meteors have hit our planet, and its not disputed that they would wreak havok on this planet at some level - their is also signs of huge craters on the moon - dont ya think its possible they could affect an orbit if this claim IS true? Please provide references that rule out that possibilty.

    4) The sun skrinking: Well, please provide refernces that rule out that the earths orbit has not changed over time as well.

    Evidence that supports at least part of the evolution theory.

    1) Bactria growth rates (less complex, tend to reproduce faster)
    2) Virus mutations (indicates macro-evo is not a total sham)
    3) No need for our appendix (again, macro-evo is not a total sham)
    (theres more, just ones that convinced me enough to say -Yes, evo is possible, and logically makes more sense to me than ID)

    All these points can be demostrated in a lab through repeatable experiments that DOES support at least part of evolution.

    Evidence that supports ID:
    1) The bible
    2) The moons moving away from the earth
    3) the suns getting smaller
    4) A fossel was found with blood on it.

    NONE of these have experiments to demonstrate or support ID - which, btw are ONLY trying to disprove evo. THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ID. They dont even debunk evo.

    Imagine that little ol me has debunked creationalists 'proof' of I.D. - at least until, my rebuttles are challenged.


    Talk about seeing only what one wants to see..

    'Hey kettle, Im pot, and your black'
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2006
  9. Maddogg6

    Maddogg6 Tail Razer

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    4,027
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Yup I seen this as well. and its the nature of a scientist to continiously re-test - even seemingly 'proven' theories. ID promotes NO such continious investigations.

    Thats been one my problem with ID all along - It puts blinders on would be discoverers, buy using the blanket statement that - 'well, if we dont understand it - its simply the great architects desire.' And 'Not - I just know I can figure out ______.'
    That and creationalism infers a 'god' - or supreme architect, and seperation of church and state makes teaching ID illegal.

    AND it wastes lab time (science class remember, is in a lab setting) on a theory that required NO lab, because theres no experiments that demonstart anything ID suggests, only lectures that argue the evo theory.
    No need for a lab to read a bible either. A lab is for experimentation.

    Theres STILL NO EVIDENCE OF ID - just - claims to debunk evolution.

    Again Ill ask - please outline or reference ANY experiment that demostates or supports any aspect ID - (AND NOT just designed to ONLY debunk part of the evo theory. as such in all your previous links)

    But you did not provide any evidence of ID just claims of debunking evolution.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2006
  10. Pompey

    Pompey New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your basic assumption that the moons speed is constant is wrong. When the moon was closer, the earth had a stronger gravitation pull, therefore the moon moved further from the earth at a slower rate. As it got further out, its speed increased. This is because as the distance between the two bodies increased, the earths pull weakened allowing the moon to travel faster.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof1

    I cant be bothered writing a responce at 10pm to that so check out the link above.

    Oh and did anyone read the page he linked to his moon argument? Near the bottom it had a piece on the earth’s magnetic field. Seriously you should read it, it gives you an idea of the calibre of the site.
     
  11. MiDri

    MiDri New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    930
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Somthing most people do not relize is that genetic changes happen every day, not by evolution but by virus. This is also a way human genes can be manipulated over a long period of time, and could possibly be considerd evolution.

    When some one gets Herpes the virus geneticly alters the DNA in the area it was introduced to. For example; if you are infected with genital herpes the virus infects and rewrites the DNA & RNA of the cells in your pelvic/spinal column. That is why it is currently uncureable, it litraly changes your DNA. Your body then produces the infected cells instead of your normal cells, not knowing it is doing anything wrong.

    Who knows how many virus have effected the evolution of humans...
     
  12. NinjaNerd

    NinjaNerd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thats why so many plants and animals have the ability to produce vitamin C, because they at some point caught a virus carrying the genes for vitamin C production and we did not.

    It was caused by a virus because the ability to produce vitamin C does not follow along evoultonairy lines but is almost random

    Actually, alot of evidence that one force of evolution is viruses is starting to appear.
     
  13. Sandok

    Sandok New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    9,259
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you crazy? If we had the DNA it'd be the finding of a life time and EVERYONE would try to get their hands on it. But strangely, nobody is talking which means more likely that it's nothing proven whatsoever. You'd be surprised how much contamination can ruin great theories.

    You do know that carbon dating isn't the only method? You can use potassium and many other atoms because carbon dating's halflife is only about 5000 years or something. Not nearly long enough for anything and about your arguemnt of THAT not being constant.

    Well put it this way, if atom's don't follow a general law, in the next 20 seconds, you might just distangrate because your atoms decided it. Yeah right.

    Again, if the speed of light changes (your links are only "may" and not "have" changed, well in the next second or two, you might simply not exist because the laws of physics changed.

    And I'm not PRO evolution... I just put science ahead of blind fate and if something doesn't seem correct to me, well I won't trust it. I don't care about my faith, I care about my logic.
     
  14. BryonB

    BryonB New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh my. The fact that we can survive without an appendix does not mean that it serves no purpose. There is research that shows that it may in fact serve a purpose: Scientific American: What is the function of the human appendix? Did it once have a purpose that has since been lost?

    I wasn't attempting to prove ID. Like evolution, you can't prove alternate theories in a lab. I'm merely providing some links to facts that would seem to contradict the idea that the earth is billions and billions of years old. If the earth is in fact not billions of years old, then evolution becomes difficult without significant help from some other process, leading one to explore other possibilities.

    I don't think viruses explain our vastly complex set of organs evolving from simple creatures. It would require some "super intelligent" viruses, and then you'd have to try to explain the origins of such a virus, which merely leads you back to 'designer' discussions.

    I don't rule out the possibility of an ice age either. In fact, a world partly covered with ice is actually consistent with the idea of a global flood, which also explains many of the land features on the surface of the earth, which appear similar to features at the ocean bottom. It also explains why we find fossilized sea creatures in such unlikely places as granite mountain peaks at 13,000 foot elevation (see Fossil Ridge...) There is 'mountains' of evidence (sorry) that the earth was at one time covered by water, and this could also be evidence for rapid stratification of sediment, as also observed at Spirit Lake near mount St. Helens.

    Look, I'm not saying any of this proves that the Bible is true. I'm only saying that it leaves me thinking that perhaps we shouldn't be teaching everyone that evolution is the way everything happened, and then simply ignore evidence to the contrary. One does not prove a theory by merely assuming it is true and moving forward when the evidence is insufficient to merit the assumption. When you do that, you move into the realm of religious faith. If evolution is a religion, then it shouldn't be taught as science.
     
  15. Sandok

    Sandok New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    9,259
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know you aren't proving ID and just showing the holes in evolution... Hmmm okay, now let's see where your theories have their holes.

    If the earth is not billions of years old, then what is it? If you honestly don't believe in radioactivity and the halflife of isoptoes which help us determine the age of anything we want, then you must really take humanity for idiots. I mean, the earth, made of millions of layers of rock, with a molten mantle and a solid core just "poof", was made? That's like someone finding a baby dog and saying, "He's not two years old, I have no proof of it". You have to puzzle back many things together (which is part of being a scientist). Already, looking through a telescope we can see that the universe is billions of years old... So why not Earth? (and that is irrefutible proof... It is well known that looking at a distant light source = looking at a timeline).

    Now about the earth being under water, dunno if you ever studied geography but the plates on Earth are of two kinds. Continental and Volcanic. Now, the one under water is always volcanic and the one out of it is continental (granite, limestone, etc). It is possible a good part of the earth was underwater, no denying that but places that used to be soaked (Salt lakes for example) meant that other places were dry and all. It's not as if there has NEVER been land on the planet. Since it's birth, it's supposed that there has always been some form of land somewhere.

    And your final comment, I wholy disagree for one simple reason. Evolution is a scientific theory (thus still scientific backing) while ID or anything else is just based off books from "god". That's the problem, you must seperate church and state (hell the rest of the world does it anyways) so you must also with the education.

    With your attitude, nothing would be every "fact enough". I mean, remember when Gallileo said the Earth was NOT the center of the solar system? Well guess what, it was a theory when he started off... But he proved it with time that is was a fact and now, you and I all beleve that the Sun is the center of the solar system we live in. Evolution is going down the same path... For now, it's a theory and everyone is trying to poke holes in it but that doesn't mean its wrong.

    Anyways, if you believe in LOGIC, honestly, what seems more "real". That planets form when suns blow up and that life is possible in the most extreme of conditions or that "god" said, "Hey, today let me make a planet with life?" I mean, you might not be for ID but apart from evolution then, what do you think can explain the entire beginning of life as we know it?

    Oh and since I'm well started, you do know that the sun WILL blow up and all of us will die in a few billion years... And that later, this entire galaxy will die after Andromeda will crash into the Milky way? I mean, it's a cruel horrible world where billions of lives will perish in an instant... How can a "god" let his creation die if we are sooo great and he is soooo powerful? I mean, there is no other explanation in my eyes... :bleh:
     
  16. Maddogg6

    Maddogg6 Tail Razer

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    4,027
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Its those hugh physiological changes that DO happen, that support macro-evo. We still dont need our appendix AFTER BIRTH.
    Beside - have they seen what happens if they remove the appendix from a fetus - NO - so its function durring gestation is STILL THEORY.

    Phases like 'we now know' - are truncated from 'we now know TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE' - everyone in a science class understands this.

    The fact we age, and the physiological changes that happen, and the fact that what we eat and do WILL affect those physiological changes - also indicate at some level, evolution is MORE LOGICAL than ID. Blind people tend (not always) to posses superior hearing for instance. Its because they exercise that muscle, or tune into that sense more accutely, however it is - IT IS. It demonstrates that the human body, is capable of extreme change in a short period of time.

    And I have more examples of how macro-evo is possible - Which is pro-ID's (one of) argument against evo.

    A tadpole changing into a frog, a catipillar changing into a butterfly.

    Demostrate that enourmous change IS POSSIBLE.

    And what ARE these other possibilities - other than the religious based ID theory.??

    First off - they were all examples that demonstrate that such enourmous physiological changes are POSSIBLE - which DOES supports the theory. And rebuts the argument against macro-evo. Nothing more. And some 'super-virus' certainly DOES NOT infer a 'designer'.

    See how you used the prase 'in fact' - and ice age doesnt equate, nor is consistant with a global flood. - yet you used the word - FACT.
    It simply desnt debunk the notion of a global flood. Fine. No one here claimed it to.

    Finding fossiles on granite mountain peaks at 13.000 proves nothing more than siemic and volcanic activity.

    And I have no doubts that the earth was covered in waster - just NOT ALL AT ONE TIME. I have no doubts that a single grain of sand, has been a rock, then part of what covered the ocean floor, and then the tip of a mountain peak over its entire existance.
    The earth is dynamic. Its changing all the time.
    Over time - a once flooded area - becomes arid, and vice versa. No one will dispute this - but all at the same time - now thats where the problems arise.

    Evo IS put out as theory - EVERYTHING IN SCIENCE is always a theory until proven or more compelling evidence suggests otherwise - thats the great thing of science - it NEVER ENDS - But if we 'settle' on ID - i promotes NO such further investigations.
    How hard is this to understand. Things like gravity existing on earth, is STILL open for discussion, but no one has proven Newton wrong about this. Someone is probably, right now, trying to prove otherwise. And more power to them. We should NEVER stop investigating.

    The speed of light thing - its brand new , and little time for its scrutiny.
    I don't beleive the speed of light is such an enourmous impact as some may think. We always have 'ESTIMATED' its speed. its APPROXIMATELY 300,000 meters per second. So this experiemnt/discovery - means nothing as of yet.

    The experiment they used involved a fiber 'conduit' - and ITS POSSIBLE - its an illusion (my guess because of the conduit used), yet to be understood. And thus far hasn't impacted the science community to the point of throwing out all past work. Its a new challange to be taken, a lead to new possibilities. Proof we have more to learn.

    We ALL understand the difference of a theory and fact. Evo is taught as a theory, but with many facts and other yet to be disputed theories that help support the 'main' overall theory. Its the otherway around - porponants of ID- are demanding ID to be taught as it it were fact.. Where did you see 'evolution' is fact'?? Whos making such claims?

    There are WAY more holes in ID theory than evo theory - no one claimed evo theory is 'hole-less' or perfect - were not calling it fact - just with the least ammount of holes and thats its more logical than the notion of an individual creator.

    I dont think ID should be taught because of the inplications of religion, and the seperation of church and state makes teaching it in public schools illegal. That and the fact THERE ARE NO DISCOVERIES EMBRASED BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY THAT points to a single creator. But theres TONS of them that point to evo. And its the scientific communities that provide the materials to be taught in a science class and demonstrated in a lab.

    SO why ARE your posting 'anti-evo' material in a - 'I hate ID' thread?
    Seems like you ARE trying to convince us NOT to hate it, to me.

    Bottom line - theres no experiments that supports ID - only arguments against evo. What exacly whoud be demonstarted in a lab to support ID?
    Natta.

    So if Evo is wrong (remember were not claiming its perfect, JUST MORE PLAUSABLE AS IS) - is ther any other theories other than ID that explain our origins - not that Im aware of. So its either evolution, that at least has SOME level of evidence and logic - or ID wehere theres not a shred of evidence or logic that SUPPORTS it. Only argument against evo. It infers pro-ID.

    The fact your information came from pro-creationalism, tells me your ARE a religious person, and it seems, is trying to convince us that evo is bunk.

    NO ONE HERE IS BETTING THEIR LIFE ON ANY THEORY.

    But if a gun was put to my head and was force to ambrace ONE OR THE OTHER AS FACT - Id choose evo. Because theres more evidence, and its more logical.

    But without the gun to my head - I'll NEVER embrace either as a fact. Until either theory has had a reasonable period of withstanding scientific scrutiny - like the moon revolving around the earth or the earth revolving around the sun.
     
  17. Maddogg6

    Maddogg6 Tail Razer

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    4,027
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    AND lets not forget what happened to him for making such a blasphamous discovery. The church (the now biggest proponants of ID) restricted him to his home for years, until others started backing his discovery up. The church was NOT happy about his discovery, cuz it meant an (edited) bible need to be distributed or at the very least, a new 'interpitation' need to be devised to keep from looking like fools and keep perishiners tithing their assest.

    How many pro-creationalists do NOT own a bible (or kuran, or whatever) - my money is on ZERO or very few. So, I AM infering and assuming, anyone posting articles originating from a pro-creationalism site, is pro-ID and religious in nature and up-bringing. Pretty safe assumption. Id say.

    Me - Im not 'PRO-EVO' - I AM anti-ID. Theres a huge difference.

    @ByronB - its obvious your NOT anti-evo, but Pro-ID. And the biggest difference in the inferance of how open ones mind is to discovery.
    Religion has a history of chastizing those who discover things that contridict religion (Galileo). Religion HAS NEVER been open to new discoveries, never encouraged them, has done many things to slow the advancements in science. AND ARE THE ONES PANDERING ID. So I IMMEDIATLY am suspect of any claims made by any religiously tied 'scientific' information.

    But thats not to say, any valid argument thats anti-evo should not be taken seriosly, Im certain they ARE.

    I do seriously doubt ANYONE will prove (as in fact like how our solar system works, or how a car works) either theory, but my money is on science and not religion. As religion has a track record of pandering their 'facts', based on NO proof, and later proven wrong.

    Again, what OTHER theories are there that explain our origins??

    If it IS, that we have a 'creator' its more likely 'alien' in nature and not spiritual (as ID infers). But the pro-ID are not really throwing out or even entertaining that possibility now are they??

    To me its the most plausable way to explain ID. And if this IS the case, theres always the possibility that making themself available at some point. And we will no longer need to debate - where an atom came from.
    Even still - where DOES THE CREATOR COME FROM.
    Its an endless circle with ID. - Who designed the designer?

    ID is a theory that leads to closed minds and discourages investigation.
     
  18. Sandok

    Sandok New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    9,259
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I honestly believe (and more and more scientists too) that life was of alien descent, most probably from a comet or asteroid. It's quite easy to understand and very probable, especially in an early system.

    Of course, religion is against the fact that life may exist elsewhere in the universe. I really wonder, when life will be found (and trust me, it WILL), what will the religous people of earth face? Call it another hoax or what? Come on, the simple fact that ID ignores dinosaurs and that I know of people who refuse to see Jurassic Park as blasphemous is just wrong :(
     
  19. Zelig

    Zelig Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Messages:
    3,185
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    58
    Eh? Still had to originate somewhere since the big bang, seems just as likely to have originated on Earth as anywhere else.
     
  20. MiDri

    MiDri New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    930
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is hard for the human brain to grasp, but energy can not be created or destroyed -- what if in some form or another everything has always existed?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

visited