Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Hey everyone, just thought I'd drop by and share my thoughts.

I was brought up Christian, going to church every sunday and for holidays and all that jazz, though I didn't really think about religion.

After giving it some thought awhile ago, I decided that there is no god, no heaven, no hell. I guess I'm Atheist then?

I believe that all of us are just mammals, with a developed brain that allows us to do the things we do. See, think, all that stuff. We don't have a "spirit" that goes off to heaven or hell, it's just us and our brain. Once the brain stops working, we are nothing, we don't go anywhere. It's just like a never ending sleep. Yes, it's a grim thing to look forward to, but I don't mind it too much just as long as I feel that I live a fulfilling life, I don't mind never waking up when the time comes.

I believe that religion was created to give people explanations for things, and also to give people hope and not such grim outlooks on death. Give them hope for something after, and not just their life ending.

No one has to believe my thoughts, maybe I'm completely wrong ! But this is what I believe and I thought I'd share it with you guys.

PS: I think Trackaholic is a little crazy

I think...

we won.

evolution ftw

^ftmfw

I NEVER said I didn't believe in evolution, and if I did, quote it because I don't remember typing it. The closest I ever said to that was that downs syndrome isn't evolution lol.

And how did you win? You win when you prove how the proteins were originally made to evolve into us, versus us being created by God.

SourWorms wrote:If you believe that evolution happened, why are you arguing against it then??

And also theistic evolution is a crock and basically contradicts itself. You have completely turned around what you believe in now

How?

BagoXC25 wrote:I NEVER said I didn't believe in evolution, and if I did, quote it because I don't remember typing it. The closest I ever said to that was that downs syndrome isn't evolution lol.

And how did you win? You win when you prove how the proteins were originally made to evolve into us, versus us being created by God.

Proteins were not made to evole into us. They just happened too.

May As Well Run wrote:

BagoXC25 wrote:I NEVER said I didn't believe in evolution, and if I did, quote it because I don't remember typing it. The closest I ever said to that was that downs syndrome isn't evolution lol.

And how did you win? You win when you prove how the proteins were originally made to evolve into us, versus us being created by God.

Proteins were not made to evole into us. They just happened too.

You missed the point. How did the proteins get there in the first place without God to make them?

FK wrote:

SourWorms wrote:If you believe that evolution happened, why are you arguing against it then??

And also theistic evolution is a crock and basically contradicts itself. You have completely turned around what you believe in now

How?

Ya really. I just beleive that God created us and we have adapted and evolved since then. There is nothing contradictory about that.

What is contradictory is that evolution theory tries to explain how we came to be, but completely leaves out the most important part. THE BEGINNING.

The beginning of life? Amino acids are essential for life, and they have been recreated in laboratory settings with only the elements presumed present in the early stage of earth. read for yourself even though these people probably are all lying about their results

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53am.html

i suggest you take biology and chemistry before arguing with people beyond your intellectual level

funny, I was watching a thing about evolution today on pbs.

PBS must be corrupt too...

eh I only watched the end of it, where they were talking about shrew monkeys?? yeah, I dont know, basically it was how they think monkeys evolved from rodents. I thought people already figured that one out?

Stanley Miller didn't prove that complete proteins could be built though, only simple amino acids (which have been statistical proven that if there was an entire universe of amino acids, there is still almost 0% chance that it would form a single strand of protein). Not to mention that if life DID come to by that process, even if the world were 200 billion years old we still wouldn't have a single cell.

If Stanley Miller did actually prove that proteins could be created in that fashion, we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now.

BagoXC25 wrote:Stanley Miller didn't prove that complete proteins could be built though, only simple amino acids (which have been statistical proven that if there was an entire universe of amino acids, there is still almost 0% chance that it would form a single strand of protein). Not to mention that if life DID come to by that process, even if the world were 200 billion years old we still wouldn't have a single cell.

If Stanley Miller did actually prove that proteins could be created in that fashion, we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now.

you do know that amino acids are proteins right? 10 are essential for life, and they were recreated in laboratory settings...

No, amino acids ARE NOT the same as proteins. They must be assembled and paired in order to become a protein, and stanley miller couldn't do that. No person can. The analogy for this process goes something like: The chances of amino acids randomly assembling into a protein have the same chance as a boeing 747 being assembled by a tornado. Or if you want it mathematically, 1:10 ^40000.

BagoXC25 wrote:No, amino acids ARE NOT the same as proteins. They must be assembled and paired in order to become a protein, and stanley miller couldn't do that. No person can. The analogy for this process goes something like: The chances of amino acids randomly assembling into a protein have the same chance as a boeing 747 being assembled by a tornado. Or if you want it mathematically, 1:10 ^40000.

oh and where did you get this information?

and in case you didn't know, proteins are made of amino acids and hence RNA/DNA

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/AbioticSynthesis.html

read up and dispute it

"A number of theories address each of these problems."

I stopped reading after this. All theories, nothing proven. And I learned about Miller and the analogy in my chem 2 class junior year.

Oh chem 2? take AP chem and come talk to me

Maybe if my tiny school had it. I live in a town of 3,000 and my school has just over 550 people. The only AP classes we have are Calc and English, which I took both of this year. AP is just a label, my chem 2 class was an accelerated class that prepared us for every major topic gone over in a normal college class. We started with 10 people and ended up with 5. Not to mention I still got an A both semesters.

BagoXC25 wrote:Maybe if my tiny school had it. I live in a town of 3,000 and my school has just over 550 people. The only AP classes we have are Calc and English, which I took both of this year. AP is just a label, my chem 2 class was an accelerated class that prepared us for every major topic gone over in a normal college class. We started with 10 people and ended up with 5. Not to mention I still got an A both semesters.

oh so you went to a hick school that no doubt taught intelligent design as preparedness for college

Sorry I'm not a spoiled brat from the O.C.

BagoXC25 wrote:Sorry I'm not a spoiled brat from the O.C.

I am definitely not from the O.C. my friend

Dude...after all of your bragging it's pretty easy to get a good estimate of what school you go to.

Still not the point of this thread. back on topic anyone? or let it die

It's over. Evolution wins. Intelligent design is retarded. The end.