Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by Phuckduck Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:22 pm

Phuckduck: All-Pro; Number of posts : 681
Registration date : 2008-07-06

Post n°851

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by Phuckduck Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:22 pm

Trackaholic wrote:sourworms I will read your paper, meanwhile WHEN are you going to respond to my whole post on that faulty volcanic rock testing! you have yet to even mention it!

The tests were done by creationsists looking to prove a young earth and disprove radiometric dating. While they were doing this, every other scientist disregarded their research as frivolous, as they should have, and kept going with their experiments under the ABSURD assumption that their tried and true method worked...weird.

by Phuckduck Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:23 pm

Phuckduck

Phuckduck: All-Pro; Number of posts : 681
Registration date : 2008-07-06

Post n°852

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by Phuckduck Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:23 pm

And you supplied no real facts, just creationists making assumptions that they are right and the rest of the scientific community is wrong

by Adonai Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:33 pm

Adonai

Adonai: Pro; Number of posts : 263
Registration date : 2008-07-10

Post n°853

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by Adonai Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:33 pm

How do you explain bacteria? Creationists often argue that evolution can't be proven because it can't be seen on a human time frame. Yet, bacteria adapts and mutates within minutes. New species are discovered daily.

aids constantly EVOLVES to adapt to the latest in medicines. that's why it can't be cured, because mutation, adaptation, and therefore evolution exist.

How do you explain this? I am confident you can't.

by Trackaholic Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:48 pm

Trackaholic

Trackaholic: Pro; Number of posts : 422
Age : 33
Registration date : 2008-05-23

Post n°854

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by Trackaholic Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:48 pm

We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

*thats why you need to fake chimpanzee skeletons to look like cavemen right?

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle.

*Has anyone ever observed this happening? have fossils of fishcowgaroo ever been found?

This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur,

*why not, this is such an easy science to prove, its irrefutable. you should at least be able to tell me how it happens then. How does an organism which is not aware of its self and relies on instinct able to realize the need to lose and forget traits?

and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

* Chemical processes cannot create "simple complex" things like flagella or protein either. So far nothing you have said proves evolution exists.

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

*How does this prove evolution? God could create all the different varieties of creatures.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

* This only makes sense if:

1) Noah's Flood never happened

2) The earth is very old, which it is not

3) Human skeletons/fossil and animal fossils never had time to be fossilized, water destroyed them in Noah's flood:
The next question to ask is: Would all the people still alive when the Flood waters finally covered all the land and swept them away be buried and preserved as fossils in the later Flood sediments? Can we assume that there was no destruction of the people's bodies in the Flood waters and by other processes operating during the Flood and subsequently? Probably not!
The turbulence of the water, even in a local flood, can be horrific, particularly when the fast-moving current picks up not only sand and mud, but large boulders. Under such conditions, human bodies would probably be thrown around like flotsam and would tend to be destroyed by the agitation and abrasion.
But even if human bodies were buried in the later Flood sediments, destruction could still occur subsequently (that is, post-deposition). For example, if ground waters permeating through the sediments (such as sandstone) contain sufficient oxygen, then the oxygen would probably oxidize the organic molecules in the buried bodies and so destroy them. (This could be regarded as a type of weathering.) Likewise, chemically active ground waters could also be capable of dissolving human bones, removing all trace of buried people.
Many Flood sediments have also undergone chemical and mineralogical changes due to the temperatures and pressures of burial, plus the presence of the water trapped in between the sediment grains. This process of change, known technically as metamorphism, eventually obliterates many fossils in the original sediments, whether they be fossils of shellfish, corals or mammals, particularly with increasing depth of burial, and higher temperatures and pressures.
Yet another process that could destroy buried human bodies would be the intrusion of molten (igneous) rock into the Flood sediments, and through them to the surface to form volcanoes and lava flows. Such processes involve heat intense enough to melt rocks and recrystallize them. As the hot molten rock rises through the sediments, the sediments are often baked by the heat, and again chemical and mineralogical changes occur that obliterate many contained fossils.
All of these factors greatly lengthen the odds of finding a human fossil today.
Not only would the turbulence of the sediment-laden Flood waters probably destroy some of the human bodies swept away, but differential suspension in the waters could have made it hard to bury those bodies that survived the turbulence. This is because human bodies when immersed in water tend to bloat, and therefore become lighter and float to the surface. This is what is meant by differential suspension. The human bodies floating on the water surface could therefore for some time be carrion for whatever birds were still flying around seeking places to land and food to eat. Likewise, marine carnivores still alive in their watery habitat would also devour corpses.
Furthermore, if the bodies floated long enough and were not eaten as carrion, then they would still have tended to either decompose or be battered to destruction on and in the waters before any burial could take place. This could explain why we still don't find human fossils higher up in the fossil record/geological column, that is, the later Flood sediments.
When we take all these factors into account, it would seem unlikely that many of the people present at the time the Flood waters came could have ended up being fossilized. Even if a handful, perhaps a few thousand, were preserved, when such a small number is distributed through the vast volume of Flood sediments, the chances of one being found at the surface are mathematically very, very low, let alone of being found by a professional scientist who could recognize its significance and document it properly.
Putting all these factors together and assuming that they are all realistic possibilities, then the probability of finding a human fossil in the Flood sediments today would be very, very small. To date, our investigations of the fossil record indicate that there are no human fossils in Flood strata, so perhaps the above explanations could be some of the reasons why this is so.

We have the simple organism and the complex organisms. The simple organisms survived the flood or were instantly fossilized (there bodies were not subject to weathering like the fleshy, soft bodies of the more complex organisms) But you are forgetting something.

YES< you are lacking complex fossils, but you are ALSO lacking any fossils whatsoever of the middle men! those guys that came before either the fish or the cow! where are the fossils of fishcowgaroo?

Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight.

Haha, oh...wait you were serious?

If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates).

*Orrrr the simpler forms were the only ones able to withstand Noah's flood, and god created all creatures.

There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have.

*Not only are your three airtight evidences full of holes (faulty radiometric dating leading to younger earth, lack of fossils of organisms in evolution) but you are disregarding the possibility of god.

Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

*No, it just proves the grand canyon was made through noahs flood, that god created the world, and that the earth is not as old as you think it is.

To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that's a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance.

by Trackaholic Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:49 pm

Trackaholic

Trackaholic: Pro; Number of posts : 422
Age : 33
Registration date : 2008-05-23

Post n°855

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by Trackaholic Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:49 pm

SourWorms wrote:And you supplied no real facts, just creationists making assumptions that they are right and the rest of the scientific community is wrong

just because these facts are from creationists DO not make them wrong, YOU are the one being biased if you assume that.

by Trackaholic Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:52 pm

Trackaholic

Trackaholic: Pro; Number of posts : 422
Age : 33
Registration date : 2008-05-23

Post n°856

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by Trackaholic Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:52 pm

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:sourworms I will read your paper, meanwhile WHEN are you going to respond to my whole post on that faulty volcanic rock testing! you have yet to even mention it!

The tests were done by creationsists looking to prove a young earth and disprove radiometric dating.

Thank you captain obvious.

While they were doing this, every other scientist disregarded their research as frivolous, as they should have, and kept going with their experiments under the ABSURD assumption that their tried and true method worked...weird.

That is irrevelant, explain to me why the scientists who performed the radiometric dating (who were NOT creationists, mind you. so you cannot claim "bias") kept coming up with those incredibly old dates for 50 year old rocks?

by Trackaholic Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:56 pm

Trackaholic

Trackaholic: Pro; Number of posts : 422
Age : 33
Registration date : 2008-05-23

Post n°857

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by Trackaholic Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:56 pm

Adonai wrote:How do you explain bacteria? Creationists often argue that evolution can't be proven because it can't be seen on a human time frame. Yet, bacteria adapts and mutates within minutes. New species are discovered daily.

aids constantly EVOLVES to adapt to the latest in medicines. that's why it can't be cured, because mutation, adaptation, and therefore evolution exist.

How do you explain this? I am confident you can't.

Bacteria has always been like this since god created it, how does that prove evolution? I never said mutation itself does not exist, what I said was that NOT all the organisms in the world underwent/ are undergoing mutation (evolution).

by Adonai Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:09 pm

Adonai

Adonai: Pro; Number of posts : 263
Registration date : 2008-07-10

Post n°858

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by Adonai Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:09 pm

If you believe mutation exists, you believe evolution exists. Mutation is the very foundation of the evolution principle. SCIENTISTS CAN WITNESS EVOLUTION IN ACTION BY WATCHING NEW SPECIES FORM IN REAL TIME!!!!!!

YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY NEGATE THIS!

by Pinthin Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:12 pm

Pinthin

Pinthin: Elite; Number of posts : 2888
Age : 32
Location : down by the bay, washington
Mile Time : none
Class : 2010
Registration date : 2008-05-23

Post n°859

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by Pinthin Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:12 pm

Trackaholic wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

BagoXC25 wrote:

SourWorms wrote:Yeah it was a terrible example. It just proves primitive people are stupid and attribute anything that confuses them to an imaginary friend in the sky.

I'm sorry you misunderstood it, but I only use primitive people because modern people know how clocks are made... Modern people in this scenario would represent angels who have witnessed Gods grace themselves.

hmm that’s kinda what I Mean how we are more civilized and smarter now, opposed to back in Jesus times. Then the fan base just grew and it became like a family tradition, and you were taught from birth that the man in the sky is all and mighty. My parents did that too, how did I become (OMG NOT ATHIEST) but agnostic?? I guess I'm not very spongy =[

i follow Jesus because that's my choice, not my parents.

or so you say

If your parents taught you to be a muslim from birth, you were raised in a muslim household, you dont think you would be muslim? You say no, but its most likely you would be muslim.

Pre-suppositions are no grounds for denying the legitimacy of a person's belief.

I wasn't denying the legitimacy of his beliefs.

How could you not agree with that though?? I'll admit it, if my parents were more strict Christians, made me go to church. Blah blah blah I would be just like you tracko. But they didn't really push it on me, like they told me about it and I even read the bible out of curiosity once, but I thought it was a little far-fetched so I stopped.

I'll wager about 99% of kids raised in a household that religiously practices religion (ha) would more then likely practice that religion.

And I would agree with you pinthin, but what does that prove? "Oh, you only believe christianity because your parents raised you that way" Maybe so in some cases, although I know alot of christians with athiest parents.
But does this mean their religon is false? I will say again Pre-suppositions are no grounds for denying the legitimacy of a person's belief.
Just because a muslim was raised a muslim, does not believe his faith is false,
Just because an athiest was raised an athiest, does not mean there belief is false,
just because a christian was raised a christian does not mean there faith is false.

So what point are you trying to prove pinthin?

your brainwashed

is it not possible to be brainwashed into believing the truth?

You only think its the truth because your brainwashed, and you wont accept what I'm saying because your "brainwashed" dun dun duuun.. haha

by **FinishingKick** Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:22 pm

FinishingKick

FinishingKick: Admin; Number of posts : 4773
Age : 31
Location : New York
Mile Time : 4:52
Class : Sophomore
800m Time : 2:10
5000m XC Time : 17:29
1000m Time : 2:50
Registration date : 2008-05-22

Post n°860

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by FinishingKick Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:22 pm

Pinthin wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

BagoXC25 wrote:

SourWorms wrote:Yeah it was a terrible example. It just proves primitive people are stupid and attribute anything that confuses them to an imaginary friend in the sky.

I'm sorry you misunderstood it, but I only use primitive people because modern people know how clocks are made... Modern people in this scenario would represent angels who have witnessed Gods grace themselves.

hmm that’s kinda what I Mean how we are more civilized and smarter now, opposed to back in Jesus times. Then the fan base just grew and it became like a family tradition, and you were taught from birth that the man in the sky is all and mighty. My parents did that too, how did I become (OMG NOT ATHIEST) but agnostic?? I guess I'm not very spongy =[

i follow Jesus because that's my choice, not my parents.

or so you say

If your parents taught you to be a muslim from birth, you were raised in a muslim household, you dont think you would be muslim? You say no, but its most likely you would be muslim.

Pre-suppositions are no grounds for denying the legitimacy of a person's belief.

I wasn't denying the legitimacy of his beliefs.

How could you not agree with that though?? I'll admit it, if my parents were more strict Christians, made me go to church. Blah blah blah I would be just like you tracko. But they didn't really push it on me, like they told me about it and I even read the bible out of curiosity once, but I thought it was a little far-fetched so I stopped.

I'll wager about 99% of kids raised in a household that religiously practices religion (ha) would more then likely practice that religion.

And I would agree with you pinthin, but what does that prove? "Oh, you only believe christianity because your parents raised you that way" Maybe so in some cases, although I know alot of christians with athiest parents.
But does this mean their religon is false? I will say again Pre-suppositions are no grounds for denying the legitimacy of a person's belief.
Just because a muslim was raised a muslim, does not believe his faith is false,
Just because an athiest was raised an athiest, does not mean there belief is false,
just because a christian was raised a christian does not mean there faith is false.

So what point are you trying to prove pinthin?

your brainwashed

is it not possible to be brainwashed into believing the truth?

You only think its the truth because your brainwashed, and you wont accept what I'm saying because your "brainwashed" dun dun duuun.. haha

Christianity did not become the most popular religion in the world because of people's parents. =/

by Pinthin Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:28 pm

Pinthin

Pinthin: Elite; Number of posts : 2888
Age : 32
Location : down by the bay, washington
Mile Time : none
Class : 2010
Registration date : 2008-05-23

Post n°861

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by Pinthin Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:28 pm

FK wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

BagoXC25 wrote:

SourWorms wrote:Yeah it was a terrible example. It just proves primitive people are stupid and attribute anything that confuses them to an imaginary friend in the sky.

I'm sorry you misunderstood it, but I only use primitive people because modern people know how clocks are made... Modern people in this scenario would represent angels who have witnessed Gods grace themselves.

hmm that’s kinda what I Mean how we are more civilized and smarter now, opposed to back in Jesus times. Then the fan base just grew and it became like a family tradition, and you were taught from birth that the man in the sky is all and mighty. My parents did that too, how did I become (OMG NOT ATHIEST) but agnostic?? I guess I'm not very spongy =[

i follow Jesus because that's my choice, not my parents.

or so you say

If your parents taught you to be a muslim from birth, you were raised in a muslim household, you dont think you would be muslim? You say no, but its most likely you would be muslim.

Pre-suppositions are no grounds for denying the legitimacy of a person's belief.

I wasn't denying the legitimacy of his beliefs.

How could you not agree with that though?? I'll admit it, if my parents were more strict Christians, made me go to church. Blah blah blah I would be just like you tracko. But they didn't really push it on me, like they told me about it and I even read the bible out of curiosity once, but I thought it was a little far-fetched so I stopped.

I'll wager about 99% of kids raised in a household that religiously practices religion (ha) would more then likely practice that religion.

And I would agree with you pinthin, but what does that prove? "Oh, you only believe christianity because your parents raised you that way" Maybe so in some cases, although I know alot of christians with athiest parents.
But does this mean their religon is false? I will say again Pre-suppositions are no grounds for denying the legitimacy of a person's belief.
Just because a muslim was raised a muslim, does not believe his faith is false,
Just because an athiest was raised an athiest, does not mean there belief is false,
just because a christian was raised a christian does not mean there faith is false.

So what point are you trying to prove pinthin?

your brainwashed

is it not possible to be brainwashed into believing the truth?

You only think its the truth because your brainwashed, and you wont accept what I'm saying because your "brainwashed" dun dun duuun.. haha

Christianity did not become the most popular religion in the world because of people's parents. =/

your right, I never said that. I personally think its because you guys freak people out that if they don’t be saved by YOU that they'll go to hell. I saw hmm picketers the other day, really crazy fanatics holding signs saying stuff like "get saved, or go to hell" ... yeah It almost made me become a Christian.

They weren't rioting, just being informative I guess?

by **AudienceOfOne** Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:41 pm

AudienceOfOne

AudienceOfOne: Admin; Number of posts : 5377
Age : 32
Location : Nati fo eva
Class : 2011
3200m Time : 10:17
Registration date : 2008-05-24

Post n°862

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by AudienceOfOne Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:41 pm

Pinthin wrote:

FK wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

BagoXC25 wrote:

SourWorms wrote:Yeah it was a terrible example. It just proves primitive people are stupid and attribute anything that confuses them to an imaginary friend in the sky.

I'm sorry you misunderstood it, but I only use primitive people because modern people know how clocks are made... Modern people in this scenario would represent angels who have witnessed Gods grace themselves.

hmm that’s kinda what I Mean how we are more civilized and smarter now, opposed to back in Jesus times. Then the fan base just grew and it became like a family tradition, and you were taught from birth that the man in the sky is all and mighty. My parents did that too, how did I become (OMG NOT ATHIEST) but agnostic?? I guess I'm not very spongy =[

i follow Jesus because that's my choice, not my parents.

or so you say

If your parents taught you to be a muslim from birth, you were raised in a muslim household, you dont think you would be muslim? You say no, but its most likely you would be muslim.

Pre-suppositions are no grounds for denying the legitimacy of a person's belief.

I wasn't denying the legitimacy of his beliefs.

How could you not agree with that though?? I'll admit it, if my parents were more strict Christians, made me go to church. Blah blah blah I would be just like you tracko. But they didn't really push it on me, like they told me about it and I even read the bible out of curiosity once, but I thought it was a little far-fetched so I stopped.

I'll wager about 99% of kids raised in a household that religiously practices religion (ha) would more then likely practice that religion.

And I would agree with you pinthin, but what does that prove? "Oh, you only believe christianity because your parents raised you that way" Maybe so in some cases, although I know alot of christians with athiest parents.
But does this mean their religon is false? I will say again Pre-suppositions are no grounds for denying the legitimacy of a person's belief.
Just because a muslim was raised a muslim, does not believe his faith is false,
Just because an athiest was raised an athiest, does not mean there belief is false,
just because a christian was raised a christian does not mean there faith is false.

So what point are you trying to prove pinthin?

your brainwashed

is it not possible to be brainwashed into believing the truth?

You only think its the truth because your brainwashed, and you wont accept what I'm saying because your "brainwashed" dun dun duuun.. haha

Christianity did not become the most popular religion in the world because of people's parents. =/

your right, I never said that. I personally think its because you guys freak people out that if they don’t be saved by YOU that they'll go to hell. I saw hmm picketers the other day, really crazy fanatics holding signs saying stuff like "get saved, or go to hell" ... yeah It almost made me become a Christian.

They weren't rioting, just being informative I guess?

well then those people are retarded.

by Adonai Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:28 am

Adonai

Adonai: Pro; Number of posts : 263
Registration date : 2008-07-10

Post n°863

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by Adonai Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:28 am

Adonai wrote:If you believe mutation exists, you believe evolution exists. Mutation is the very foundation of the evolution principle. SCIENTISTS CAN WITNESS EVOLUTION IN ACTION BY WATCHING NEW SPECIES FORM IN REAL TIME!!!!!!

YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY NEGATE THIS!

New species of bacteria are formed daily. Evolution can be seen on a human time-frame. Mutation+natural selection=evolution.

Still waiting to hear from a creationist who can explain this phenomenon and still deny evolution.

by Adonai Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:42 am

Adonai

Adonai: Pro; Number of posts : 263
Registration date : 2008-07-10

Post n°864

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by Adonai Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:42 am

Trackaholic wrote:

Adonai wrote:

FK wrote:

Adonai wrote:I question your assertion that God is all-powerful, which is indeed relevant to the creationist theory of the universe.

If you have an answer give it, but if you simply wish to avoid the issue, say nothing.

I'm not going to avoid it. If God is all-powerful, he can make a rock heavier than anything, but then could also lift this rock. I don't know the answer to the second question.

That doesn't make sense. If God can lift the rock, then he is incapable of making a rock he can't lift. Therefore, we have reached an infinite loophole. God cannot be all-powerful.

Being able to do anything does not include the ability to not be able to do something, the loophole isnt in god, but your abstruse logic.

Why not? I am capable of making an object too heavy for myself to lift. I suppose in this regard I am greater than god.

by Phuckduck Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:08 am

Phuckduck

Phuckduck: All-Pro; Number of posts : 681
Registration date : 2008-07-06

Post n°865

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by Phuckduck Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:08 am

Tracko in response to your rebuttle:

Noah's flood never happened so that does work. and you are using the same circular logic that you condemn.

You say that we have proof of the flood because there are no fossils in the strata at that time. And why are there only small organisms? because of Noah's flood. You cannot prove Noah's flood in any way because it just didn't happen!

And if it did, wouldnt there be fossilized remains of the animals that existed for thousands of years before the floods in the earth is indeed young and god created them as they are now.

If all the marine carnivores survived please explain fossilized remains of plesiosaurs which would have obviously survived a flood.

Your logic fails completely unfortunately, I am sorry, try a different argument that is not pure speculation.

by BagoXC25 Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:41 pm

BagoXC25

BagoXC25: Pro; Number of posts : 364
Age : 34
Location : Winnebago
Registration date : 2008-06-03

Post n°866

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by BagoXC25 Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:41 pm

Adonai wrote:

Adonai wrote:If you believe mutation exists, you believe evolution exists. Mutation is the very foundation of the evolution principle. SCIENTISTS CAN WITNESS EVOLUTION IN ACTION BY WATCHING NEW SPECIES FORM IN REAL TIME!!!!!!

YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY NEGATE THIS!

New species of bacteria are formed daily. Evolution can be seen on a human time-frame. Mutation+natural selection=evolution.

Still waiting to hear from a creationist who can explain this phenomenon and still deny evolution.

God gave us the gift of adaption.

And going off what you said, how does being born with downs syndrome (an obvious mutation) fit into "evolution"?

by Adonai Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:55 pm

Adonai

Adonai: Pro; Number of posts : 263
Registration date : 2008-07-10

Post n°867

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by Adonai Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:55 pm

BagoXC25 wrote:

Adonai wrote:

Adonai wrote:If you believe mutation exists, you believe evolution exists. Mutation is the very foundation of the evolution principle. SCIENTISTS CAN WITNESS EVOLUTION IN ACTION BY WATCHING NEW SPECIES FORM IN REAL TIME!!!!!!

YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY NEGATE THIS!

New species of bacteria are formed daily. Evolution can be seen on a human time-frame. Mutation+natural selection=evolution.

Still waiting to hear from a creationist who can explain this phenomenon and still deny evolution.

God gave us the gift of adaption.

And going off what you said, how does being born with downs syndrome (an obvious mutation) fit into "evolution"?

First of all, trisomy 21 is a chromosomal disorder which is completely irrelevant to this discussion, except if we question why god would allow such a problem to exist.

Adaptation=evolution, dipshit. It's really not a complex phenomenon. People with the traits adapted to the circumstances present will survive, those unfit will not. Therefore, a shift in the gene pool occurs. I could have understood this process before entering primary school at the timid age of 4, but for some reason your feeble mind has so far been unable to grasp this elementary concept.

YOU ADMIT ADAPTATION, YOU ADMIT EVOLUTION! STILL WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN THIS PHENOMENON!

JUST ACCEPT YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!!!

by **FinishingKick** Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:44 pm

FinishingKick

FinishingKick: Admin; Number of posts : 4773
Age : 31
Location : New York
Mile Time : 4:52
Class : Sophomore
800m Time : 2:10
5000m XC Time : 17:29
1000m Time : 2:50
Registration date : 2008-05-22

Post n°868

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by FinishingKick Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:44 pm

BagoXC25 wrote:

Adonai wrote:

Adonai wrote:If you believe mutation exists, you believe evolution exists. Mutation is the very foundation of the evolution principle. SCIENTISTS CAN WITNESS EVOLUTION IN ACTION BY WATCHING NEW SPECIES FORM IN REAL TIME!!!!!!

YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY NEGATE THIS!

New species of bacteria are formed daily. Evolution can be seen on a human time-frame. Mutation+natural selection=evolution.

Still waiting to hear from a creationist who can explain this phenomenon and still deny evolution.

God gave us the gift of adaption.

And going off what you said, how does being born with downs syndrome (an obvious mutation) fit into "evolution"?

-5 A mutation occurs and if it is better fit for that environment the species is successful, survives to reproduce, and the trait spreads. If not, it just dies out.

And to Adonai, this still doesn't disprove the Catholic faith.

by Adonai Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:02 pm

Adonai

Adonai: Pro; Number of posts : 263
Registration date : 2008-07-10

Post n°869

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by Adonai Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:02 pm

FK wrote:

BagoXC25 wrote:

Adonai wrote:

Adonai wrote:If you believe mutation exists, you believe evolution exists. Mutation is the very foundation of the evolution principle. SCIENTISTS CAN WITNESS EVOLUTION IN ACTION BY WATCHING NEW SPECIES FORM IN REAL TIME!!!!!!

YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY NEGATE THIS!

New species of bacteria are formed daily. Evolution can be seen on a human time-frame. Mutation+natural selection=evolution.

Still waiting to hear from a creationist who can explain this phenomenon and still deny evolution.

God gave us the gift of adaption.

And going off what you said, how does being born with downs syndrome (an obvious mutation) fit into "evolution"?

-5 A mutation occurs and if it is better fit for that environment the species is successful, survives to reproduce, and the trait spreads. If not, it just dies out.

And to Adonai, this still doesn't disprove the Catholic faith.

Thank you sir. My goal wasn't to disprove the Catholic faith. That would be impossible in some respects. My goal was to prove evolution.

by BagoXC25 Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:34 pm

BagoXC25

BagoXC25: Pro; Number of posts : 364
Age : 34
Location : Winnebago
Registration date : 2008-06-03

Post n°870

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by BagoXC25 Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:34 pm

Ok, I stand corrected on the downs syndrome part. But there is a big difference between simple adaption and the evolution theory.

I havn't really been on topic completely in this thread, but it is not too late to start. In order for evolution to triumph over intelligent design, you MUST be able to prove how organisms started in the first place. How can you do that? you can't. It's impossible. So you haven't proven your evolution theory yet, and that is why it is still a theory.

And just because humans can adapt and evolve does not prove that everything was caused by evolution. Is it so hard to understand that God simply gave us the tools we need to progress as a species? Adaption isn't much different than learning itself is.

And from now on, just try and keep this debate clean. It takes a lot of the fun out of it when you end EVERY explanation with "Too bad you are too vastly insuperior to my dynamo of a noggin." And in turn I apologize for rebuking your comments in the same manner on occasion.

by Phuckduck Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:52 pm

Phuckduck

Phuckduck: All-Pro; Number of posts : 681
Registration date : 2008-07-06

Post n°871

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by Phuckduck Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:52 pm

BagoXC25 wrote:Ok, I stand corrected on the downs syndrome part. But there is a big difference between simple adaption and the evolution theory.

I havn't really been on topic completely in this thread, but it is not too late to start. In order for evolution to triumph over intelligent design, you MUST be able to prove how organisms started in the first place. How can you do that? you can't. It's impossible. So you haven't proven your evolution theory yet, and that is why it is still a theory.

And just because humans can adapt and evolve does not prove that everything was caused by evolution. Is it so hard to understand that God simply gave us the tools we need to progress as a species? Adaption isn't much different than learning itself is.

And from now on, just try and keep this debate clean. It takes a lot of the fun out of it when you end EVERY explanation with "Too bad you are too vastly insuperior to my dynamo of a noggin." And in turn I apologize for rebuking your comments in the same manner on occasion.

God is more of a theory my friend. It makes more sense that the origin of species progresses from simple amino acids in prokaryotic organisms to the vast array of animals we see today. Through simple mutation that favors survival, it makes sense that those most suited for life would survive, while those without these mutations would die out. This would account for all sorts of different adaptations for animals without the help of an intelligent being.

Humans are not the only animals that can adapt, as seen by Darwin's observations of finches on Galapagos. This phenomenom can also be observed in bacteria and other such pathogens i.e. drug resistant influenza strains. Simple reproduction is responsible for the mix of genes and the eventual divergence of complete gene pools in species.

Adaptation is completely different from learning, because adaptation in a natural sense is not voluntary, but instead takes place over thousands and millions of years.

Intelligent design is simply a way for those who cannot comprehend simple science to explain the origin of species even though science has so elegantly already explained it.

by **FinishingKick** Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:55 pm

FinishingKick

FinishingKick: Admin; Number of posts : 4773
Age : 31
Location : New York
Mile Time : 4:52
Class : Sophomore
800m Time : 2:10
5000m XC Time : 17:29
1000m Time : 2:50
Registration date : 2008-05-22

Post n°872

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by FinishingKick Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:55 pm

The evidence for evolution is all around us. God never said it didn't happen either.

by Phuckduck Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Phuckduck

Phuckduck: All-Pro; Number of posts : 681
Registration date : 2008-07-06

Post n°873

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by Phuckduck Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Exactly. I am not out to disprove god because i can see places where you can attribute things to god, i.e. conciousness. I am just saying that evolution happened rather than god creating everything exactly as it is now

by BagoXC25 Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:52 pm

BagoXC25

BagoXC25: Pro; Number of posts : 364
Age : 34
Location : Winnebago
Registration date : 2008-06-03

Post n°874

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by BagoXC25 Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:52 pm

But that is not the argument in the case of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design.

What you are talking about is theistic evolution, which molds evolution and intelligent design together. That is what I believe. Basically, theistic evolution states that God created the universe, and allowed it to evolve.

by Phuckduck Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:57 pm

Phuckduck

Phuckduck: All-Pro; Number of posts : 681
Registration date : 2008-07-06

Post n°875

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by Phuckduck Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:57 pm

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

by Sponsored content

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

by Sponsored content

Runner's Trail

Runner's Trail

Runner's Trail

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Similar topics

Similar topics

Search Query

Display results as : Posts Topics
Advanced Search