Notices
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 518
Like Tree33Likes

Thread: Intelligent Design ????

  1. #101  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    I wonder how a partial human hybrid made itself more attractive to attract another mate like a fish???
    There was no partial human "hybrid".

    Sorry for the sarcasm (and I am fully aware that there is much more to it) but I just don't get it. This is the missing link!
    Are you saying that the missing link is your missing knowledge of how evolution works? That sounds reasonable.

    Let's just say we did evolve from fish, do you think that there was just one generation of hybrids?
    You seem to think that one day a fish gave birth to a [half]human. That isn't how it works. There was millions of years of gradual change, via many thousands of intermediate forms.

    Surely this must have occured through millions and millions of years and there should be ample fossils for us to see right.
    It did and there are.

    This is a logical extrapolation of the data that just does not fit in with evolutionary theory.
    How does it not fit with evolutionary theory It fits perfectly. It just may not fit with your slightly odd misinterpretation of evolution.

    As a scientific observer something just does not add up right?
    Wrong.

    ....And it goes on - we just haven't found them yet.
    Haven't found what yet? Of course there are gaps in the record: fossilization is an incredibly unlikely process and we have only found a tiny fraction of the fossils that might have formed ad been preserved.

    And to add to the probability of "that we just haven't found them yet" , it apparently just occured in the last 100,000 years or so since the homo sapien.
    What happened in the last 100,000 years? There has, of course, been further evolution of humans in that time. Lactose tolerance among populations dependent on dairy products has happened relatively recently, for example.

    Surely there would be less to dig up to find these fossils and the chances are greater of finding them unless of course there must have been a transitional species that evolved and ate up all the fossils on the earth!
    We have fossils representing most of the major stages in the evolution from "fish" to humans.

    Here is a timeline of human evolution:
    Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Did you look at that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Please provide a list of examples where intelligent design outweighs evolution for explanatory power so we can discuss the merits of each case.
    Life in general,
    Forces in nature,
    The complexity of the DNA,
    Our instincts,
    How we dream and think.

    Everything around you.

    Now ask yourself how evolution explains these over intelligent design?
    Your examples are too general and not detailed enough. The devils in the details. Exactly what about "life in general"? Which "forces in nature"? What do "forces" have to do with evolution which is only about how one form of life gives rise to another? Exactly what about the complexity of DNA? Exactly what about our instincts or lack there of?

    This it time to get out the tweezers and magnifying glass. "Intelligent design" only looks plausable when you ignor the details.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Will you please attempt to understand what you are being told. Do I have to continually repeat myself. I do not rule out the possibility of Intelligent Design being involved in evolution. However, I see no significant evidence in support of this. I have asked you for such evidence. You have so far failed to provide any. The door is still open for you.
    John, exactly what sort of evidence do you need? All notions/implications of religiosity aside, isn't it clear that none of the this could have just happened? You might as well tell me computers simply happened without any intelligent design because they are capable of learning and evolving.
    The theory of evolution as expressed in the Modern Synthesis and clarified by recent genome studies appears wholly adequate to produce the diversity of life we see on the planet. Therefore, while I do not rule out the possibility of Intelligent Design I currently see no need for it. I am asking you to provide evidence that would point towards such a need. Your incredulity as to the ability of natural selection and associated processes to do the job is not evidence - well it ievidence that you don't understand much about evolution, but that's all.

    You may feel that is unfair that I am asking you for evidence of Intelligent Design, but am providing none in support of evolution. You would be wrong to feel that. I refer you to the combined work of tens of thousands of researchers in an eclectic mix of fields spanning more than one and a half centuries. If you ignore that then you remain ignorant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Sophomore votinforu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    I apologize if my remark sounded caustic. I'm frustrated because I just don't know how to explain it much better than that.
    The problem is, I think, that you made a number of assertions that seem to be based on nothing more than "common sense", which doesn't always work too well. For example, the "natural law of cause and effect"; there is no such law as far as I am aware. It is generally true, but there are effects we know of that have no cause (to the best of our knowledge) and there is even evidence that they can not have a cause.

    The relevance is that evolution suggests a progression of forward movement.
    I don't believe that is a particularly accurate description of evolution. There is meaningful definition of "progress" that can be applied to evolution. However, clearly life began at some point. The planet was created at some earlier point. But I don't see why the starting point has to be "thought" as you said.
    Causality (cause and effect) is a well known scientific premise.
    Think about it...try to trace origins as far back as you can perceive. Perhaps you will understand how I've arrived at my conclusion. However, I think you are still stumped by the concept of 'beginning' to really get it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    We have fossils representing most of the major stages in the evolution from "fish" to humans.
    And ironically we can see a very similar cell differentiation through many of those steps during our pre-natel development.

    ....evolution suggests a progression of forward movement.
    Not sure what you mean by forward, other than the fact time moves in that direction. The Bacterium in our gutts are just as evolved as we are.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    Causality (cause and effect) is a well known scientific premise.
    I'm not sure it is. After all, we know of effects which have no cause.

    However, I think you are still stumped by the concept of 'beginning' to really get it.
    I am happy with the concept of beginning. Although it isn't yet proved there was one. However, I am not convinced of the necessity for a "cause". And even less convinced that if there were a cause, that the cause would be "thought".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Sophomore votinforu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    106
    I'm not trying to avoid answering you. I want to closely scrutinize what you've written and think about a clear response. Unfortunately, I'm dealing with a major pain issue at the moment and am not able ponder a response. Please bear with me. I'll be okay soon.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Will you please attempt to understand what you are being told. Do I have to continually repeat myself. I do not rule out the possibility of Intelligent Design being involved in evolution. However, I see no significant evidence in support of this. I have asked you for such evidence. You have so far failed to provide any. The door is still open for you.
    John, exactly what sort of evidence do you need? All notions/implications of religiosity aside, isn't it clear that none of the this could have just happened? You might as well tell me computers simply happened without any intelligent design because they are capable of learning and evolving.
    The theory of evolution as expressed in the Modern Synthesis and clarified by recent genome studies appears wholly adequate to produce the diversity of life we see on the planet. Therefore, while I do not rule out the possibility of Intelligent Design I currently see no need for it. I am asking you to provide evidence that would point towards such a need. Your incredulity as to the ability of natural selection and associated processes to do the job is not evidence - well it ievidence that you don't understand much about evolution, but that's all.

    You may feel that is unfair that I am asking you for evidence of Intelligent Design, but am providing none in support of evolution. You would be wrong to feel that. I refer you to the combined work of tens of thousands of researchers in an eclectic mix of fields spanning more than one and a half centuries. If you ignore that then you remain ignorant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    Yes I have considered that notion and it does sound like nonsense that a fish mates with a land creature but I think you know what I am saying. Lets consider the notion that natural selection intended the fish to move out of the water possibly because there was a time on the earth that it was beginning to dry up. Here are just a few issues.

    What is it that instructed the DNA to change so that it would better adapt by growing feet and lungs? Could it have been by random chance? What dictated that the design of the feet was the only way that this new creature could move on land? This point alone serves the need for intelligent design. If it had occurred instantanously then this could be why we do not have many trasitional hybrids as you spoke about in your reply. There seems to be about 6.

    Then to complicate the issue, how does that hybrid find its mate? At that point in time I would presume that there were already two sexes for the species. The opposite sex of that hybrid species must have been genetically the same to reproduce and so on.

    Then why is it that the earth has many species from our ancestral past still present on the earth today? Surely if they were not naturally selected to exist on the earth in the past would it necessitate the need for them to exist on the earth today. And why don't we see completely different species trying to reproduce together? Because they were not designed to. I think it would be great to have wings for instance! Possibly with genetic mutation this may be possible but is it necessary for a perfectly suited environment?....another discussion I know.

    And lastly in response to your reply, I believe that fossils that relate to homo sapiens were as old to about 100,000 years old. Why are there so few on the earth? Are we just a new species? Previous to that it is only speculation and no DNA proof exists. This is the missing link.

    Have you ever considered the notion that the driving force behind the change in theory of evolution could have been driven by a intelligent designer or is it too unlikely to be true? There is too much scientific speculation. Intelligent design offers the explaination.
    Last edited by Curtologic; December 5th, 2011 at 09:11 PM. Reason: typos
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Yes I have considered that notion and it does sound like nonsense that a fish mates with a land creature but I think you know what I am saying.
    Yes, it is nonsense and I don't really know why you bring it up.

    Lets consider the notion that natural selection intended the fish to move out of the water possibly because there was a time on the earth that it was beginning to dry up. Here are just a few issues.

    What is it that instructed the DNA to change so that it would better adapt by growing feet and lungs?
    Nothing "instructed the DNA". If you don't even understand how evolution works, why challenge it? Wouldn't it be better to learn about it first?

    OK, let's see if we can get some of the basic concepts. A fish that moves out of the water, you say. Like mudskippers, perhaps. These fish are able to spend a significant time out of water because they have a number of small change in their anatomy to support that (let's not get into how they arose just yet). Some species hunt land animals. I think some may even mate out of water. It may well have been a species like this in the past that formed one of your "missing links" (or evolutionary steps) between fish and amphibians (one of the millions of tiny steps towards primates).

    Now, look at any population of organisms and you will see diversity. Some are taller, some are smarter. Some are lighter, some are darker. A tiny number have their heart on the right, some have two hearts. Now imagine some sub-set of the mudskipper population that are able to spend more time out of water than the others. This group moves a bit further away from the water to exploit hunting grounds the others can't reach. hey still have to return to the water, but not so often. There offspring will also have a diverse range of abilities. Some will be worse at staying out of the water and so will stick with the original population. Some will be better at staying out of water and so will move further and further away. After many generations of "selective breeding" (selected by the environment) there may be a group who can spend nearly all their lives out of the water. Perhaps they find enough water in puddles between trees, etc and become largely arboreal. At this point, even though they could still interbreed with the original population they don't because they rarely meet. They would now be classified as a separate species (remember, "species" is an arbitrary man-made distinction and this is one way of classifying them). Eventually, after many more generations there may be some genetic change that makes it impossible for them to interbreed with the original population. Meanwhile, another subset of this new population happens to have fins that are slightly more able to grasp things than others ...

    That is a grossly simplified "just so" story, but it might give you a feel for the the way things work in reality.

    Could it have been by random chance? What dictated that the design of the feet was the only way that this new creature could move on land?
    Nothing "dictated" the design. Organisms had variations in their feet (look at people you know: big feet, small feet, flat feet, 6 toes, webbed feet ...) those that worked best in a given environment gave that group an advantage - maybe they were faster and therefore better hunters - and so they outbred those that did not have that advantage.

    This point alone serves the need for intelligent design.
    I don't see it, I'm afraid.

    If it had occurred instantanously then this could be why we do not have many trasitional hybrids as you spoke about in your reply. There seems to be about 6.

    I do wish you would stop using the word hybrid. It has little to do with evolution (it may sometimes be a source of new genetic material in a species but that is all). Unless the word "hybrid" doesn't mean what you think it does?

    I'm not sure what you mean by "about 6"?

    Then to complicate the issue, how does that hybrid find its mate?
    What hybrid????

    At that point in time I would presume that there were already two sexes for the species. The opposite sex of that hybrid species must have been genetically the same to reproduce and so on.
    What hybrid species???

    Then why is it that the earth has many species from our ancestral past still present on the earth today? Surely if they were not naturally selected to exist on the earth in the past would it necessitate the need for them to exist on the earth today.
    Yes, they have been "naturally selected"; they have evolved to fit their environment. One form of pressure is competition from other species. Organisms will respond to that by adapting to a different ecological niche: not enough of plant A for everybody, then the members of the species who depend on that are less successful than those who are able to also eat B and C.

    And why don't we see completely different species trying to reproduce together?
    Well, we do occasionally. It usually doesn't work because they are not genetically compatible. It does work occasionally and we get ... hybrids. These are usually unable to reproduce and so are not often relevant to evolution.

    And lastly in response to your reply, I believe that fossils that relate to homo sapiens were as old to about 100,000 years old. Why are there so few on the earth? Are we just a new species?
    There are very few because fossilization is extremely unlikely to happen and because we are unlikely to find them. and yes, we are a (relatively) new species.

    Previous to that it is only speculation and no DNA proof exists. This is the missing link.
    It is not speculation and DNA evidence does exist.

    Have you ever considered the notion that the driving force behind the change in theory of evolution could have been driven by a intelligent designer or is it too unlikely to be true?
    It may be true. But it doesn't seem necessary and the actions of this "intelligent designer" appear to exactly the same as natural selection.

    There is too much scientific speculation.
    There is speculation, because that can lead to knew understanding. But scientific theories are not based on speculation; they are based on evidence.

    Intelligent design offers the explaination.
    It just doesn't appear to be necessary, and there is nothing to support it beyond "look!" and "it could be".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Curtologic, in many of your posts you display a very clear misunderstanding of the nature of evolution. As a consequence you are very often arguing against what you think evolution is and such arguments have little or nothing to do with what it actually is. for example, you say:
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Lets consider the notion that natural selection intended the fish to move out of the water possibly because there was a time on the earth that it was beginning to dry up.
    Natural Selection has absolutely no intentions whatsoever. When fish began the progression that would move them out of water it was because certain fish in certain environments had characteristics that made them more fit for that environment. No intention is in sight. Do you understand how important that unintelligent design concept is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    What is it that instructed the DNA to change so that it would better adapt by growing feet and lungs?
    There was absolutely no instruction. Mutations occured that influenced the 'design' of the fins. These mutations were random. Some of these changes made the fins less effective as fins. Some of them made them more effective as fins. Some of them made them more effective as proto-legs, helping them to manouver in shallow water. Fish that did not often or ever find themselves in shallow water gained no advantage from those mutations and probably found a disadvantage. The mutation was not positively selected for in those cases. Fishes that did find themselves in shallow water found the mutations beneficial and the mutation was postiviely selected for.

    So, with no instruction, but simply random mutations and natural selection (a non-random process) acting on populations in different environments, different fish populations evolved.
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    What dictated that the design of the feet was the only way that this new creature could move on land?
    Nothing dictated that this was the only way the creature could move on land. It was a combination of mutations, providing the raw material, and natural selection providing the filtering mechanism, that determined that 'feet' won the day.


    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    This point alone serves the need for intelligent design.
    No it doesn't, as I have just pointed out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    If it had occurred instantanously then this could be why we do not have many trasitional hybrids as you spoke about in your reply. There seems to be about 6..
    There is no such thing as a transitional hybrid. All individuals that produce offspring are transitional. The demarcation into species is a largely artificial division that simplifies analysis and discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Then to complicate the issue, how does that hybrid find its mate? At that point in time I would presume that there were already two sexes for the species. The opposite sex of that hybrid species must have been genetically the same to reproduce and so on.
    Again, you are envisaging huge changes in the evolutionary process. The changes are small. If you had every member of the lineage going from fish to amphibian and compare each parent with each offspring you would find almost no discernible difference between one and the other. Consequently there is absolutely no difficulty in finding a mate through whom to pass on the new mutation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Then why is it that the earth has many species from our ancestral past still present on the earth today.
    Because they are fit for the environment they find themselves in. The populations that diverged to produce a new species, genus, family, etc were in a somewhat different environment and received somewhat different mutations that proved fitter in that environment. Mutations are random, selection isn’t.

    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    And why don't we see completely different species trying to reproduce together
    Because they do not have instincts that have been selected to express such behavior. If a mutation arose that encouraged individuals to express such behavior then they would leave no offspring and that mutation would die out in one generation.

    And lastly in response to your reply, I believe that fossils that relate to homo sapiens were as old to about 100,000 years old. Why are there so few on the earth?
    The process of fossilisation is a complex one. Most dead creatures get eaten. Scavenging is a very successful lifestyle. Those that avoid being eaten in macro form are eaten in micro form. It requires many fortuitous events to successfully fossilise an individual. Then it requires further fortuitous events to return that fossil to near or at the surface. Then, for the first time, it requires an element of intelligence on the part of the anthropologist to go looking in the right place to find that fossil. We have hundreds of specimens of early man: your objections are specious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Have you ever considered the notion that the driving force behind the change in theory of evolution could have been driven by a intelligent designer or is it too unlikely to be true?
    Yes I have considered this and found that as an explanation it is unnecessary, inadequate, fanciful, unfounded, contradicted by evidence and unscientific.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    The process of fossilisation is a complex one.
    I was thinking about this some more, particular with respect to the idea of "speculation" that anti-science types are fond of throwing around.

    Not only do we have a truly minute number of fossils (a few million perhaps) but nearly all of these are incomplete. Many extinct species are known from things like a fragment of bone or a tooth.

    "What!" people will cry, "how can scientists work out anything from such tiny scraps of rubbish." Clearly it is all speculation.

    But no, hang on a moment. Let's consider an analogy. Imagine there has been a car crash. One car has driven off after the accident and just left a mirror lying on the floor.

    The policeman arrives, looks at it and thinks, "it was a red car - that is all we can say - anything more is just wild speculation"

    The crash investigator turns up and says, "I recognize this mirror, it is from a Ford Thrust. This shade of red was only in use between 2004 and 2007. Looking at the way it was torn from the vehicle we can say that ..... now as it was found this distance away we can estimate the speeds of the .... "

    So, level of expertise is important. You or I may not be able to tell anything from looking at a fragment of bone or tooth, but the expert can. A rodent tooth is distinct from a cat tooth, etc. And then, of course, there is often DNA evidence as well.

    What's that you say, a species that has never been seen before?

    Alternatively, the crash investigator says, "there is no record of a mirror exactly like this one but by looking at the method used to attach it to the bodywork, it was obviously a Citroen [i.e. it was held on with chewing gum and hope]. Judging by the shape, it is probably a development of their high-end MPV. That is confirmed by the color of the paint and the use of electric actuators. ...."

    Yes, there is some "speculation" there, but it is informed by experience and evidence. It is provisional and will be adjusted as further information is made available.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Yes I have considered that notion and it does sound like nonsense that a fish mates with a land creature but I think you know what I am saying.
    Let's face it. You haven't a clue about evolution, have you? You have no understanding of the theory you are arguing against.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    Yes, there is some "speculation" there, but it is informed by experience and evidence. It is provisional and will be adjusted as further information is made available.
    That's right - evolution is speculation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    Quote from Strange "Yes, there is some "speculation" there, but it is informed by experience and evidence. It is provisional and will be adjusted as further information is made available".

    All I need to know is that evolutionary theory is based on some speculation as stated. You can't speculate that you exist though and this is real evidence that there must have been an intelligent designer who created you. The continuous responses that I get from anti IDs is real proof that you have ignored all the evidence I have produced.

    Respecting that you have a purpose to your own existance equally shows that you have respect for what put you on this earth.
    Last edited by Curtologic; December 6th, 2011 at 07:38 PM. Reason: Rephrase
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Yes I have considered that notion and it does sound like nonsense that a fish mates with a land creature but I think you know what I am saying.
    Let's face it. You haven't a clue about evolution, have you? You have no understanding of the theory you are arguing against.
    All I need to know is that evolutionary theory is speculation as stated. You can't speculate that you exist though and this is real proof that there must have been an intelligent designer. The continuous responses that I get from anti IDs is real proof that you have ignored all the evidence I have produced.
    So you are ignoring everything that hasbeen said to you and grasping onto the use of the work speculation as reason to advocate there being a massive global conspiracy to cover up ID existence.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    You can't speculate that you exist though and this is real proof that there must have been an intelligent designer. The continuous responses that I get from anti IDs is real proof that you have ignored all the evidence I have produced.
    All the evidence you have produced is a statement - that our existence is proof of intelligent design. A statement is not evidence. When asked why our existence is proof of intelligent design, rather than evolution, you have proceeded to come forward with a whole load of objections to evolution based on your own misconceptions about the theory, rather than any valid objections to it, and have shown you have no understanding of the theory you object to.

    But you have given us no evidence for intelligent design, only misconceived objections to the alternative.

    So, what is all your evidence for intelligent design then? How is our existence evidence for it?

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Never argue with a creationist (or IDer!)! It is like playing chess with a pigeon.

    They flap their wings a lot, knock over all the pieces and then they fly back to their flock and claim victory!
    It seems I was right after all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    I have more understanding than you may speculate and have been able to recognise both the mechanism of evolution and the possibilty of creation!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    Paleoichneum ,"So you are ignoring everything that hasbeen said to you and grasping onto the use of the work speculation as reason to advocate there being a massive global conspiracy to cover up ID existence"

    I am not ignoring what was said. I accept that evolution is based on speculation. You have all ignored everything I said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    SpeedFreek.

    Gee....do I have to repeat myself again? Are you speculating you exist or are you sure? There is my evidence for intelligent design. You obviously don't get it do you?
    votinforu likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Curtologic, in many of your posts you display a very clear misunderstanding of the nature of evolution. As a consequence you are very often arguing against what you think evolution is and such arguments have little or nothing to do with what it actually is. for example, you say:
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Lets consider the notion that natural selection intended the fish to move out of the water possibly because there was a time on the earth that it was beginning to dry up.
    Natural Selection has absolutely no intentions whatsoever. When fish began the progression that would move them out of water it was because certain fish in certain environments had characteristics that made them more fit for that environment. No intention is in sight. Do you understand how important that unintelligent design concept is?

    It appears you have a problem with the word intelligent. I'm happy to call it "Effective Design" or "Purpose for design" if you want.

    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    What is it that instructed the DNA to change so that it would better adapt by growing feet and lungs?
    There was absolutely no instruction. Mutations occured that influenced the 'design' of the fins. These mutations were random. Some of these changes made the fins less effective as fins. Some of them made them more effective as fins. Some of them made them more effective as proto-legs, helping them to manouver in shallow water. Fish that did not often or ever find themselves in shallow water gained no advantage from those mutations and probably found a disadvantage. The mutation was not positively selected for in those cases. Fishes that did find themselves in shallow water found the mutations beneficial and the mutation was postiviely selected for.

    How does evolution explain where these mutations came from?

    So, with no instruction, but simply random mutations and natural selection (a non-random process) acting on populations in different environments, different fish populations evolved.

    This is complete speculation. Are you another advocate that is saying that we just randomly came to existance? Try and think outside the circle of the universe. This helps.

    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    What dictated that the design of the feet was the only way that this new creature could move on land?
    Nothing dictated that this was the only way the creature could move on land. It was a combination of mutations, providing the raw material, and natural selection providing the filtering mechanism, that determined that 'feet' won the day.

    Yes I understand this but this is speculation not evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    This point alone serves the need for intelligent design.
    No it doesn't, as I have just pointed out.

    But somehow it is perfectly suited to the environment....

    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    If it had occurred instantanously then this could be why we do not have many trasitional hybrids as you spoke about in your reply. There seems to be about 6..
    There is no such thing as a transitional hybrid. All individuals that produce offspring are transitional. The demarcation into species is a largely artificial division that simplifies analysis and discussion.

    How can you be so sure? There is no evidence to support this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Then to complicate the issue, how does that hybrid find its mate? At that point in time I would presume that there were already two sexes for the species. The opposite sex of that hybrid species must have been genetically the same to reproduce and so on.
    Again, you are envisaging huge changes in the evolutionary process. The changes are small. If you had every member of the lineage going from fish to amphibian and compare each parent with each offspring you would find almost no discernible difference between one and the other. Consequently there is absolutely no difficulty in finding a mate through whom to pass on the new mutation.

    What came first the chicken or the egg? How does evolution explain this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Then why is it that the earth has many species from our ancestral past still present on the earth today.
    Because they are fit for the environment they find themselves in. The populations that diverged to produce a new species, genus, family, etc were in a somewhat different environment and received somewhat different mutations that proved fitter in that environment. Mutations are random, selection isn’t.

    Selection is a word that is defined by something we cannot grasp or understand correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    And why don't we see completely different species trying to reproduce together
    Because they do not have instincts that have been selected to express such behavior. If a mutation arose that encouraged individuals to express such behavior then they would leave no offspring and that mutation would die out in one generation.

    "Instincts" another word that is used without definition to the context. How can you be sure that I taste peanut butter the same as you?

    "
    And lastly in response to your reply, I believe that fossils that relate to homo sapiens were as old to about 100,000 years old. Why are there so few on the earth?
    The process of fossilisation is a complex one. Most dead creatures get eaten. Scavenging is a very successful lifestyle. Those that avoid being eaten in macro form are eaten in micro form. It requires many fortuitous events to successfully fossilise an individual. Then it requires further fortuitous events to return that fossil to near or at the surface. Then, for the first time, it requires an element of intelligence on the part of the anthropologist to go looking in the right place to find that fossil. We have hundreds of specimens of early man: your objections are specious.

    I am not happy with this reply.


    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Have you ever considered the notion that the driving force behind the change in theory of evolution could have been driven by a intelligent designer or is it too unlikely to be true?
    Yes I have considered this and found that as an explanation it is unnecessary, inadequate, fanciful, unfounded, contradicted by evidence and unscientific.
    May be unecessary to some but necessary to many others.
    Last edited by Curtologic; December 6th, 2011 at 11:38 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    It appears you have a problem with the word intelligent. I'm happy to call it "Effective Design" or "Purpose for design" if you want.
    If by effective design you mean one that has been produced by inanimate, unconscious processes, then I am happy with that phrase. Is that what you mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    How does evolution explain where these mutations came from?
    The very fact that you ask such an ignorant question, yet have the audacity to question a process that you clearly have no idea about, raises serious questions about your intellect. There are several causes of mutations. I just checked wikipedia and, not surprisingly, this article is a good starting place. If you actually want to understand mutations reasonably well, then reading the relevant chapters of four or five genetics text books and a score or so of recent research papers should give you a better foundation. Until you have such a foundation it is foolish in the extreme to raise objections.

    This is complete speculation.
    This is complete, willfull ignorance that verges on being evil.
    I and others have explained to you multiple times that while most ideas in science begin with speculation this speculation is then tested and either validated, modified, or rejected. If it is validated, or validated following modification, then it is no longer speculation.

    Are you another advocate that is saying that we just randomly came to existance?
    You still refuse to listen to what you are being told. Natural selection is not a random process. The genetic stock that natural selection works on has been partially built through random processes.
    There is overwhelming evidence for these statements.


    Try and think outside the circle of the universe. This helps.
    Try and think!


    But somehow it is perfectly suited to the environment....
    There are arguably no organisms perfectly suited to their environment. If there were they wouldn't keep being eaten, drowning, falling off of cliffs, or dying from intestinal parasites.

    Moreover, you have utterly failed to understand the power of natural selection to provide a good fit (not perfect) between organism and environment. And to do that you have to pretend the volumes of evidence do not exist. And to do that you have to willfully ignore it. And to that you have to be, at heart, a little bit evil.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Gault
    There is no such thing as a transitional hybrid. All individuals that produce offspring are transitional. The demarcation into species is a largely artificial division that simplifies analysis and discussion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic
    How can you be so sure? There is no evidence to support this.
    Now you are just being thick. Offspring differ from their parents, therefore, by definition, my statements are true. Do you deny that classifications of organisms is an artificial convenience?

    What came first the chicken or the egg? How does evolution explain this?
    You consistently demonstrate your ignorance. Your question is meaningless and if you had even a glimmering of understanding of evolution you would not ask that question. I'll make a deal with you. I'll answer your question if you first answer mine: why is yellow?

    Selection is a word that is defined by something we cannot grasp or understand correct?
    More ignorance. Selection is the result of the intereaction of organisms with their environment, such that certain phenotypes and hence certain genotypes are favoured in their efforts to reproduce.

    "Instincts" another word that is used without definition to the context. How can you be sure that I taste peanut butter the same as you?

    Even more ignorance. The taste of peanut butter is not an instinct.

    I am not happy with this reply.
    Why are you not happy with it? Because you have a glimmering of recognition that you are talking bollocks and these simple comments on fossilisation help to establish that?

    May be unecessary to some but necessary to many others.
    If it is necessary to others because they have evidence, then provide that evidence. Otherwise you are just using an argument from incredulity. Here is the news: the universe does not allow itself to be dictated to by your inability to believe something.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    Yes, there is some "speculation" there, but it is informed by experience and evidence. It is provisional and will be adjusted as further information is made available.
    That's right - evolution is speculation.
    Wow. Talk about taking things out of context. A new low.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    John, please don't get frustrated. As I have said numerous times, your knowledge about your own existance is limited to the speculation around evolution. I have told you many times that you need to try and comprehend the more important primary questions which are;

    Why are we here?
    Did we appear from nothing?
    Do you exist or not?

    Before using scientific approaches to study evolution you would have needed to question the purpose of why? If you haven't, then you are completely ignorant or choosing to close the book. I have on the other hand truly looked at the evidence you have all said and I agree that there is a valid field of study in evolution but it is primarily deduced from speculation. If it was a theory, we would be able to give a reason for natural selection or recreate the mechanisms of evolution, see it happening around us now with real species (not speculation on how cells work), even create a living cell in a laboratory. As you know this is not possible today. We are just not intelligent enough to do this. So I ask is you is evolution a theory or hypothesis? Please try and understand where I am coming from.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    Is there any one in this forum that believes in a creator and also believes in evolution?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,085
    1) able to give a reason for natural selection or
    2) recreate the mechanisms of evolution,
    3) see it happening around us now with real species (not speculation on how cells work
    4) even create a living cell in a laboratory.

    Done, done, done and done.

    It seems to me as if your readings on evolution are restricted to those pieces published in the 1890's.
    To be frank, I think you have to exist in some kind of reality-distorting bubble to even contemplate the idea that evolution is speculation rather than theory.


    1) Why are we here?
    2) Did we appear from nothing?
    3) Do you exist or not?

    These questions are for theologians and philosophers and have precisely nothing to do with evolutionary theory.
    KALSTER and John Galt like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    That's right - evolution is speculation.
    That is just plain wrong. To the point of being dishonest.

    There are two aspects to this.

    First, evolution, as a process, happens. That is an unavoidable fact. Like gravity. You can see examples all around you. Science attempts to explain the consequences of that and the mechanisms behind it, in the same way that Netown and Einstein attempted to explain and explore gravity.

    So, the second part is theories of evolution. And I say theories because there are a number of different theories related to evolution that often get bundled together. For example, Darwin's theory was how the observed process of evolution could, driven by natural selection, produce the variety of species we see around us. Then there are theories related to the processes involved (which, obviously, Darwin knew nothing about). These related to how genetic information is inherited, how it is modified, how it is expressed, population diversity, etc. All of these theories are solidly based on evidence, data, experimentation and mathematics.

    Speculation plays a small role in science. Primarily in the hypothesis phase. Scientist thinks, "Hmmm... I wonder if it is possible that ...". Scientist then goes off and looks at the data. Most ideas probably get rejected at that popint - nice idea but unsupported. Otherwise, further research, testing and experimentation is done. The hypothesis may then be rejected. Or maybe not. Peer reviewed papers get published. Other scientists pick up the idea, do more tests, develop the idea further.

    Do you begin to see that speculation may be a spark for ideas, but it isn't the basis of science?
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    If it was a theory, we would be able to give a reason for natural selection or recreate the mechanisms of evolution, see it happening around us now with real species (not speculation on how cells work), even create a living cell in a laboratory.
    Reasons? Understood (diversity and natural selection)
    Mechanisms? Understood (inheritance and modification of characteristics through the genome)
    See it happening? Yes, every day in every way. Gazillions of examples. At every level from populations to changes in DNA.

    So, all confirmed then. Evolution is a good, solid scientific theory. Glad we are all agreed on that now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Is there any one in this forum that believes in a creator and also believes in evolution?
    I do not believe in a creator. I do not believe in evolution.

    I accept that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life we see on the planet. I recognise it is not only the best explanation, but an immensely elegant one.

    I do not rule out the possibility of a creator. I seriously doubt that such a creator, if it exists, is anything like the creator envisaged by conventional religions.

    As I have said numerous times, your knowledge about your own existance is limited to the speculation around evolution.
    You are correct: you have said this numerous times. Unfortuantely you have been wrong numerous times. As has been pointed out by several others and myself, evolution is not founded on speculation. Secondly, my knowledge about my own existence is not limited to what can be established from evolution. I have other tools available to me, including introspection.


    When I am considering how best to cook a filet mignon I will not ask why are we here? Did we appear from nothing? I see no reason to do it when I am exploring the way in which biodiversity arose. As zwirko has pointed out these are questions for philosophy and religion. They do not fall into the remit of science.

    Evolution has been observed. Creation of a living cell has bugger all to do with evolution. That is abiogenesis.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Is there any one in this forum that believes in a creator and also believes in evolution?
    Quite possibly. I have certainly found myself on other forums arguing alongside Christians (and other religions) against the ignorance of those who deny the facts and theories of evolution. And there are certainly biologists (who understand and accept evolution) who are also religious. There is not necessarily a conflict between believing in a creator and accepting science. Unless your belief warps your worldview so much that you have to deny the facts you see around you....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Is there any one in this forum that believes in a creator and also believes in evolution?
    I do not believe in a "creator" but I do believe in evolution.
    I am also certain it is possible to believe in both!
    Curtologic likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    SpeedFreek.

    Gee....do I have to repeat myself again? Are you speculating you exist or are you sure? There is my evidence for intelligent design. You obviously don't get it do you?
    Of course I don't get it, as you haven't explained it - you just made a statement, that is all. A statement is not evidence.

    So, I am sure that I exist.

    How is that evidence for intelligent design?

    You will have to walk me through it, step by step, as I have no idea how the knowledge that I exist is evidence of intelligent design.

    Please explain exactly how my knowing that I exist is evidence for intelligent design.

    You will need to explain it to at least the depth which we have explained evolution to you, in this thread. Go on... I'm listening.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    You guys are showing remarkable patience.

    Well done. People like Curtologic just seem incapable of even understanding why they are wrong, why their ignorance of evolution and other scientific principles is disastrous to their ability to offer anything approaching value in a debate like this. His whole argument is from ignorance, but he is incapable of even considering that this might be a problem. These types of discussions only inform the casual readers and serves little other purpose. I fear I have lost the patience to engage with these people, because I am always left with misery and despair at the sheer scope of ignorance of basic scientific principles and logic among common folk.

    Sincerely, thank you for your contributions in threads like these.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    So what's the conclusion?

    John Galt who does not believe in a creator and does not believe in evolution.

    Halliday who states:
    I do not believe in a "creator" but I do believe in evolution.
    I am also certain it is possible to believe in both!

    Strange who has not seen the difference (my opinion only)

    SpeedFreek who hasn't decided yet.

    Paleoichneum who I think reads what I say but does not make an attempt to comprehend,

    Kalster who has just projected his opinion and one that puts people in their place,

    Sealeaf, who is thinking but needs the concept of intelligent design better explained

    Votinforu who shares my opinion about intelligent design,

    Zwirko who has taken the diplomatic approach,

    Me who has drawn the line between creation and intelligent design. I believe in intelligent design and believe that an intelligent creator was the instigator of intelligent design. I also believe that evolution is a science worth persuing but only to the extent that the species intervene and make the decisions that affect their own existance not via natural selection.

    Make up your own decision. This is true diversity in biology. We are all different.
    Last edited by Curtologic; December 7th, 2011 at 08:29 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    You guys are showing remarkable patience.

    Well done. People like Curtologic just seem incapable of even understanding why they are wrong, why their ignorance of evolution and other scientific principles is disastrous to their ability to offer anything approaching value in a debate like this. His whole argument is from ignorance, but he is incapable of even considering that this might be a problem. These types of discussions only inform the casual readers and serves little other purpose. I fear I have lost the patience to engage with these people, because I am always left with misery and despair at the sheer scope of ignorance of basic scientific principles and logic among common folk.

    Sincerely, thank you for your contributions in threads like these.
    Let's face it, without me to rustle the feathers, there wouldn't have been entertainment. BTW I am not ingorant. FYI, I am highly scientifc and an excellent observer of nature and numerous scientific fields.
    Last edited by Curtologic; December 7th, 2011 at 05:33 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    BTW I am not ingorant. FYI, I am highly scientifc and an excellent observer of nature and numerous scientific fields.
    If that were true, then you are guilty of trolling.

    But I don't think it is true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    So what's the conclusion?

    John Gault who does not believe in a creator and does not believe in evolution.

    Haliday who states:
    I do not believe in a "creator" but I do believe in evolution.
    I am also certain it is possible to believe in both!

    Strange who has not seen the difference (my opinion only)

    SpeedFreek who hasn't decided yet.

    Paleoichneum who I think reads what I say but does not make an attempt to comprehend,

    Kalster who has just projected his opinion and one that puts people in their place,

    Sealeaf, who is thinking but needs the concept of intelligent design better explained

    Votinforu who shares my opinion about intelligent design,

    Zwirko who has taken the diplomatic approach,

    Me who has drawn the line between creation and intelligent design. I believe in intelligent design and believe that an intelligent creator was the instigator of intelligent design. I also believe that evolution is a science worth persuing but only to the extent that the species intervene and make the decisions that affect their own existance not via natural selection.

    Make up your own decision. This is true diversity in biology. We are all different.
    Hang on! So by using the term conclusion, you have shown that your agenda has been creationism all along. I sure didn't see that one coming!

    My conclusion: There is no scientific evidence whatsoever, for creationism. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for creationism dressed up as intelligent design. You cannot have a scientific debate about these subjects. Take it somewhere else, it isn't even pseudoscience. It's not even wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    So what's the conclusion?

    John Gault who does not believe in a creator and does not believe in evolution.

    Haliday who states:
    I do not believe in a "creator" but I do believe in evolution.
    I am also certain it is possible to believe in both!

    Strange who has not seen the difference (my opinion only)

    SpeedFreek who hasn't decided yet.

    Paleoichneum who I think reads what I say but does not make an attempt to comprehend,

    Kalster who has just projected his opinion and one that puts people in their place,

    Sealeaf, who is thinking but needs the concept of intelligent design better explained

    Votinforu who shares my opinion about intelligent design,

    Zwirko who has taken the diplomatic approach,

    Me who has drawn the line between creation and intelligent design. I believe in intelligent design and believe that an intelligent creator was the instigator of intelligent design. I also believe that evolution is a science worth persuing but only to the extent that the species intervene and make the decisions that affect their own existance not via natural selection.

    Make up your own decision. This is true diversity in biology. We are all different.
    Hang on! So by using the term conclusion, you have shown that your agenda has been creationism all along. I sure didn't see that one coming!

    My conclusion: There is no scientific evidence whatsoever, for creationism. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for creationism dressed up as intelligent design. You cannot have a scientific debate about these subjects. Take it somewhere else, it isn't even pseudoscience. It's not even wrong.
    Remember the subject was on intelligent design!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    Good news, you are all correct! Plants, animals, and everything in between have been and are being created and have been and are evolving, an explaination for it all. Although, life did not originate on this planet. And you all do realise a theory is not proven fact. Besides the theory of Creationism, the theory of Evolution, there is another, the theory of Panspermia. As a Planet Caravan, new worlds are being populated with many undescribable life forms constantly. I can see where this small minded belief system, that everyone seems to have, may have come about, being located where we are, on the outskirts of our Milky Way Galaxy, so far away from any other life giving planet. But soon we will all see many worlds, with a variety to put War of the Worlds, and even Star Wars and Star Trek to shame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    There's something pulling back into the conversation but I can't quite grasp why. What is it in our evolutionary history that is telling me this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    Yea, either that, or your all just programs stuck in the matrix. You choose, blue or red?lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,191
    I both read and comprehend your posts, I also see the lack of understanding you have for what you are arguing against.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    As I understand, there is a lack of thinking outside the little box. Take off the blinders, and see the position you have been put in. Start controlling your own thoughts and stop letting others manipulate your understanding of the obvious. The fact that they don't know any more than you do, where it comes and where it goes. Grab hold of this reality, pull yourself from self-inflicted quicksand, and take a deep breathe! Did you feel that? it may be called oxygen, but it is another demension.

    You know the Gnostics believed that the Earth and life were created by a cruel, spiteful entity, in knowing that to survive, every plant and animal must prey on another and eat the dead!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Strange who has not seen the difference (my opinion only)
    I would say there could be no difference between intelligent design and evolution IF your "designer" behaved exactly the same as natural selection. Which makes him rather redundant. He has, as we used to say, been given a job by the window. He is pressing the buttons on the "evolution control panel" not realising that they have not been wired up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    Whether or not we evolved or were designed, we are now doing our own designing. So it kinda' just looks like it could have been done before.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Kalster kindly thanked several of us for out patience in this thread. My patience just ran out as a consequence of the following.

    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    So what's the conclusion?

    John Galt who does not believe in a creator and does not believe in evolution.
    Curtologic I have reported this post. It is a gross misrepresentation of my position and typifies the tehcnique of cherry picking used by yourself and others who fall in the creationist camp. You have extracted certain of my words which, in isolation, convey a radically different sense of my position. Such an action on your part is deceitful, dishonest and despicable. Previously I had attributed your views as being the result of inadequate information. This deliberate misrepresentation of the facts leaves me in no doubt that you are cynically selecting and manipulating data. It is people like you who give religion a bad name. Shame on you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    I'll wait and see how Curtologic responds before saying anything.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    This is true diversity in biology. We are all different.
    OK. You accept biological diversity. We are halfway there. Now we just need to get you to accept (which probably means "understand") how selection works and ... ta da ... evolution is inevitable.

    How could selection operate on this diversity, i.e. the diversity in willingness to "believe" or to insist on evidence?

    Imagine an early ("primitive" in the sense they don't have our advanced knowledge of geology, etc) population living near the coast. One day, the sea starts receding faster and farther than normal. The "holy men" of the tribe start telling everyone, "our books from the prophets say that when this happens we must run for the high ground. Run!". Meanwhile, the "rational thinking" members of the tribe think, "nonsense, we have no evidence that the sea disappearing is dangerous. I am going to stay and investigate what this means". A little while later, the tsunami comes rolling in and the "rational thinkers" are nearly all drowned. The gene pool of the population has now been shifted in favour of those willing to believe, those with "faith".

    That is how evolution happens. Of course, it is not a "real" example but it is a perfectly good analogy for selection processes we have observed.

    (I biased that example to favour Curtologic's sub-tribe, but of course other events may shift the balance the other way. Which is why we still have this diversity.)

    p.s. I have assumed that traits such as "willingness to believe", "skepticism" are heritable. I think this is reasonable although I don't know if there is any scientific evidence for it. But it is just an analogy anyway...
    Last edited by Strange; December 8th, 2011 at 10:07 AM. Reason: example as analogy and p.s.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    You must all agree that the first human intelligently designed life came from Native American Tribes [Tehucaun Valley] in the form of a plant, first known as "maize", that's right corn. How long ago was this [80,000years ago]? What two plants were put together to first form it [gamagrass, teosinte, then backcrossing with early forms of maize, now extinct]? And, even though "scientists" have recently hybridized [geneticly modified] this plant again and screwed it up [in my opinion], this proves that humans have been doing intelligent design for many years, along with the breeds of horses and the breeds of dogs [this was not "natural selection], mostly by Germanic tribes, there are actually several cases of intelligent design by humans. Why not think that this could have been done to the human race as well?
    Last edited by Kalopin; December 8th, 2011 at 09:24 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    I think it is a stretch to call domestication / selective breeding "intelligent design". But, yes, man has been doing that for a long time(1); i.e. using evolution to his advantage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Why not think that this could have been done to the human race as well?
    Because there is no evidence of it happening and no evidence for the "intelligence" doing it?

    (1) I thought the earliest evidence of domestication of plants was in the Middle East, but no matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    True, it may depend on the interpatation and point of view. maybe intelligent design and evolution are more closely related than most percieve? I believe evidence of "tampering" with human development will be found, maybe in our DNA, knowing how unique or species is and how quickly the change [if in fact there was one] occurred. Still, the fact that WE can now geneticly modify plants and animals should say alot about the possibilities.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    I believe evidence of "tampering" with human development will be found..
    Maybe, but that is a belief not evidence and therefore nothing to do with scientific theories.

    Still, the fact that WE can now geneticly modify plants and animals should say alot about the possibilities.
    Again, it is possible for there to have been intervention but there is no evidence (or apparent need) for it. It is up there with "schoolboy" philosophy such as arguing that the world could have been created 5 minutes ago and made to look 4.5b years old. Possible but not very productive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    [SIZE=5] Me who has drawn the line between creation and intelligent design." I believe in intelligent design and believe that an intelligent creator was the instigator of intelligent design. I also believe that evolution is a science worth persuing but only to the extent that the species intervene and make the decisions that affect their own existance not via natural selection." ]
    I believe in a creator. I believe that creator set up a universe in which evolution totally free to produce what will work. "Intelligent design" is hog wash. That it is Hog wash is shown by the classic logical process of reduco ad absurdum. Let us assume that we know that every living thing was intelligently designed to be just the way it is. But being scientists we pay attention to details. ( Remember, I directed your attention to the details before you made a fool of yourself.) So we look at "eyes". The intelligent designer knows how to make the best eyes, so that's what he uses, right? But there are lots of different kinds of eyes, human eyes, eagle eyes, fish eyes, mollusk eyes, insect eyes. Which ones are the best? They don't even work the same way! So the designer can't be very intelligent, he can't figure out what is best and use it. Or possibly there are a bunch of different intelligent designers. I wish the guy who made the eagle's had made the human ones. Or I wish that the different designers at least talked to each other and shared information. Humans are very visual creatures yet our eyes are just barely adequate. Oh! or maybe our designer just was not very nice. He likes his little jokes. Like hemorrhoids. Did you know that only humans and maybe a very few other apes, can get hemorrhoids? It has to do with our incomplete adaptation to walking upright. Quadrupeds walk with the trunk of the body horizontal so blood returning to the heart can flow gently back on a more or less level course. The blood from the legs has to go up hill but the veins of the legs have lots of little one way valves in them. As the muscles of walking and running work they squeeze and release forcing blood up to the trunk. The veins in the trunk, the vena cava particularly, have no need for valves and have none. Except humans walk upright. Our vena cavas need those valves. But our designer did not bother with putting them in. Over time and under stress the weight of the unsupported column of blood from the floor of the pelvis to the level of the heart blows the walls out of the veins in the rectum. It also presses down on the veins in the legs and causes failures of the valves there too. I can go on for pages. I am a naturalist and I know human anatomy. Most important I don't ignore DETAILS! So from studying the real world and making your assumption, we learn that the designers are plural, they are not terribly intelligent and don't share information with each other. Finally it is pretty clear that at least some of them are pretty mean. Are you sure you want to worship these guys? Finally I can show how evolution, constant random mutations winnowed by natural selection, predicts all these oddities. Evolution just uses whatever it has and makes from it whatever will work. It makes no claim to intelligence. Nor does it set itself up as a moral arbitrator. Evolution is not good or kind, it just works.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    Strangeness, apparently in such a case as yours there most deffinitely is a need for intervention. You spout out insults with a schoolboy mentality, and little true knowledge of the facts. Is it possible for you to grow a brain cell five minutes ago? You are that which the vena cava runs to, that Sealeaf has described.

    How can anyone argue with animals that are just starting to walk upright? Obviously, to understand intelligent design you must first be intelligent! It is scientific fact that our DNA is quite unique, without explanation, to communicate so intracately, as I attempt to make a more primitive example understand!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Strangeness, apparently in such a case as yours there most deffinitely is a need for intervention. You spout out insults with a schoolboy mentality, and little true knowledge of the facts. Is it possible for you to grow a brain cell five minutes ago? You are that which the vena cava runs to, that Sealeaf has described.
    I wasn't aware of spouting any insults. Sorry if one was perceived.

    It is scientific fact that our DNA is quite unique
    But it isn't. It is almost identical to other primates. Much of it we share in common with yeast! All organisms use the same encoding and the same basic amino acids.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    Rigt now they're looking at a DNA chromosome called FoxP2 gene used for speech and communication skills. First identified from people with a speech impediment. It appears there MAY be significant differences to our closest cousins.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Rigt now they're looking at a DNA chromosome called FoxP2 gene used for speech and communication skills. First identified from people with a speech impediment. It appears there MAY be significant differences to our closest cousins.
    So you agree that the genetic structure of our closest cousins is unique. We are making progress. Will you also now agree that the genetic structure of daffodils is unique? Not to mention e.coli.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Rigt now they're looking at a DNA chromosome called FoxP2 gene used for speech and communication skills. First identified from people with a speech impediment. It appears there MAY be significant differences to our closest cousins.
    Well, of course there are differences. 99% or something similar is pretty much identical though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Me who has drawn the line between creation and intelligent design. I believe in intelligent design and believe that an intelligent creator was the instigator of intelligent design. I also believe that evolution is a science worth persuing but only to the extent that the species intervene and make the decisions that affect their own existance not via natural selection.
    some people are like eggs : too full of themselves to contain anything else
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Kalster kindly thanked several of us for out patience in this thread. My patience just ran out as a consequence of the following.

    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    So what's the conclusion?

    John Galt who does not believe in a creator and does not believe in evolution.
    Curtologic I have reported this post. It is a gross misrepresentation of my position and typifies the tehcnique of cherry picking used by yourself and others who fall in the creationist camp. You have extracted certain of my words which, in isolation, convey a radically different sense of my position. Such an action on your part is deceitful, dishonest and despicable. Previously I had attributed your views as being the result of inadequate information. This deliberate misrepresentation of the facts leaves me in no doubt that you are cynically selecting and manipulating data. It is people like you who give religion a bad name. Shame on you.
    You'd better read what you posted in post #128 the first line states exactly this. What gross misinterpretation are we talking about? If you resort to threats like this, I would have to say you were put on show. You have many times done the exact thing to me by putting my words in isolation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    You'd better read what you posted in post #128 the first line states exactly this.
    The very definition of cherry picking.

    Saying you "believe" in evolution is like saying you "believe in gravity" or you "believe in blue". It makes no sense. And it is obvious that is what was meant by the full context that you omitted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    This is true diversity in biology. We are all different.
    OK. You accept biological diversity. We are halfway there. Now we just need to get you to accept (which probably means "understand") how selection works and ... ta da ... evolution is inevitable.

    How could selection operate on this diversity, i.e. the diversity in willingness to "believe" or to insist on evidence?

    Imagine an early ("primitive" in the sense they don't have our advanced knowledge of geology, etc) population living near the coast. One day, the sea starts receding faster and farther than normal. The "holy men" of the tribe start telling everyone, "our books from the prophets say that when this happens we must run for the high ground. Run!". Meanwhile, the "rational thinking" members of the tribe think, "nonsense, we have no evidence that the sea disappearing is dangerous. I am going to stay and investigate what this means". A little while later, the tsunami comes rolling in and the "rational thinkers" are nearly all drowned. The gene pool of the population has now been shifted in favour of those willing to believe, those with "faith".

    That is how evolution happens. Of course, it is not a "real" example but it is a perfectly good analogy for selection processes we have observed.

    (I biased that example to favour Curtologic's sub-tribe, but of course other events may shift the balance the other way. Which is why we still have this diversity.)

    p.s. I have assumed that traits such as "willingness to believe", "skepticism" are heritable. I think this is reasonable although I don't know if there is any scientific evidence for it. But it is just an analogy anyway...
    I don't believe for one minute that "willingness to believe" and skepticism are heritable traits.

    We may be diverse but our genetic code is the same. Doesn't this tell you something. Let me explain. We think differently so isn't it logical to say (scientifically speaking) that our thoughts and ideas have shaped our evolutionalry trail? The fact that you agree with my statement shows that our thoughts could have had part to do with our evolution and it was not entirely due to natural selection. So to extrapolate, our instincts and decisions we made throughout our existance (or that animals have made in the past) will dictate their future existance. Since science does not understand how something "thinks" there is an element of something we cannot understand that has something to do with evolution. Until we are intelligent enough to understand it, it has to merit the intelligent design level correct?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Forum Sophomore votinforu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    Causality (cause and effect) is a well known scientific premise.
    I'm not sure it is. After all, we know of effects which have no cause.
    What are these effects you speak of that have no cause?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    I don't believe for one minute that "willingness to believe" and skepticism are heritable traits.
    Maybe not. We know that some aspects of our psychological make-up are (partly) heritable so maybe. But it doesn't matter. It was an analogy.

    Selection operates on traits of individuals. Where those traits are heritable, it alters the population. Evolution.

    We may be diverse but our genetic code is the same.
    No it isn't. Have you heard of genetic profiling? You know, for catching criminals, etc. In some cases we can identify the specific genes associated with a trait.

    We think differently so isn't it logical to say (scientifically speaking) that our thoughts and ideas have shaped our evolutionalry trail?
    Not really. That sounds like a form of Lamarckism, which has been shown not to work. And what about plants and other organisms that don't have "thoughts and ideas"? And how would it work; there is no mechanism. But we understand the mechanism of genetic heredity.

    The fact that you agree with my statement shows that our thoughts could have had part to do with our evolution and it was not entirely due to natural selection.
    What statement are you claiming I agree with? This sounds like another of your rhetorical "tricks". I certainly don't agree with your conclusion.

    So to extrapolate, our instincts and decisions we made throughout our existance (or that animals have made in the past) will dictate their future existance. Since science does not understand how something "thinks" there is an element of something we cannot understand that has something to do with evolution. Until we are intelligent enough to understand it, it has to merit the intelligent design level correct?
    How something thinks has nothing to do with how evolution works.
    Last edited by Strange; December 9th, 2011 at 06:56 AM. Reason: spelling
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    What are these effects you speak of that have no cause?
    There are events in quantum mechanics, in particular, which happen on a purely stochastic basis with no immediate cause. The classic examples are things like atomic decay or the decay of particles like muons. (But that is getting a bit off topic)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    So what's the conclusion?

    John Gault who does not believe in a creator and does not believe in evolution.

    Haliday who states:
    I do not believe in a "creator" but I do believe in evolution.
    I am also certain it is possible to believe in both!

    Strange who has not seen the difference (my opinion only)

    SpeedFreek who hasn't decided yet.

    Paleoichneum who I think reads what I say but does not make an attempt to comprehend,

    Kalster who has just projected his opinion and one that puts people in their place,

    Sealeaf, who is thinking but needs the concept of intelligent design better explained

    Votinforu who shares my opinion about intelligent design,

    Zwirko who has taken the diplomatic approach,

    Me who has drawn the line between creation and intelligent design. I believe in intelligent design and believe that an intelligent creator was the instigator of intelligent design. I also believe that evolution is a science worth persuing but only to the extent that the species intervene and make the decisions that affect their own existance not via natural selection.

    Make up your own decision. This is true diversity in biology. We are all different.
    Hang on! So by using the term conclusion, you have shown that your agenda has been creationism all along. I sure didn't see that one coming!

    My conclusion: There is no scientific evidence whatsoever, for creationism. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for creationism dressed up as intelligent design. You cannot have a scientific debate about these subjects. Take it somewhere else, it isn't even pseudoscience. It's not even wrong.
    Remember the subject was on intelligent design!
    Yes, and as I said, there is no scientific evidence for creationism dressed up as intelligent design.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    This is true diversity in biology. We are all different.
    OK. You accept biological diversity. We are halfway there. Now we just need to get you to accept (which probably means "understand") how selection works and ... ta da ... evolution is inevitable.

    How could selection operate on this diversity, i.e. the diversity in willingness to "believe" or to insist on evidence?

    Imagine an early ("primitive" in the sense they don't have our advanced knowledge of geology, etc) population living near the coast. One day, the sea starts receding faster and farther than normal. The "holy men" of the tribe start telling everyone, "our books from the prophets say that when this happens we must run for the high ground. Run!". Meanwhile, the "rational thinking" members of the tribe think, "nonsense, we have no evidence that the sea disappearing is dangerous. I am going to stay and investigate what this means". A little while later, the tsunami comes rolling in and the "rational thinkers" are nearly all drowned. The gene pool of the population has now been shifted in favour of those willing to believe, those with "faith".

    That is how evolution happens. Of course, it is not a "real" example but it is a perfectly good analogy for selection processes we have observed.

    (I biased that example to favour Curtologic's sub-tribe, but of course other events may shift the balance the other way. Which is why we still have this diversity.)

    p.s. I have assumed that traits such as "willingness to believe", "skepticism" are heritable. I think this is reasonable although I don't know if there is any scientific evidence for it. But it is just an analogy anyway...
    I don't believe for one minute that "willingness to believe" and skepticism are heritable traits.

    We may be diverse but our genetic code is the same. Doesn't this tell you something. Let me explain. We think differently so isn't it logical to say (scientifically speaking) that our thoughts and ideas have shaped our evolutionalry trail? The fact that you agree with my statement shows that our thoughts could have had part to do with our evolution and it was not entirely due to natural selection. So to extrapolate, our instincts and decisions we made throughout our existance (or that animals have made in the past) will dictate their future existance. Since science does not understand how something "thinks" there is an element of something we cannot understand that has something to do with evolution. Until we are intelligent enough to understand it, it has to merit the intelligent design level correct?
    Intelligent design shouldn't be accepted as science because it has not been tested or gained any major support by the scientific community. It has not make any or many testable claim, and its predictions have not been confirmed enough to become a theory. It lacks scientific evidence. Make of its claims have been falsified already.

    The theory of evolution on the other hand has mountains of fossil, genetic, and morphological evidence. It has made many testable claims, and many of its claims have been confirmed. It had lasted 150 years of peer review, and only gained evidence for 150 years. 500 million years of fossil evidence supports the theory of evolution. Nothing in biology would make sense without evolution, and evolution is the cornerstone of biology and palaeontology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    Still does not answer how life came about. Still evolution falls short of answering where consciousness comes from and where it goes to. Still cannot say how the amoeba came about. Still, so many leaps and bounds unidentified, unexplained, with no evidence to show for. Big holes in this theory of evolution, without answer. And what of skeletal evidence to say we came from apes? I can show you many more skulls and skeletons which have no appearance of relation with the Ape family! Elongated skulls from Peru to Egypt, giants like Hydalbraganzas, Neanderthal, and many other different type skulls. Where are all the missing links from man to ape?, from ape to fish?, from fish to amoeba?, from amoeba to what? Don't just say it because others want to believe it, prove it, which noone can. So stop saying it like it's fact. Nothing in biology would even work if it weren't for intelligent design guiding it. And this can be proved just as much. So, then answer it, if you may know, what sparked life, where, when, how, and WHY?
    votinforu likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    I wonder how a partial human hybrid made itself more attractive to attract another mate like a fish??? Sorry for the sarcasm (and I am fully aware that there is much more to it) but I just don't get it. This is the missing link! Let's just say we did evolve from fish, do you think that there was just one generation of hybrids? Surely this must have occured through millions and millions of years and there should be ample fossils for us to see right. This is a logical extrapolation of the data that just does not fit in with evolutionary theory. As a scientific observer something just does not add up right? ....And it goes on - we just haven't found them yet. And to add to the probability of "that we just haven't found them yet" , it apparently just occured in the last 100,000 years or so since the homo sapien. Surely there would be less to dig up to find these fossils and the chances are greater of finding them unless of course there must have been a transitional species that evolved and ate up all the fossils on the earth!
    Nothing "makes itself more attractive", it is naturally selected due to being better fitted to its environment.

    The rest of your post is utter nonsense, and shows that you don't know the first thing about the theory you are arguing against. You have many misconceptions about evolution.

    Perhaps you might consider the notion that, over millions of generations, some fish evolved into amphibians, and some amphibians evolved into reptiles and some reptiles evolved into mammals and some mammals evolved into primates and some primates evolved into hominids and some hominids evolved into homo sapiens. We have evidence for the evolution of hominids (which include humans) over the past 2 million years. Hominids seem to have evolved from other primates, which evolved from earlier mammals. We have a whole range of fossils from primate to hominid. We also have fossils of reptile/mammal hybrids.

    Exactly which missing link are you looking for?
    You quoted that there is evidence for the evolution of hominids over the past 2 million years. However, science has never been able to find one single chimp ancestor or any other primate fossils that lived in the past but yet were able to find so many hominids ancestral line. I have seen the picture of all those skulls that were listed as our ancestor line of descent compared to one current chimp skull. From looking at it those skull fossils could have been a chimp's or other primate and not ours.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    You tell 'em! We want to see ALL the missing links!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Forum Sophomore votinforu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    What are these effects you speak of that have no cause?
    There are events in quantum mechanics, in particular, which happen on a purely stochastic basis with no immediate cause. The classic examples are things like atomic decay or the decay of particles like muons. (But that is getting a bit off topic)
    Stochastic merely implies the cause has not been determined, not that there is no cause at all. A stochastic process may be random, indeterminable (for now), but that still does not mean there is no starting point.

    Here's how I look at things. Even when I learn something from someone I highly respect, I always figure someone else will come along who knows just a little more than that guy...even if that person hasn't been born yet. In other words, the answers science offers at the moment doesn't mean the picture is complete. There's always more to come. Knowledge is as infinite as the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Forum Sophomore votinforu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    You tell 'em! We want to see ALL the missing links!
    How can one see what is not there? How do we prove a negative?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Still does not answer how life came about....
    Still evolution falls short of answering where consciousness comes from and where it goes to.
    It doesn't explain gravity or why the sky is blue either. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains how evolution causes the variety of organisms we see are apparently well-suited to their environments. Not much more than that.

    Big holes in this theory of evolution, without answer.
    Such as?

    And what of skeletal evidence to say we came from apes?
    Well, apart from the fact we didn't "come from apes", lots of evidence.

    I can show you many more skulls and skeletons which have no appearance of relation with the Ape family! Elongated skulls from Peru to Egypt, giants like Hydalbraganzas, Neanderthal, and many other different type skulls.
    And are you an expert on primate morphology? Have you published in peer-reviewed journals on these findings?

    Where are all the missing links from man to ape?, from ape to fish?, from fish to amoeba?, from amoeba to what?
    Here is a timeline of human evolution:
    Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Did you look at that?

    There is nothing but transitional forms (i.e. what creationists dishonestly call "missing links"). Everything is a link. It is a continuous process.

    Don't just say it because others want to believe it, prove it, which noone can. So stop saying it like it's fact.
    Do you want to take a single example, such as drug resistance in bacteria, and prove it doesn't happen. Or would you prefer me to post a few hundred examples for you to demolish one by one?

    Nothing in biology would even work if it weren't for intelligent design guiding it. And this can be proved just as much.
    Go on then, prove it.

    So, then answer it, if you may know, what sparked life, where, when, how, and WHY?
    We don't yet know. But we have some good ideas. But that is not what evolution is about.
    Last edited by Strange; December 11th, 2011 at 08:19 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    You quoted that there is evidence for the evolution of hominids over the past 2 million years. However, science has never been able to find one single chimp ancestor or any other primate fossils that lived in the past but yet were able to find so many hominids ancestral line. I have seen the picture of all those skulls that were listed as our ancestor line of descent compared to one current chimp skull. From looking at it those skull fossils could have been a chimp's or other primate and not ours.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture04008.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #174  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    It's a pretty simple concept, but some find it hard to understand. The theory of evolution is a theory of.... evolution. It describes how species evolve. It does not describe how the simplest life forms came to be, it describes how everything evolved from the simplest life forms.

    If you are interested in how the simplest life forms came to be, you need to look into a subject known as abiogenesis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #175  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Anyway, back to the subject at hand - "intelligent design".

    So far, no evidence has been presented for intelligent design. All we have had so far are baseless, straw man arguments against evolution.

    So, where is the evidence for intelligent design?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #176  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Anyway, back to the subject at hand - "intelligent design".

    So far, no evidence has been presented for intelligent design. All we have had so far are baseless, straw man arguments against evolution.

    So, where is the evidence for intelligent design?
    I am leaning in the direction of our internal microbial biota that is heavily invested in all species success. Our microbes requires its host to obtain its source of chemical energy so it obviously would be in their best interest to come up with new innovations in a changing environment. We are aware that HGT between species of microbes is common and we are also aware of HGT between microbes and host. A newborn is viewed as being sterile at birth but are colonized by the mother's bacteria exiting the birth canal and or mother's milk. Since they replicate and can transfer some of them through the reproduction process, their line of descent is secured to live indefinitely by moving from body to body through time.

    I can't prove this but it is scientific journals that provided their facts that gave me the insight to view evolution in a different slant from the traditional one. My opinion is intelligent design is plural meaning many designers coming from within the host themselves which are our microbial biota.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #177  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    To Speedfreak and Strange: B.S.! Just because animals make simple adaptations to there environment does NOT disprove intelligent design! ANd, They DO try to say the human species came from the ape family, that's the silly evolution chart! But that's NOT supposed to be what the original theory that Charles Darwin suggested. He never stated that we were once monkeys. The problem is that the human race is very primitive AGAIN on this planet, and every time our life-form "evolves" enough to believe that they are SO intelligent, then once again they destroy all their advancements and themselves back to caveman status. The Theory of Panspermia makes much more sense to a less small-minded individual. Life didn't originate here, and our species came in on the same thing that took the dinasours out. The reason you find such a difference in species above and below The K-T boundary.
    Curtologic likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #178  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Nice group ad hom on anyone who disagrees with you, despite the fact you nprovide no science to back your claims
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #179  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    To Speedfreak and Strange: B.S.! Just because animals make simple adaptations to there environment does NOT disprove intelligent design! ANd, They DO try to say the human species came from the ape family, that's the silly evolution chart! But that's NOT supposed to be what the original theory that Charles Darwin suggested. He never stated that we were once monkeys. The problem is that the human race is very primitive AGAIN on this planet, and every time our life-form "evolves" enough to believe that they are SO intelligent, then once again they destroy all their advancements and themselves back to caveman status. The Theory of Panspermia makes much more sense to a less small-minded individual. Life didn't originate here, and our species came in on the same thing that took the dinasours out. The reason you find such a difference in species above and below The K-T boundary.
    To understand evolution you need to have more faith in natural selection than the faith of their creator right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #180  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    The problem is that the human race is very primitive AGAIN on this planet, and every time our life-form "evolves" enough to believe that they are SO intelligent, then once again they destroy all their advancements and themselves back to caveman status.......species came in on the same thing that took the dinasours out.
    Is that some Scientology ramblings?....
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #181  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    To understand evolution you need to have more faith in natural selection than the faith of their creator right?
    No faith required. Just an open-minded look at the evidence.

    Now, about the objective evidence for intelligent design?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #182  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    Who would believe Panspermia to be the religion that kidnapped a name like scientology!? Yea, Meteorwayne, I need a counterpoint, good luck! You should probably try to understand what a rock is first! Like I say, plenty of life out there, just not around here, probably because the intelligent ones out there keep the primitive ones away from here bercause it's so barbaric!

    Now, about objective evidence for evolution from baboons!?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #183  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Just because animals make simple adaptations to there environment does NOT disprove intelligent design!
    But it is evidence of evolution.

    What would disprove intelligent design: as it is not a scientific theory based on evidence I assume it is not falsifiable.

    Life didn't originate here, and our species came in on the same thing that took the dinasours out. The reason you find such a difference in species above and below The K-T boundary.
    Not that great: same DNA, same basic body plans, ... Why would that be? And that still doesn't really say anything about evolution, which of course we see happening all around us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #184  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    To Speedfreak and Strange: B.S.! Just because animals make simple adaptations to there environment does NOT disprove intelligent design! ANd, They DO try to say the human species came from the ape family, that's the silly evolution chart! But that's NOT supposed to be what the original theory that Charles Darwin suggested. He never stated that we were once monkeys. The problem is that the human race is very primitive AGAIN on this planet, and every time our life-form "evolves" enough to believe that they are SO intelligent, then once again they destroy all their advancements and themselves back to caveman status. The Theory of Panspermia makes much more sense to a less small-minded individual. Life didn't originate here, and our species came in on the same thing that took the dinasours out. The reason you find such a difference in species above and below The K-T boundary.
    Calling a chart based on hundreds of fossils and years of scientific research that has been peer reviewed silly without anything to back it up is an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence. E.g. we have found Australopithecus fossils that are very ape like, yet were bipedal. We have also found many fossils with facial features and brain sized right between humans and apes, (e.g. homo erecus and homo habilis). We find a progression of more and more human-like fossils in the fossil strata.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #185  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Still does not answer how life came about. Still evolution falls short of answering where consciousness comes from and where it goes to. Still cannot say how the amoeba came about. Still, so many leaps and bounds unidentified, unexplained, with no evidence to show for. Big holes in this theory of evolution, without answer. And what of skeletal evidence to say we came from apes? I can show you many more skulls and skeletons which have no appearance of relation with the Ape family! Elongated skulls from Peru to Egypt, giants like Hydalbraganzas, Neanderthal, and many other different type skulls. Where are all the missing links from man to ape?, from ape to fish?, from fish to amoeba?, from amoeba to what? Don't just say it because others want to believe it, prove it, which noone can. So stop saying it like it's fact. Nothing in biology would even work if it weren't for intelligent design guiding it. And this can be proved just as much. So, then answer it, if you may know, what sparked life, where, when, how, and WHY?
    Evolution is the simple fact that all life is related to a common ancestor. it doesn't have to explain consciousness. It just has to show common ancestry. A theory is supported when predictions it makes come true. Evolution has made many predictions that has come true, so much so, that it is now a fact.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #186  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    To Speedfreak and Strange: B.S.! Just because animals make simple adaptations to there environment does NOT disprove intelligent design! ANd, They DO try to say the human species came from the ape family, that's the silly evolution chart! But that's NOT supposed to be what the original theory that Charles Darwin suggested. He never stated that we were once monkeys. The problem is that the human race is very primitive AGAIN on this planet, and every time our life-form "evolves" enough to believe that they are SO intelligent, then once again they destroy all their advancements and themselves back to caveman status. The Theory of Panspermia makes much more sense to a less small-minded individual. Life didn't originate here, and our species came in on the same thing that took the dinasours out. The reason you find such a difference in species above and below The K-T boundary.
    To understand evolution you need to have more faith in natural selection than the faith of their creator right?
    Even creationists believe in natural selection, and the fact that it selects the best designs. It doesn't take faith.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #187  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    To understand evolution you need to have more faith in natural selection than the faith of their creator right?
    No faith required. Just an open-minded look at the evidence.

    Now, about the objective evidence for intelligent design?
    Once again I have to repeat myself. Do you believe the possiblity that you exist over the evidence of evolution? This is my objective & scientific data.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #188  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by distraff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    To Speedfreak and Strange: B.S.! Just because animals make simple adaptations to there environment does NOT disprove intelligent design! ANd, They DO try to say the human species came from the ape family, that's the silly evolution chart! But that's NOT supposed to be what the original theory that Charles Darwin suggested. He never stated that we were once monkeys. The problem is that the human race is very primitive AGAIN on this planet, and every time our life-form "evolves" enough to believe that they are SO intelligent, then once again they destroy all their advancements and themselves back to caveman status. The Theory of Panspermia makes much more sense to a less small-minded individual. Life didn't originate here, and our species came in on the same thing that took the dinasours out. The reason you find such a difference in species above and below The K-T boundary.
    To understand evolution you need to have more faith in natural selection than the faith of their creator right?
    Even creationists believe in natural selection, and the fact that it selects the best designs. It doesn't take faith.
    Maybe so but have you really considered which design is the better design? According to you are humans the better design? I don't necessarily think so. So is natural selection an accurate science then? I believe all creations in the universe are perfectly suited to their environment and this is why they were created individually. The term faith was not to be put in context with "religious" faith.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #189  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    No organism is perfectly suited to it's environment. That's why natural selection occurs, because those that have a small advantage for their particular niche have a higher likelyhood of reproducing, and passing on their genes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #190  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Once again I have to repeat myself. Do you believe the possiblity that you exist over the evidence of evolution? This is my objective & scientific data.
    I'm not sure I understand the question or the reason for it. Obviously, I exist. Equally obviously, evolution happens.

    So ... ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #191  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    I believe all creations in the universe are perfectly suited to their environment
    And what happens when the environment changes? The population evolves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #192  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    No organism is perfectly suited to it's environment. That's why natural selection occurs, because those that have a small advantage for their particular niche have a higher likelyhood of reproducing, and passing on their genes.
    I don't think you have thought about my question but how is it that you can say that no organism is perfectly to our environment? Where is your evidence for that comment? If it was not perfectly suited then it is currently being extinct by natural selection and thus evolution will be able to predict our future.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #193  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    If it was not perfectly suited then it is currently being extinct by natural selection ...
    Well, if that is a garbled way of saying that the population will be modified by the environment then, yes you got it.

    ... and thus evolution will be able to predict our future.
    That looks like a non-sequitur. Unless you can explain the logic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #194  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Now, about the objective evidence for intelligent design?
    Once again I have to repeat myself. Do you believe the possiblity that you exist over the evidence of evolution? This is my objective & scientific data.
    I believe that I exist, due to evolution. There is objective and scientific data that supports this.

    I do not see how my existence is evidence for intelligent design. Please spell out how my existence is evidence for intelligent design.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #195  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    I believe all creations in the universe are perfectly suited to their environment
    And what happens when the environment changes? The population evolves.
    You'll have to be more specific than that. However, In general, we will adapt as an individual species by altering our environment and not via natural selection, unless there is a cataclysmic event that wipes us off the earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #196  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    You'll have to be more specific than that.
    How about not ignoring all the provided examples of evolution. Shall we start with bacteria evolving drug resistance? Or would you like me to pick another one?

    However, In general, we will adapt as an individual species by altering our environment and not via natural selection, unless there is a cataclysmic event that wipes us off the earth.
    Well yes, man (and many other organisms) can affect their environment. But that doesn't stop evolution. When certain populations changed their environment by farming animals for dairy products they evolved lactose tolerance. Neat, huh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #197  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Now, about the objective evidence for intelligent design?
    Once again I have to repeat myself. Do you believe the possiblity that you exist over the evidence of evolution? This is my objective & scientific data.
    I believe that I exist, due to evolution. There is objective and scientific data that supports this.

    I do not see how my existence is evidence for intelligent design. Please spell out how my existence is evidence for intelligent design.
    Are you such a simple organism that can be designed and altered easily or are you so complex that it took something with a far greater intelligence than yourself to create you? This is in Layman's terms of course.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #198  
    Forum Sophomore votinforu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    It's a pretty simple concept, but some find it hard to understand. The theory of evolution is a theory of.... evolution. It describes how species evolve. It does not describe how the simplest life forms came to be, it describes how everything evolved from the simplest life forms.

    If you are interested in how the simplest life forms came to be, you need to look into a subject known as abiogenesis.
    And therein lies the problem with refuting intelligent design. You describe how things evolved, but you can never tell us how it all began. I think the 'beginning' is crucial to refuting intelligent design. You can destroy all "notions" of intelligent design if you will just please tell us how it all began. Simple, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #199  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    You'll have to be more specific than that.
    How about not ignoring all the provided examples of evolution. Shall we start with bacteria evolving drug resistance? Or would you like me to pick another one?

    However, In general, we will adapt as an individual species by altering our environment and not via natural selection, unless there is a cataclysmic event that wipes us off the earth.
    Well yes, man (and many other organisms) can affect their environment. But that doesn't stop evolution. When certain populations changed their environment by farming animals for dairy products they evolved lactose tolerance. Neat, huh?
    Here is an example that is utter nonsense because our mothers' milk always contained lactose. When was it that primates including humans never drunk their mother's milk?
    Last edited by Curtologic; December 12th, 2011 at 05:59 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #200  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Are you such a simple organism that can be designed and altered easily or are you so complex that it took something with a far greater intelligence than yourself to create you? This is in Layman's terms of course.
    Neither. We are complex organisms that evolved. That is what all the evidence shows.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Intelligent Design people got to me! Help!
    By GreatBigBore in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: June 2nd, 2010, 04:06 AM
  2. Intelligent design and the monkfish
    By Robbie in forum Biology
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: November 26th, 2008, 08:25 AM
  3. intelligent design hypothesis
    By streamSystems in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: February 6th, 2008, 04:29 PM
  4. intelligent design advert
    By marnixR in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 11th, 2008, 07:34 PM
  5. Some QUESTIONS about Intelligent Design!
    By charles brough in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: May 30th, 2007, 08:16 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •