Notices
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 518
Like Tree33Likes

Thread: Intelligent Design ????

  1. #201  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Here is an example that is utter nonsense because our mother's milk always contained lactose.
    And yet ... most adults cannot digest it. Except those that evolved tolerance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    And therein lies the problem with refuting intelligent design.
    There's no reason to refute intelligent design from a scientific point of view. It's not a valid hypothesis.
    From a philosophical point of view, it also fails because it leaves a gapping logic hole with the obvious unanswered question of how did the "designer" come to be. Explaining how a life advanced enough to design other life, is a MUCH larger gap than asking how first primitive life came to be. Meanwhile there's no doubt about evolution, it's consistent with observation, the fossil record, genetic study and its principles successfully modeled for nearly 30 years. Only ignorance, often willful ignorance because it doesn't correspond to their pet superstition, keeps people from accepting evolution as fact (in the popular use of the word) at this point.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    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?
    They just don't get it do they????!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    And therein lies the problem with refuting intelligent design.
    There's no reason to refute intelligent design from a scientific point of view. It's not a valid hypothesis.
    From a philosophical point of view, it also fails because it leaves a gapping logic hole with the obvious unanswered question of how did the "designer" come to be. Explaining how a life advanced enough to design other life, is a MUCH larger gap than asking how first primitive life came to be. Meanwhile there's no doubt about evolution, it's consistent with observation, the fossil record, genetic study and its principles successfully modeled for nearly 30 years. Only ignorance, often willful ignorance because it doesn't correspond to their pet superstition, keeps people from accepting evolution as fact (in the popular use of the word) at this point.
    One step at a time my dear friend! I have always drawn the line just before that. I classify that Intelligent design is a theory and not hypothesis because we all know that we exist. It is simple to prove. We do not speculate this evidence unlike evolution which is built entirely on speculation. I don't think anyone has a prorogative to question why the universe was created.
    Last edited by Curtologic; December 11th, 2011 at 05:39 PM. Reason: typos.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    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
    Here is an example that is utter nonsense because our mother's milk always contained lactose.
    And yet ... most adults cannot digest it. Except those that evolved tolerance.
    Where did you get this from? Maybe because as humans we have substitued the natural source with other chemicals or animal milk. It doesn't mean we have de-evolved from it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Where did you get this from?
    For example, Lactose intolerance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Quote Originally Posted by WP
    Among mammals, lactase persistence is unique to humans – it evolved relatively recently (in the last 10,000 years) among some populations, and the majority of people worldwide remain lactase non-persistent
    For more see:
    Swallow, D. M. (2003). "Genetics of lactase persistence and lactose intolerance". Annual Review of Genetics 37: 197–219. doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.37.110801.143820
    Last edited by Strange; December 11th, 2011 at 06:23 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    One step at a time my dear friend! I have always drawn the line just before that. I classify that Intelligent design is a theory and not hypothesis because we all know that we exist.
    How does that prove intelligent design. All it proves is that we are here. On the one hand we have evolution with mountains of evidence and a well understood mechanism. On the other we have the idea of intelligent design which is non-scientific with no supporting evidence.

    unlike evolution which is built entirely on speculation
    Except that it isn't built on speculation but mountains of evidence that we see around us all the time. Drug resistant bacteria. Domesticated crops and animals. Kew primrose. The peppered moth. Live birth in three toed skinks. E coli developing the ability to metabolize citrate. And on and on and on ...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    Is this thread not about questioning "intelligent design"? I'm not trying to disprove evolution, just the fact that we evolved from such a lower form. The steps were not that gradual as many believe , there are several unexplainable extreme leaps. Intelligent design works with evolution. It uses evolution to create a more suitable life form. As I have previously stated, humans put many plants and animals together to create a whole new species, this was not natural selection. So then, this is proof of intelligent design. There has been manipulation of species somewhere in our past that was not natural selection, and though you may say all life is simalar, it is more true that all life is distinct.

    It is regardles, because the invention of corn is proof of intelligent design, and science is proving more and more how easily it is to manipulate life forms.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,839
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    And therein lies the problem with refuting intelligent design. You describe how things evolved, but you can never tell us how it all began.
    If you are limiting "intelligent design" to some intelligence initially creating the rules of chemistry and physics such that evolution then works to produce all the varieties of life we see around us, then I guess I can't really object. You can even insist that your intelligent being created the first living cell, I suppose. There is no evidence for any of that. I see no need for it. And it ain't science. But knock yourself out.

    This intelligent designer must have been pretty smart and pretty complex. So who designed the designer?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    [
    One step at a time my dear friend! I have always drawn the line just before that.
    Actually you just wished it away, it was always implicit in your assumptions. It's also pure hypocrisy to complain about lack of solid hypothesis about abiogenisis, while avoiding the far more complicated question of godgenisis.

    Given the robustness of evolution in principle, if some intelligent beings did mess with our development, they almost certainly evolved in their own right.

    I classify that Intelligent design is a theory and not hypothesis because we all know that we exist.
    I don't know if you are using the academic language of science or of the general population for "hypothesis" or "theory." To be clear I was using them in terms of science.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    The steps were not that gradual as many believe
    Evidence?

    there are several unexplainable extreme leaps
    Which are what, exactly?

    Intelligent design works with evolution. It uses evolution to create a more suitable life form.
    Evidence?

    There has been manipulation of species somewhere in our past that was not natural selection
    Evidence?

    It is regardles, because the invention of corn is proof of intelligent design
    And we know which "intelligence" did and when. And that they used the mechanisms of evolution. We have no evidence of other intelligences doing the same.

    and science is proving more and more how easily it is to manipulate life forms.
    But not providing any evidence that anyone else has done it. Are you confusing "possible" (could happen) with "actual" (did happen)?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    The question was whether or not intelligent design exists, not who did it. Regardless, do you not believe that if man can accomplish this, and in such a short time frame, considering the progress in just the last couple hundred years or even the last fifty years, that another intelligent form of life might not also be able to use or has used intelligent design, and maybe on the human species?

    Now, it's another question to whether there is other intelligent life!
    Last edited by Kalopin; December 11th, 2011 at 08:03 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    The question was whether or not intelligent design exists, not who did it. Regardless, do you not believe that if man can accomplish this, and in such a short time frame, cinsidering the progress in just the last couple hundred years or even the last fifty years, that another intelligent form of life might not also be able to use or has used intelligent design, and maybe on the human species?
    It is possible. But there is no evidence for it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    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.
    What do you mean the better design? And what do you mean by better? Better as in survival, intelligence, strength, size? Natural selection is the fact that some organisms survive better than others because of the environment they are in, and their characteristics coded by their DNA. This is not shaky science. We see natural selection working in instances of micro evolution. Do you want me to present the evidence for you?

    We are not perfectly suited to our environment. If we were, we would be made perfectly. Obviously, that is wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    You tell 'em! We want to see ALL the missing links!
    Google it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    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
    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.
    Well, what about HIV? There are a few people who are resistant to it in Africa. They will spread through the population.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    The question was whether or not intelligent design exists, not who did it. Regardless, do you not believe that if man can accomplish this, and in such a short time frame, cinsidering the progress in just the last couple hundred years or even the last fifty years, that another intelligent form of life might not also be able to use or has used intelligent design, and maybe on the human species?

    Now, it's another question to whether there is other intelligent life!
    Hypothetically an intelligent designer could make life. However, evolution already has evidence, so that debate is over.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    Forum Sophomore votinforu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by distraff View Post
    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.
    Right. Evolution doesn't have to explain consciousness. But how do believers in evolution explain it? Believers in intelligent design covers the whole package. All you guys have is evolution, which is just part of the package.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    Forum Sophomore votinforu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Is this thread not about questioning "intelligent design"? I'm not trying to disprove evolution, just the fact that we evolved from such a lower form. The steps were not that gradual as many believe , there are several unexplainable extreme leaps. Intelligent design works with evolution. It uses evolution to create a more suitable life form. As I have previously stated, humans put many plants and animals together to create a whole new species, this was not natural selection. So then, this is proof of intelligent design. There has been manipulation of species somewhere in our past that was not natural selection, and though you may say all life is simalar, it is more true that all life is distinct.

    It is regardles, because the invention of corn is proof of intelligent design, and science is proving more and more how easily it is to manipulate life forms.
    You may be accused of using too much common sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,839
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Is this thread not about questioning "intelligent design"? I'm not trying to disprove evolution, just the fact that we evolved from such a lower form. The steps were not that gradual as many believe , there are several unexplainable extreme leaps. Intelligent design works with evolution. It uses evolution to create a more suitable life form. As I have previously stated, humans put many plants and animals together to create a whole new species, this was not natural selection. So then, this is proof of intelligent design. There has been manipulation of species somewhere in our past that was not natural selection, and though you may say all life is simalar, it is more true that all life is distinct.

    It is regardles, because the invention of corn is proof of intelligent design, and science is proving more and more how easily it is to manipulate life forms.
    You may be accused of using too much common sense.
    Not too much common sense and zero evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,839
    Quote Originally Posted by distraff View Post
    Well, what about HIV? There are a few people who are resistant to it in Africa. They will spread through the population.
    Apparently, there is a larger proportion of people resistant to HIV among populations descended from survivors of the Black Death (I think; might have to check that) - the same genes that gave them resistance to that also provides protection from HIV. So if more people throughout the world had caught the plague, we might not see AIDS as such a big problem. (So much for intelligently guided human evolution.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Forum Sophomore votinforu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    There has been manipulation of species somewhere in our past that was not natural selection
    Evidence?

    and science is proving more and more how easily it is to manipulate life forms.
    But not providing any evidence that anyone else has done it. Are you confusing "possible" (could happen) with "actual" (did happen)?
    ....Dolly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by distraff View Post
    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.
    Right. Evolution doesn't have to explain consciousness. But how do believers in evolution explain it? Believers in intelligent design covers the whole package. All you guys have is evolution, which is just part of the package.
    Yea, you have everything explained. Thats what happens when you sit in your armchairs and make stuff up. You can freaking explain everything, just making things up. Why is there thunder? Zeus makes it. How did the stars get there? God made them out of nothing. Why is the human race here? God made them. Why are there mountains? God took a s**t.

    However scientists can't just make stuff up because they are bogged down with this evidence thing. Before they believe something, they need to present a scientific explanation and present evidence for it. That takes a while, and we still don't know how some things in the brain works yet. So before we can explain consciousness, we first need to know how it works, and then find reasonable mechanism by which it could have happened, and then test that theory, and provide evidence for it. If we want to explain the brain with evolution, we have to make a good model of how the brain evolved with some examples from modern animals and the fossil record. We also have to know a lot about how the brain works and the genes that code for it. Thats alot harder than just making stuff up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by distraff View Post
    Well, what about HIV? There are a few people who are resistant to it in Africa. They will spread through the population.
    Apparently, there is a larger proportion of people resistant to HIV among populations descended from survivors of the Black Death (I think; might have to check that) - the same genes that gave them resistance to that also provides protection from HIV. So if more people throughout the world had caught the plague, we might not see AIDS as such a big problem. (So much for intelligently guided human evolution.)
    Thank God for the black plague.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    Guess what "The Big Bang Theory" starts out the same way, with the same opening line in Genesis. In the beginning there was only darkness, nothing, and from one single point an explosion, light from darkness! It was Evolution and Intelligent Design to start Panspermia. Science connot and will never find the origin.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Guess what "The Big Bang Theory" starts out the same way, with the same opening line in Genesis. In the beginning there was only darkness, nothing, and from one single point an explosion, light from darkness! It was Evolution and Intelligent Design to start Panspermia. Science connot and will never find the origin.
    None of these are or were ever covered by evolution, so bringing them up is pointless obfuscation.
    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  
     

  27. #227  
    Forum Sophomore votinforu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx_fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    and therein lies the problem with refuting intelligent design.
    there's no reason to refute intelligent design from a scientific point of view. It's not a valid hypothesis.

    Some scientists question the validity, other scientists disagree
    with them.

    from a philosophical point of view, it also fails because it leaves a gapping logic hole with the obvious unanswered question of how did the "designer" come to be. Explaining how a life advanced enough to design other life, is a much larger gap than asking how first primitive life came to be.
    I was waiting for this one to come up. Who designed the intelligent designer? This is where I express my belief in a Creator. Yep. That's right. I believe in God!!!! I believe He is not a created being and the proof is simply that He is The Creator. One who is the creator, cannot be created, as He would have had to create His Self. He simply exists with no beginning and no end. My belief is based on faith and a knowing far beyond intellectual understanding.
    People have been talking about inadequate amounts of bits of fossils
    as evidence to support evolution. Is basing a belief on miniscule evidence very different from basing a belief on no evidence (I'm not conceding there is no evidence of intelligent design)? All things being equal (e.g. bits of fossils), could it be evidence enough that billions of people over the course of thousands of years, from every walk of life, believed/s in the existence of a creator? Most may not offer concrete evidence to support their belief, while some refer to miracles as evidence. But, still they believe. Why have so many people believed in something most of them have never seen with their own eyes? Because they know in their very being (spirit) it's true. The evidence is within.

    Meanwhile there's no doubt about evolution, it's consistent with observation, the fossil record, genetic study and its principles successfully modeled for nearly 30 years. Only ignorance, often willful ignorance because it doesn't correspond to their pet superstition, keeps people from accepting evolution as fact (in the popular use of the word) at this point.

    Scientists have hung onto easily refuted claims for various reasons, such as grants and funding, status, political agendas and maybe even pet superstitions or ignorance. Who knows?
    Last edited by votinforu; December 11th, 2011 at 09:15 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    Forum Sophomore votinforu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by distraff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by distraff View Post
    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.
    Right. Evolution doesn't have to explain consciousness. But how do believers in evolution explain it? Believers in intelligent design covers the whole package. All you guys have is evolution, which is just part of the package.
    Yea, you have everything explained. Thats what happens when you sit in your armchairs and make stuff up. You can freaking explain everything, just making things up. Why is there thunder? Zeus makes it. How did the stars get there? God made them out of nothing. Why is the human race here? God made them. Why are there mountains? God took a s**t.

    However scientists can't just make stuff up because they are bogged down with this evidence thing. Before they believe something, they need to present a scientific explanation and present evidence for it. That takes a while, and we still don't know how some things in the brain works yet. So before we can explain consciousness, we first need to know how it works, and then find reasonable mechanism by which it could have happened, and then test that theory, and provide evidence for it. If we want to explain the brain with evolution, we have to make a good model of how the brain evolved with some examples from modern animals and the fossil record. We also have to know a lot about how the brain works and the genes that code for it. Thats alot harder than just making stuff up.
    Okay, that's a rational defense. Science in general can't explain everything yet. May I (me, personally) receive the same benefit of the doubt as I can't explain everything either. That doesn't mean I'm making up what I do know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    Some scientists question the validity, other scientists disagree with them. ...

    Scientists have hung onto easily refuted claims for various reasons, such as grants and funding, status, political agendas and maybe even pet superstitions or ignorance. Who knows?
    Some grand conspiracy. Ya, my words, not yours, but I'm trying to figure out what you really meant.

    Your declaration of faith, as heart felt as they might be, contributes nothing to your arguments on a science forum. Nor does you appeal to popularity based on the billions of ignorant people and in many cases believed in hundreds of different gods than you.

    Why have so many people believed in something most of them have never seen with their own eyes?

    You wouldn't like the answer to that. It starts with imposing superstitions on impressionable young mind, much as many parents will do over the next month. It goes on with a range of well rehearsed methods (I will not detail, but as a former Catholic have some insight about) that inoculate people from reasoned thinking by the time they reach adulthood.

    I'd rather read your compelling, well reasoned, scientific reasons for accepting creationism/ID though. I've never seen any before.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Science in general can't explain everything yet.
    And it's clear that there are some things that science might never explain because the evidence is completely and utterly gone forever. That still doesn't mean we get to replace that uncertainty with the mythological being of choice.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    Do you believe the drawings and writings of our ancestors was all just made up stuff, out of nowhere? OR, do you believe they might have been trying to describe something that they could not explain? AND, please whose a "former" Catholic, no such thing.

    Intlligent design is everywhere, it is the same as natural selection, because if an animal is intelligent they would select the best design!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Do you believe the drawings and writings of our ancestors was all just made up stuff, out of nowhere? OR, do you believe they might have been trying to describe something that they could not explain? AND, please whose a "former" Catholic, no such thing.

    Intlligent design is everywhere, it is the same as natural selection, because if an animal is intelligent they would select the best design!
    Beautiful daughter of Zeus and Demeter; sometimes considered an Olympian. While gathering flowers in a field one day, Persephone was abducted to the Underworld by Hades, who arose in his chariot from a fissure in the ground. Demeter, goddess of the harvest, was heartbroken, and while she wandered the length and breadth of the earth in search of her daughter, the crops withered and it became perpetual winter. At length Hades was persuaded to surrender Persephone for one half of every year, the spring and summer seasons when flowers bloom and the earth bears fruit once more. The half year that Persephone spends in the Underworld as Hades' queen coincides with the barren season. The heroes Peirithous and Theseus attempted to abduct Persephone and bring her back to the land of the living.

    Sometimes people just make stuff up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Do you believe the drawings and writings of our ancestors was all just made up stuff, out of nowhere?
    Yep for the most part, or trying to fit something they observed into their superstitious mental model of the world. Both are probably the result of our evolution--our ability to imagine things which is great for planning things as well as keeping us out of harms way with little penalty. If I imagine the rustling grass is a monster I get scared and develop options such as run, scream for help, pick up my spear, or hide as low as I can--if I'm right I increased my chance to survive, if I'm wrong no great loss. On the other hand if fail to imagine the real leopard I can't see yet, I get eaten.

    AND, please whose a "former" Catholic, no such thing.
    I am, despite your inability to understand that many people "grow up." (if that's offensive sorry...I think John, Luke and others from Hebrew mythology were fools)

    Are you doing to present scientific evidence?
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by distraff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by distraff View Post
    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.
    Right. Evolution doesn't have to explain consciousness. But how do believers in evolution explain it? Believers in intelligent design covers the whole package. All you guys have is evolution, which is just part of the package.
    Yea, you have everything explained. Thats what happens when you sit in your armchairs and make stuff up. You can freaking explain everything, just making things up. Why is there thunder? Zeus makes it. How did the stars get there? God made them out of nothing. Why is the human race here? God made them. Why are there mountains? God took a s**t.

    However scientists can't just make stuff up because they are bogged down with this evidence thing. Before they believe something, they need to present a scientific explanation and present evidence for it. That takes a while, and we still don't know how some things in the brain works yet. So before we can explain consciousness, we first need to know how it works, and then find reasonable mechanism by which it could have happened, and then test that theory, and provide evidence for it. If we want to explain the brain with evolution, we have to make a good model of how the brain evolved with some examples from modern animals and the fossil record. We also have to know a lot about how the brain works and the genes that code for it. Thats alot harder than just making stuff up.
    Okay, that's a rational defense. Science in general can't explain everything yet. May I (me, personally) receive the same benefit of the doubt as I can't explain everything either. That doesn't mean I'm making up what I do know.
    I guess I might have jumped to conclusions. Sorry.

    So are you are creationist, Christian evolutionist, secular evolutionist, or don't know?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #235  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Guess what "The Big Bang Theory" starts out the same way, with the same opening line in Genesis. In the beginning there was only darkness, nothing, and from one single point an explosion, light from darkness! It was Evolution and Intelligent Design to start Panspermia. Science connot and will never find the origin.
    Actually the big bang says nothing about the beginning of the singularity. It only describes the expansion of the universe. Can you explain how God went about making the universe(doesn't have to be detailed)?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #236  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    126
    What do people make of this statement?
    ... to argue about nature without reference to evidence is dishonest, and there exists an ethical imperative to treat such a form of dishonesty as you would any other.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #237  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    Thanks, letternumberguy, There seems to be quite a bit of dishonesty here, mostly ones that lie to themselves. To expect evidence of what another may believe when there is little or no evidence of what you may believe is quite hipocritical. There is as much a reason to believe that there is intelligent design as there is to believe in evolution. The fact that life exists at all is as a miracle. and to be in the position humankind now is, is truly far beyond amazing. If you may understand these words, although you may still believe it was all by chance, you will have to admit, it sure was a lucky roll!

    Who was it who said "it would be easier to assemble a jumbo jet in a junk yard", or something to that effect?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #238  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    To expect evidence of what another may believe when there is little or no evidence of what you may believe is quite hipocritical. There is as much a reason to believe that there is intelligent design as there is to believe in evolution.
    Your arguments from incredulity don't help your case.


    The fact that life exists at all is as a miracle.
    And there we find common ground, but from the definition of miracle as an extraordinarily wondrous and beautiful event made all the more so by scientific understanding how it works; a heck of a lot more interesting than a hand-wave, (or heavy breathing on a mud pile) from an invisible "friend."
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #239  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    I might go for the "heavy breathing on a mudpile". The only thing, science does NOT know how it works, and barely knows how to make it work, science right now just knows that it does work!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #240  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Thanks, letternumberguy, There seems to be quite a bit of dishonesty here, mostly ones that lie to themselves. To expect evidence of what another may believe when there is little or no evidence of what you may believe is quite hipocritical. There is as much a reason to believe that there is intelligent design as there is to believe in evolution. The fact that life exists at all is as a miracle. and to be in the position humankind now is, is truly far beyond amazing. If you may understand these words, although you may still believe it was all by chance, you will have to admit, it sure was a lucky roll!
    But i believe that 'reason to believe' depends on evidence, and there isn't evidence of intelligence design other than contorted argument based on personal exprience, which doesn't qualify.
    So for me your position isn't just wrong, it's dishonest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #241  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    The huge pieces missing in evolution are the evidence for intelligent design. And, I already proved that intelligent design is not only possible, but that humans have been doing it for thousands of years. Now scientist use intelligent design all the time. So intelligent design is a fact, and there is your evidence, CORN.




    NO LIE!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #242  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    126
    Right, WTF is going on? What is corn? What definition of intlligent design are people using (i'm not reading the whole thread since it's seems to be a cassrole of pointless bullshit, no offense meant)? What, in short, the fuck is happening?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #243  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    The huge pieces missing in evolution are the evidence for intelligent design. And, I already proved that intelligent design is not only possible, but that humans have been doing it for thousands of years. Now scientist use intelligent design all the time. So intelligent design is a fact, and there is your evidence, CORN.




    NO LIE!
    Well, just because some things are designed does not mean all things are designed.

    premise: design is a reasonable explanation for complexity.
    conclusion: Therefore, design is the only explanation for complexity.


    Premise: Some complex things have already been proven to be designed.
    Conclusion: Therefore, all complex things are now proven to be designed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #244  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    The thread just asks if intelligent design exists. I just make the arguement that humans have manipulated plants and animals for a long time, maybe corn wasn't even the first. But we invented all kinds of animals, as different breeds of dogs, horses, cows, sheep, all different kinds of flowers and plants, that would not have ever existed if not for human intervention. So, we have to say that we've established the possibility. Now, were we intelligently designed? I pause...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #245  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    126
    Oh right you mean actual corn, i thought it was some acronym or somthing. Where we intelligently designed? There isn't any reasonable prsntation of evidence that suggests such.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #246  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by CMR80606 View Post
    Oh right you mean actual corn, i thought it was some acronym or somthing. Where we intelligently designed? There isn't any reasonable prsntation of evidence that suggests such.
    Ow I don't think there's any doubt that humans deliberately selected what they saw as the best samples of favorable gene combinations and mutation for many of our crops (corn, wheat, almonds etc), pets (e.g dogs) and food animals(cows, pigs,)--that's not where ID fails. It fails because there's no such evidence of external selection outside of humans (and perhaps a few other animals), nor any good evidence for anything to do the designing before humans.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #247  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    126
    er...what? i didn't doubt that did i? I didn't mean to anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #248  
    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
    And therein lies the problem with refuting intelligent design. You describe how things evolved, but you can never tell us how it all began.
    If you are limiting "intelligent design" to some intelligence initially creating the rules of chemistry and physics such that evolution then works to produce all the varieties of life we see around us, then I guess I can't really object. You can even insist that your intelligent being created the first living cell, I suppose. There is no evidence for any of that. I see no need for it. And it ain't science. But knock yourself out.

    This intelligent designer must have been pretty smart and pretty complex. So who designed the designer?
    Yes!

    Why doesn't any one seem to fathom the concept of a beginning? When I think of beginning in reference to intelligent design, I'm thinking about what precedes cells and amino acids as the beginning. I'm thinking about the point when nothing became something. How does evolution explain that beginning? It can't. Evolution only explains how something became something.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #249  
    Forum Sophomore votinforu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    Some scientists question the validity, other scientists disagree with them. ...

    Scientists have hung onto easily refuted claims for various reasons, such as grants and funding, status, political agendas and maybe even pet superstitions or ignorance. Who knows?
    Some grand conspiracy. Ya, my words, not yours, but I'm trying to figure out what you really meant.

    Your declaration of faith, as heart felt as they might be, contributes nothing to your arguments on a science forum. Nor does you appeal to popularity based on the billions of ignorant people and in many cases believed in hundreds of different gods than you.

    Why have so many people believed in something most of them have never seen with their own eyes?

    You wouldn't like the answer to that. It starts with imposing superstitions on impressionable young mind, much as many parents will do over the next month. It goes on with a range of well rehearsed methods (I will not detail, but as a former Catholic have some insight about) that inoculate people from reasoned thinking by the time they reach adulthood.

    I'd rather read your compelling, well reasoned, scientific reasons for accepting creationism/ID though. I've never seen any before.
    Isn't referring to people of faith as "ignorant" really just your subjective opinion?
    I've noticed a lot of people don't apply critical thinking about much of anything. But, isn't it unreasonable to think all people of faith are the brainwashed dolts you've described.

    To clarify my other statement; some scientists deny the validity of ID, while other scientists disagree with their colleague's denial. The point is; they're all scientists but still can't reach a consensus. Which scientists do we believe? We believe the ones whose opinions most closely reflect our own. Right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #250  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    With all the vast amount of material throughout the universe, it really is difficult to fathom there ever being a "nothing". Even "The Big Bang Theory" says all matter was compressed into a tiny space, then exploded. But how, and why are extraordinary questions. Do you believe that one day we may know the answer? What about the arguement? Can we find a new one? Did or can "nothing" exist?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #251  
    Forum Sophomore votinforu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by distraff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by distraff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by distraff View Post
    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.
    Right. Evolution doesn't have to explain consciousness. But how do believers in evolution explain it? Believers in intelligent design covers the whole package. All you guys have is evolution, which is just part of the package.
    Yea, you have everything explained. Thats what happens when you sit in your armchairs and make stuff up. You can freaking explain everything, just making things up. Why is there thunder? Zeus makes it. How did the stars get there? God made them out of nothing. Why is the human race here? God made them. Why are there mountains? God took a s**t.

    However scientists can't just make stuff up because they are bogged down with this evidence thing. Before they believe something, they need to present a scientific explanation and present evidence for it. That takes a while, and we still don't know how some things in the brain works yet. So before we can explain consciousness, we first need to know how it works, and then find reasonable mechanism by which it could have happened, and then test that theory, and provide evidence for it. If we want to explain the brain with evolution, we have to make a good model of how the brain evolved with some examples from modern animals and the fossil record. We also have to know a lot about how the brain works and the genes that code for it. Thats alot harder than just making stuff up.
    Okay, that's a rational defense. Science in general can't explain everything yet. May I (me, personally) receive the same benefit of the doubt as I can't explain everything either. That doesn't mean I'm making up what I do know.
    I guess I might have jumped to conclusions. Sorry.

    So are you are creationist, Christian evolutionist, secular evolutionist, or don't know?
    All is well.
    I'm a Christian, but I don't go to church. I have faith in God and Jesus, but I don't have faith in organized religion. I believe God is the Creator of all things, including the evolutionary process.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #252  
    Forum Sophomore votinforu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by distraff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Guess what "The Big Bang Theory" starts out the same way, with the same opening line in Genesis. In the beginning there was only darkness, nothing, and from one single point an explosion, light from darkness! It was Evolution and Intelligent Design to start Panspermia. Science connot and will never find the origin.
    Actually the big bang says nothing about the beginning of the singularity. It only describes the expansion of the universe. Can you explain how God went about making the universe(doesn't have to be detailed)?
    He thought it into being.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #253  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post

    Isn't referring to people of faith as "ignorant" really just your subjective opinion?
    I've noticed a lot of people don't apply critical thinking about much of anything. But, isn't it unreasonable to think all people of faith are the brainwashed dolts you've described.
    The problem is that the brainwashed dolts need to be dealt with or they'll increase in number. Religious folk who are reasonable and rational just don't stand up to the torrent of idiocy that emminates from their own quarter, so others are left to pick up the mop bucket.

    When you are cleaning up someone else's mess i think an obligation to be nice is rubbing salt in the wound. Of course, if rational theists were to grow a pair and do something to help, the situation might be different.
    To clarify my other statement; some scientists deny the validity of ID, while other scientists disagree with their colleague's denial. The point is; they're all scientists but still can't reach a consensus. Which scientists do we believe? We believe the ones whose opinions most closely reflect our own. Right?
    You are either ignorant or dishonest. A consensus of thousands is not nullified by a few dribbling goons (or for that matter clever visionaries who later turn out to be right and thus seeding a new consensus).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #254  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by CMR80606 View Post
    er...what? i didn't doubt that did i? I didn't mean to anyway.
    Na you didn't. I was adding commentary and didn't do it well to disassociate it from your comment.

    Isn't referring to people of faith as "ignorant" really just your subjective opinion?
    Is it? By your own admission you don't need evidence. That is, almost by definition, irrational. My point is many are irrational, particularly about this issue, because they were brought up not to question, not to apply reason and even celebrate believing what they couldn't prove. I've been there, I've done that and am damn glad I somehow found the key to remove those shackles of the mind by the study of science. It is abundantly clear, by your gross generalizations about science, that you don't understand what science does, what it has done to explain the world around us, nor what science will be likely be able to do in the future--in short: you're ignorant about science. A bit disappointing but curable once the crutches of faith are tossed into the fireplace to be replaced by a burning curiosity about how the universe really works.

    To clarify my other statement; some scientists deny the validity of ID, while other scientists disagree with their colleague's denial. The point is; they're all scientists but still can't reach a consensus. Which scientists do we believe? We believe the ones whose opinions most closely reflect our own. Right?
    No. Scientist, especially biologist, are by a pretty wide margin atheist to personal gods or ones that would bother to temper with life on earth, some a bit more agnostic to fuzzy ill defined "something" more than us type of gods. Still others don't believe in god at all, but continue to follow the rituals for its social value or to keep peace in their families (as I've done). As for your creationist/ID ideas, it's almost completely absent in the scientific literature, which is the equivalent of zero scientific supporters, while there are thousands of papers building the case about evolution across multiple fields of study going back more than a century. This is why I asked about "conspiracies theories," because it would have to be a hell of a whopper.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; December 12th, 2011 at 02:48 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #255  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    To expect evidence of what another may believe when there is little or no evidence of what you may believe is quite hipocritical.
    Except one side of this argument has presented evidence and the other side hasn't. All you have done is make unsubstantiated claims.

    There is as much a reason to believe that there is intelligent design as there is to believe in evolution.
    Apart from the evidence for evolution and the total lack of evidence for design.

    Who was it who said "it would be easier to assemble a jumbo jet in a junk yard", or something to that effect?
    Someone who didn't understand evolution and was making a straw man argument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #256  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    The only thing, science does NOT know how it works,
    But that doesn't give you the right to make up any explanation you like with no evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #257  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    The thread just asks if intelligent design exists. I just make the arguement that humans have manipulated plants and animals for a long time, maybe corn wasn't even the first. But we invented all kinds of animals, as different breeds of dogs, horses, cows, sheep, all different kinds of flowers and plants, that would not have ever existed if not for human intervention.
    Yes, "intelligent design" in the sense of control over evolution is possible.

    So, we have to say that we've established the possibility. Now, were we intelligently designed? I pause...
    No.

    Because... you have presented zero evidence for this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #258  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    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.
    The first line does state exactly what you quoted. But in isolation this appears to mean that I reject the idea of a creator and I reject the idea of evolution. As the subsequent sentences clearly demonstrate that is not the case. By selecting only the first sentence you have made it seem as if my beliefs are quite different from what they actually are.

    You would have a hard job convincing me that this was an innocent mistake. You claim I have done the same thing. Very well: specify an instance in which my quotation of your words would tend to lead to a false understanding of your position. If you can find such an example you will receive a prompt apology from me.

    I also object to you suggesting I was threatening you. No threat was made. I told you I had reported your post: I did report your post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #259  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    I told you I had reported your post: I did report your post.
    And the situation is still being monitored. Awaiting Curt's reply.
    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  
     

  60. #260  
    Forum Sophomore votinforu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by CMR80606 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post

    Isn't referring to people of faith as "ignorant" really just your subjective opinion?
    I've noticed a lot of people don't apply critical thinking about much of anything. But, isn't it unreasonable to think all people of faith are the brainwashed dolts you've described.
    The problem is that the brainwashed dolts need to be dealt with or they'll increase in number. Religious folk who are reasonable and rational just don't stand up to the torrent of idiocy that emminates from their own quarter, so others are left to pick up the mop bucket.

    When you are cleaning up someone else's mess i think an obligation to be nice is rubbing salt in the wound. Of course, if rational theists were to grow a pair and do something to help, the situation might be different.
    To clarify my other statement; some scientists deny the validity of ID, while other scientists disagree with their colleague's denial. The point is; they're all scientists but still can't reach a consensus. Which scientists do we believe? We believe the ones whose opinions most closely reflect our own. Right?
    You are either ignorant or dishonest. A consensus of thousands is not nullified by a few dribbling goons (or for that matter clever visionaries who later turn out to be right and thus seeding a new consensus).
    Do you mean 32,000 dribbling goons?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #261  
    Forum Sophomore votinforu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CMR80606 View Post
    er...what? i didn't doubt that did i? I didn't mean to anyway.
    Na you didn't. I was adding commentary and didn't do it well to disassociate it from your comment.

    Isn't referring to people of faith as "ignorant" really just your subjective opinion?
    Is it? By your own admission you don't need evidence. That is, almost by definition, irrational. My point is many are irrational, particularly about this issue, because they were brought up not to question, not to apply reason and even celebrate believing what they couldn't prove. I've been there, I've done that and am damn glad I somehow found the key to remove those shackles of the mind by the study of science. It is abundantly clear, by your gross generalizations about science, that you don't understand what science does, what it has done to explain the world around us, nor what science will be likely be able to do in the future--in short: you're ignorant about science. A bit disappointing but curable once the crutches of faith are tossed into the fireplace to be replaced by a burning curiosity about how the universe really works.

    To clarify my other statement; some scientists deny the validity of ID, while other scientists disagree with their colleague's denial. The point is; they're all scientists but still can't reach a consensus. Which scientists do we believe? We believe the ones whose opinions most closely reflect our own. Right?
    No. Scientist, especially biologist, are by a pretty wide margin atheist to personal gods or ones that would bother to temper with life on earth, some a bit more agnostic to fuzzy ill defined "something" more than us type of gods. Still others don't believe in god at all, but continue to follow the rituals for its social value or to keep peace in their families (as I've done). As for your creationist/ID ideas, it's almost completely absent in the scientific literature, which is the equivalent of zero scientific supporters, while there are thousands of papers building the case about evolution across multiple fields of study going back more than a century. This is why I asked about "conspiracies theories," because it would have to be a hell of a whopper.
    I find you and other scientists on this forum believing what you/they can't prove. Not only that, I've noticed when some of your distinction runs out of explanations, they/you resort to calling the opposition "ignorant". I just don't think name calling advances any argument.

    Still, you're the one refuting intelligent design, the onus is on you to prove to me how evolution or any other theory aside from ID explains how life began. Quit telling me about natural selection, cross breeding and all that stuff. I get it well enough, okay? Just tell me your rendition of how it all started from the point when nothing became something. That's all I'm asking.
    Last edited by votinforu; December 12th, 2011 at 08:06 AM. Reason: correct grammar
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #262  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,839
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    I find you and other scientists on this forum believing what you/they can't prove. Not only that, I've noticed when some of your distinction runs out of explanations, they/you resort to calling the opposition "ignorant". I just don't think name calling advances any argument.
    When people close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears, and go "la la la" when shown the evidence, it is hard to know what other word to use.

    Still, you're the one refuting intelligent design, therefore the onus is on you to prove to me how evolution or any other theory aside from ID explains how life began. Quit telling me about natural selection, cross breeding and all that stuff. I get it well enough, okay? Just tell me your rendition of how it all started from the point when nothing became something. That's all I'm asking.
    I'm not sure the onus is on those refuting ID; it is not a scientific (falsifiable) theory as it has no supporting evidence and makes no predictions. Pretty much self-refuting like any other unsupported assertion.

    As for abiogenesis, we don't have all the answers. We have lots of bits of evidence of some of the possible mechanisms. We may never know exactly how life arose on earth; even if we can show one or more mechanisms for abiogenesis we won't necessarily know that that is what happened on earth. (So it may still leave a gap for your Designer to hide in - carefully leaving no traces of her existence.)

    Now, about that evidence for ID?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #263  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by voi
    Then, you must not be including the scientists who got caught red-handed by their own emails; exchanging ideas on how to further promote and trick people into believing their claims of a bogus "man-made" global warming crisis
    That never happened.

    Although some lay people might proffer such an argument, scientists who support intelligent design
    There are very few of them, and of those few some say pretty silly things - including asserting "irreducible complexity" and the like, as evidence of design.
    It did happen. The emails were published online. It was a huge story.

    Very few? There are 32,000 scientists who openly dispute "man-made" global warming, and probably a lot more who are afraid to say what they know since those with an agenda attempt to discredit the brave ones by dismissing them as crackpots.
    Wow, if that many openly dispute "manmade" global warming then why is all of world governments coming together and are agreeing to pay those poorer nations for disrupting their climate by everyone else's polution?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #264  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    Wow, if that many openly dispute "manmade" global warming then why is all of world governments coming together and are agreeing to pay those poorer nations for disrupting their climate by everyone else's polution?
    This is totally off topic but (a) this was a petition[1] organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine [2]; (b) their definition of "scientist" was anyone with any undergraduate science degree; (c) several of the scientists who "signed" the petition were apparently dead; (d) as far as I know the number of climatologists who signed the petition was pretty close to zero[3]; (e) only a small fraction of a percent of all scientists in the US signed it[4]; (f) on the other hand, a survey of climate scientists AAAS members found that over 8 million agree that climate change is due to human activity (g) science isn't a popularity contest or democracy anyway - it is evidence based; (h) do I need to go on?

    I suggest if you want more details, you start a thread in the appropriate place.

    [1] Note: petition, not a scientifically conducted survey
    [2] They don't sound like experts on climate, do they?
    [3] Less than 100? (from memory)
    [4] About 0.3%
    Last edited by Strange; December 12th, 2011 at 10:42 AM. Reason: footnotes / correction
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #265  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    a survey of climate scientists found that over 8 million agree that climate change is due to human activity
    There are more than 8 million climate scientists? That's one hell of a growth area. Would you like to reconsider?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #266  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,839
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    a survey of climate scientists found that over 8 million agree that climate change is due to human activity
    There are more than 8 million climate scientists? That's one hell of a growth area. Would you like to reconsider?


    Hang on, I'll try and find where I (mis)read that factoid. It is pretty obviously wrong!

    EDIT...

    OK. I must have skipped a paragraph or two. It was a survey of AAAS members (there are about 10 million) not climate scientists.
    Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/scru...n-project.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #267  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    166
    My fervent hope is that the 21st Century is viewed in history as a period of enlightement where human kind shook off the obscuring shroud of religion and all the pain, suffering and atrocity that it wreaked upon the world[/QUOTE]

    We must remember most religions date back thousands of years, and devout believers. quote texts which are of the same age.
    so thoughts and understanding are not always based on science
    May be religions should start teaching science in the sermons that may help
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #268  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    The thread just asks if intelligent design exists. I just make the arguement that humans have manipulated plants and animals for a long time, maybe corn wasn't even the first. But we invented all kinds of animals, as different breeds of dogs, horses, cows, sheep, all different kinds of flowers and plants, that would not have ever existed if not for human intervention. So, we have to say that we've established the possibility. Now, were we intelligently designed? I pause...
    ....and then admit the possibility. But then find that the fossil evidence shows that we evolved. And then realise that we were not designed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #269  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by distraff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Guess what "The Big Bang Theory" starts out the same way, with the same opening line in Genesis. In the beginning there was only darkness, nothing, and from one single point an explosion, light from darkness! It was Evolution and Intelligent Design to start Panspermia. Science connot and will never find the origin.
    Actually the big bang says nothing about the beginning of the singularity. It only describes the expansion of the universe. Can you explain how God went about making the universe(doesn't have to be detailed)?
    He thought it into being.
    Any evidence?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #270  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    166
    Is it possible that man, did not understand Science as well as today, and did not have the research, and because the answers were not there.

    And the things they marveled at were not created by man. They needed an answer and the answer for them was God. the great designer.?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #271  
    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
    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.
    LOL! Talk about a loaded question!!

    Am I such a simple organism that I could have been designed easily, or such a complicated organsim that it took a lot of intelligence to design me?

    Neither. There is no design involved at all, in either case. Why would there be?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #272  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    166
    Of course its Evolution that it has made us what we are
    The Question is now to find the root of Evolution . That what sparked life. ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #273  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    Science and religion will be entwined until the REAL answers are found. And don't blame religion for what some of the wrong people in it have done. If you want to find the most good and the most evil, become a Catholic! You Have no idea how much good churches have done, and then on the other hand, it goes from Mother Theresa to The Inquesition. So lighten up and understand human mentality.

    AND, Anthropogenic Global Warming [AGW] is obvious. Oil, coal, and nuclear have EFFED IT UP!

    AND, many plants and animals were "intelligently designed" by the human race, do you not get that? Or are you saying these people just ignorantly stumbled upon creating all these plants and animals? So, "intelligent design" has been proven! It's possible, rather easy, and definitely could have been done by another intelligent race!

    I believe I have found the answer, the ones who think that everyone evolved from chimps [chumps], did evolve from a dumbass species, and the ones who believe that everyone was intelligently designed were intelligently designed! So evolvers, remain with your nothingness and I'm sure, the others you convince of this will also evolve to appreciate your "intelligent" pointlessness.
    Last edited by Kalopin; December 12th, 2011 at 05:18 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #274  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    So, "intelligent design" has been proven! It's possible, rather easy, and definitely could have been done by another intelligent race!
    Could have been done. But do you have any evidence it was done?

    No? Oh well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #275  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Nobody believes we evolved from chimps.

    However, some ill informed people tend to believe that is what evolution says. They are wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #276  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    I believe I have found the answer, the ones who think that everyone evolved from chimps [chumps], did evolve from a dumbass species, and the ones who believe that everyone was intelligently designed were intelligently designed! So evolvers, remain with your nothingness and I'm sure, the others you convince of this will also evolve to appreciate your "intelligent" pointlessness.
    The "chimp" thing was a meme that anti-evolution proponents started to create disfavor with the uninformed populace. No evolutionary biologist has suggested humans evolved from chimps. Ad-hom attacks on people who disagree with you will not be tolerated for long.
    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  
     

  77. #277  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    So, "intelligent design" has been proven! It's possible, rather easy, and definitely could have been done by another intelligent race!
    Could have been done. But do you have any evidence it was done?

    No? Oh well.
    By the way, just so I can plan my life. How often do you think you are going to say "it could have been done" so I have to ask again if you have any evidence it was done?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #278  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    That what sparked life. ?
    My money is on chemistry, but we'll see what the evidence says in the end.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #279  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    The Theory of Evolution has been distorted to say humans evolved from lower life forms. To evolve should mean to adapt to one's environment. This is what Darwin stated, he never said we were a part of the Ape family. So lose the silly chart!

    AND, Strangeone, how do you not understand that the human race DID do it, it HAS been done, and I HAVE given you the evidence!
    And, yet another good example "chemistry", chemical reactions between substances that humans can re-enact, yet have no idea why it works, just that it works. So much for you to attempt to explain, good luck!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #280  
    Forum Sophomore votinforu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by voi
    Then, you must not be including the scientists who got caught red-handed by their own emails; exchanging ideas on how to further promote and trick people into believing their claims of a bogus "man-made" global warming crisis
    That never happened.

    Although some lay people might proffer such an argument, scientists who support intelligent design
    There are very few of them, and of those few some say pretty silly things - including asserting "irreducible complexity" and the like, as evidence of design.
    It did happen. The emails were published online. It was a huge story.

    Very few? There are 32,000 scientists who openly dispute "man-made" global warming, and probably a lot more who are afraid to say what they know since those with an agenda attempt to discredit the brave ones by dismissing them as crackpots.
    Wow, if that many openly dispute "manmade" global warming then why is all of world governments coming together and are agreeing to pay those poorer nations for disrupting their climate by everyone else's polution?
    It's political.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #281  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    This is what Darwin stated, he never said we were a part of the Ape family. So lose the silly chart!
    If you read about his you'll realize he deliberately avoided the issue because he understood the possible ramifications of his conclusion to many of his time. "During many years I collected notes on the origin or descent of man, without any intention of publishing on the subject, but rather with the determination not to publish, as I thought that I should thus only add to the prejudices against my view."

    Later in life though he's be a little more forthright: "In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term “man” ought to be used. But this is a matter of very little importance… man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.”

    Today we know from genetics and other studies that we didn't' descend from apes---we are properly categorized as apes; that includes you, me, and every other human from Socrates to Jeffrey Dahmer and Jesus.
    --
    And much of this conversation doesn't matter; even if the theory of evolution didn't exist and we had no idea how the enormous diversity of life came to be, scientific still couldn't accept "god did it," simply because there's absolutely no evidence for a being capable of such a thing nor credible evidence of genetic tampering by any species other than by humans.

    --
    This thread is not about global warming...keep it that way.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #282  
    Forum Sophomore votinforu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post

    I believe I have found the answer, the ones who think that everyone evolved from chimps [chumps], did evolve from a dumbass species, and the ones who believe that everyone was intelligently designed were intelligently designed! So evolvers, remain with your nothingness and I'm sure, the others you convince of this will also evolve to appreciate your "intelligent" pointlessness.
    I think you've nailed it. I don't know about you, but I'm weary of this arguing in circles. There's no point in arguing with hard-headed people who already know-it-all. They will never consider a single argument we've made in favor of ID. Unteachable grand-standers never do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #283  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    There may be a bigger "missing link" between a debate on "intelligent design" and "A.G.W.'. I may have missed it. Science, politics, and religion have always been manipulated by GREED! You just have to weed it out, and yea, it's quite difficult, with so many ignorant, greedy M.F.s! Throw out a dolla', and see what happens!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #284  
    Forum Sophomore votinforu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    I believe I have found the answer, the ones who think that everyone evolved from chimps [chumps], did evolve from a dumbass species, and the ones who believe that everyone was intelligently designed were intelligently designed! So evolvers, remain with your nothingness and I'm sure, the others you convince of this will also evolve to appreciate your "intelligent" pointlessness.
    The "chimp" thing was a meme that anti-evolution proponents started to create disfavor with the uninformed populace. No evolutionary biologist has suggested humans evolved from chimps. Ad-hom attacks on people who disagree with you will not be tolerated for long.
    This coming from you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #285  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by votinforu View Post
    They will never consider a single argument we've made in favor of ID.
    You do realize you haven't posted a single piece of supporting evidence....not one paper trying to make a case...no interesting data nor even a rejected science paper abstract.

    We have the very loosest of standards around here about scientific discussion, but even in the pseudoscience sub-forum we expect at least an attempt at something that looks like science.



    "....did evolve from a dumbass species..." careful Kolipin--stay on this side of the line.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #286  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtologic View Post
    Here is an example that is utter nonsense because our mother's milk always contained lactose.
    And yet ... most adults cannot digest it. Except those that evolved tolerance.
    It is the same with other animals, some are tolerant and some are not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #287  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    This is what Darwin stated, he never said we were a part of the Ape family. So lose the silly chart!
    If you read about his you'll realize he deliberately avoided the issue because he understood the possible ramifications of his conclusion to many of his time. "During many years I collected notes on the origin or descent of man, without any intention of publishing on the subject, but rather with the determination not to publish, as I thought that I should thus only add to the prejudices against my view."

    Later in life though he's be a little more forthright: "In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term “man” ought to be used. But this is a matter of very little importance… man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.”

    Today we know from genetics and other studies that we didn't' descend from apes---we are properly categorized as apes; that includes you, me, and every other human from Socrates to Jeffrey Dahmer and Jesus.
    --
    And much of this conversation doesn't matter; even if the theory of evolution didn't exist and we had no idea how the enormous diversity of life came to be, scientific still couldn't accept "god did it," simply because there's absolutely no evidence for a being capable of such a thing nor credible evidence of genetic tampering by any species other than by humans.

    --
    This thread is not about global warming...keep it that way.
    One question, are the genes that make proteins found in bacteria the same genes found in humans or other species that make the same proteins?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #288  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    126
    Here's an interesting paper that succeeds in disagreeing with pretty much everybody (pdf) -

    http://www8.svsu.edu/~koperski/Two%20Bad%20Ways%20to%20Attack%20Intelligent%20Des ign%20and%20Two%20Good%20Ones.pdf

    The author argues that while ID proponents often fail to make a distinction between ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism, scientific method as a 'shaping principle' is not sacrosanct. The adoption of the ontological naturalist position is a convenience and that "to postulate an unseen creator need not be any more unscientific than postulating unobserved particles."

    Anyway, it seems a pretty balanced paper, probably more so than i've managed to convey. Worth a read.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #289  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    Pretty arrogant and egotistical of the human species to believe we are the only ones with such knowledge, considering the vastness of space. I say, it's rather easy to see how so many have come to this conclusion, being located where we are, on the outskirts of our "Milky Way" Galaxy, so far away from anoter liveable planet. This small-minded point of view is testament to our still very primitive species.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #290  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    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.
    The first line does state exactly what you quoted. But in isolation this appears to mean that I reject the idea of a creator and I reject the idea of evolution. As the subsequent sentences clearly demonstrate that is not the case. By selecting only the first sentence you have made it seem as if my beliefs are quite different from what they actually are.

    You would have a hard job convincing me that this was an innocent mistake. You claim I have done the same thing. Very well: specify an instance in which my quotation of your words would tend to lead to a false understanding of your position. If you can find such an example you will receive a prompt apology from me.

    I also object to you suggesting I was threatening you. No threat was made. I told you I had reported your post: I did report your post.
    John,

    Are you saying that I have threatened you?? This is a new one! What else do you have up your sleeve? Perhaps I should report you on this alone as it is pure and utter rubbish. You have grossly taken this discussion out of context and used unnecessary and childish ways to belittle me into a corner. Do what you want. This really shows your true colours. There was no innocent mistake made by me.
    Last edited by Curtologic; December 12th, 2011 at 08:24 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #291  
    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 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.
    LOL! Talk about a loaded question!!

    Am I such a simple organism that I could have been designed easily, or such a complicated organsim that it took a lot of intelligence to design me?

    Neither. There is no design involved at all, in either case. Why would there be?
    As I have said to many others, does your intelligence outweigh the intelligence of what it would have taken to put the universe together. You need to relate it to your own capable intelligence and comprehendable intelligence to give intelligent design a meaning. How intelligent are you? Do you have all the answers to the universe? Can you create anything that is around you. The answer is a clear and precise NO NO and NO. Who's intelligent now?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #292  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    John and Curtlogic, ignore each other! A conversation on intelligent design should be intelligent.

    Letternumberguy, read "some" of the article. He seems rather confused as well, comparing arguements for and against I.D.. Kinda' biased to suggest Christian motives to change evolution theories, though that should go without saying. But he really states the same thing that I have said. That I.D. is a possibility, there are still way too many unknowns. Even the science we have today uses the term God-particle [Higgs boson], and that's just the sub-atomic particle approach. throughout the vastness of space, there is still 99% of unexplored territory, unreachable at todays levels of science and technology. Like I said The Big bang Theory also starts from a tiny point in the darkness of space.

    You must all admit that I.D. has been proven, because humans have done it!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #293  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    126
    Sorry fella, i just don't see the need to accept that the universe was designed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #294  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    I particularly like the last line "My appeal is to fair-minded acedemics, those that believe logic and truth are more important than persuasion and power, Let us do better"!

    You may see this universe and all in it as just by chance, that is free-will. That still doesn't change the fact that our species has used Intelligent Design for thousands of years. It is only because so many have blinders on that this has not been seen. It should be obvious, that if human-kind has designed their own animals and plants, that another life-form may, just as well, have done the same, and like I said, we would be pretty arrogant to think that we were the only ones capable, with so much unknown out there!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #295  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    126
    It's not necessary even to go so far as to say that all in the universe emerged by chance. I mean, it seems that it could have, which is why we don't particularly need ID. But there's no really compelling reason to take either stance just yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #296  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    You could say, anything's possible. No need to take "either" stance, there is sufficient evidence to prove both exist, as we have proven it here. There is evolution and intelligent design, but to what extent? That is the real question. It must have been some of both. Just as I now have a dog that is half pit-Bull and half Doberman [if I can keep his butt in the yard!]. He was bred purposely, though many species of animals evolved through natural selection over time. So, pretty convincing arguement on both sides. Why couldn't this be the same throughout the universe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #297  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    126
    But no need for recourse to any kind of theistic 'science', agreed?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #298  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    No, but why leave a higher power out, either, This is not a spiritual conversation, but I can't help it but to ask, do you not feel as if you have a spirit, a soul? Do you believe in a nothingness? Believe me, you don't want to have that conversation with me, your place will be taken, and your mind will be changed forever, do you want that, cause I do!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #299  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    I also agree that their is evolution (meaning change) and intelligent design. I don't mean the "God" of religious beliefs as the designer but I believe there are many designers at the microscopic level of existence at the cellular level. All of the evidence is there in science but where Science interprets it one way, I interpret it from my own viewpoint. I also think that perfection was not the goal but good enough to survive in their environment long enough to reproduce offspring. Perfection would interfere with the mechanism of predator/prey since those traits to catch the prey or traits to escape the predator require alot of energy as it is, perfection would require much more energy then an organism could handle and for many other reasons this would not work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #300  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    It may be a difficult arguement to say any other life form, on this planet, besides humans, were intelligent enough to take other plants and animals and design a new species that they were looking for, as we have done with domesticating different animals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •