The Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Debate

[sad machines]

How do you feel about all this crap?

I personally side with evolution. The evolutionists' biggest argument is that Intelligent Design, or ID, is not a science...therefore it does not belong in science class. In the same respect, evolution never claims to be a religion...it wouldn't be taught in church.

Also, ID does has no scientific evidence of it's own existence, it merely makes jabs at the "holes" in Darwinian Theory. If a theory has no evidence to support it...is it really a theory?

Evolutionists claim that ID falsely claims to be a theory, giving the impression that it includes extensive evidence, when it is actually only a hypothesis, or a "guess".

Normally I wouldn't give much attention to a debate like this, but I have some family that are YEC (Young Earth Creationists). They basically argue that the origins of the world are exactly as stated in the Bible, Noah and the Flood, Adam and Eve, etc. I can hardly hold back laughter when I hear them discuss this stuff.

Then they try and bring up the First Law of Thermodymics and Chaos Theory (for which none of them are educated at all). You can't try and prove a point with something you know nothing about and your opponent knows alot about (I'm an engineer Christ's sake).

They say things like, "If monkeys evolved into humans, why aren't they still evolving." To which I think to myself, "You know absolutely nothing about Evolution...it's no wonder you don't believe in it."

BTW...I don't care about Christ's sake.

[Nak Nak]

Evolution.

I would never entertain the idea of ID.

[DrHibbert]

3-0 Evolution.

[SardonicTexan]

evolution 4-0

ID is great because it doesnt have to ansewer any questions.

[Spaced]

It scares me that ID is being given some legitimacy by some Politicians under pressure from the Religious right. I wish people understood just how much of a non argument this is.

[Static Split Screen]

Originally posted by Nak Nak
Evolution.

I would never entertain the idea of ID.

[Squirrel]

Creationist people always say that the idea of people slowly developing from monkeys is really far fetched, but then the explanation that they offer is that some dude in the sky made us out of clay or something, so go figure. :ok:

So anyway, for the purposes of sparking debate and just being awkward, I'm gonna vote that we were dumped here by aliens a long time ago as an experiment. That's what all that weird crap on the ground in the desert is about.

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Intelligent Design is basically an evil ploy to attempt to create more of a belief system in our kids.

Creationism was always mocked and crushed because it was not based in fact, but faith. It had no hope. ID is just a thinly veiled attempt to hide the faith and therefore shift the goalposts of the arguement against them.

It has now shifted from faith, to opinion. Not so easy to crush. The simple thing to remember is not all opinions are equal, and since these are the opinions of idiots, they count for shit and ID will be crushed once more.

There was an interesting article in the Observer last sunday on this very matter, with some very interesting stats about Americans.

1 in 5 adult Americans believes the Sun goes round the Earth, not vice versa. (2002 study)

70% of Americans believe Saddam was personally responsible for 9/11 (recent study)

40% of Americans think God will come down to Earth in their lifetime and put an end to all life.


See? This is the cancer that is inherent in the US, and what prevents it being a truly great country.

Its a shame its happening in "my" state Pennsylvania. It even spreads to blue states in the north east. But thats Pennsylvania. Philly in the east, Pittsburgh to the west and Alabama in the middle.

[sad machines]

I was taught all through my education that evolution was real and was the basis for all of biology and such.

It was very recently that I discovered that over half of the U.S. population does not believe in evolution!!

My problem is that people are unable to separate religion and science. Even the Pope has said that for the Catholics to deny evolution would be a mistake. These Creationists need to realize that the Bible was not meant to be taken literally! (and eventually maybe they will see that everything in the "good book" is crap)

[Jackal]

I was talking to an old lady waiting for her grandkids to come out of school, and she started off talking so normal about how you can't be too carful watching your kids. Then she started getting worked up and said that she was glad God made Katrina hit all the sinners. And loudly spoke of kids getting stolen, raped, and beaten in front of 3 year olds. Then she said she wished God would make California fall into the ocean because all those people out there were terrible. She ended the conversation with, "too bad God's coming back soon, I really wanted to see my grandkid's grow up."

I got away from her quickly and now I avoid her.

There's many people here, in the Bible belt who are so wacked out like that. I use to work with a lady that was mean to me all the time because I "lived in sin" and finally we ended up in the
manager's office with me yelling about how she's supposed to be all religious but really she's just an old, judgemental bitch.

Those types of religious freaks are the same kind that kill people in abortion clinics for murdering a fetus. They think it makes sense. Scary.

[Nak Nak]

Those statistics are horrible

[Static Split Screen]

People get so unbelievably worked up over it, it's amazing.

[Bumblebee mouth]

Ah, this classic debate surfaces again. Sad machines summed stuff up pretty well. One problem I have with creation "scientists" is that they give these quasi-scientific arguments that probably sound good to people with little to no background in science. Then, when actual scientists give logical refutations (is that a word or did I just make that up) the creationists just plug their ears and don't listen to reason. I think the "irreducibly complex" argument is complete bullshit. I mentioned many months ago an article which shows by using computer simulations that the argument doesn't work.

About those surveys, I took an online test quite awhile ago to test general scientific knowledge and it gave statistics about how many people didn't know the right answers. Many of them were rather disappointing.

What kind of engineering do you do Sad machines?

[In Dust and Ashes]

once again, I challange you to read "Darwins Black Box" and tell me what's wrong with it specificly. because the only other person on here that has read that book was run off by you guys before he could tell me where the author went wrong. I WANT TO KNOW!

as for everything else in this thread...
you guys are a waste of time. this isn't even an open debate thread, this is an extremely closedminded "let's bash the other side" thread. I have half a mind to join in, but I've worked so hard not to lower myself to that.

I wish Joder was still here :(

[Six Ways]

Blah blah blah BASH JACKI'S OPINION! blah blahblah BASH BASH! blah blah blah


blah blah
blah



blah


BASH BASH BASH

blah



I'm a little bored.

But I can't be bothered joining in with this because everyone already knows my opinion, etc, and as usual each side will become totally intractable blah blah blah.

[Six Ways]

Originally posted by Narcissistic Nihilist
1 in 5 adult Americans believes the Sun goes round the Earth, not vice versa. (2002 study)

70% of Americans believe Saddam was personally responsible for 9/11 (recent study)

40% of Americans think God will come down to Earth in their lifetime and put an end to all life.


Jesus.....no pun intended....those really ARE scary stats. Would the US kindly remove its head from its arse, I mean Texas, please?

[Static Split Screen]

And of course Jacki takes it as a personal attack.

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
once again, I challange you to read "Darwins Black Box" and tell me what's wrong with it specificly. because the only other person on here that has read that book was run off by you guys before he could tell me where the author went wrong. I WANT TO KNOW!

as for everything else in this thread...
you guys are a waste of time. this isn't even an open debate thread, this is an extremely closedminded "let's bash the other side" thread. I have half a mind to join in, but I've worked so hard not to lower myself to that.

I wish Joder was still here :(
Talking for myself only, since when was I making a personal attack on you?

My viewpoint is nowhere near close-minded. It is due to, quite rightly, rejecting any idea of faith in logical debate.

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by Six Ways
Jesus.....no pun intended....those really ARE scary stats. Would the US kindly remove its head from its arse, I mean Texas, please?
Ok, they ARE from a UK paper, but seriously, does anyone NOT beleive it? Having spent so long in the states, I do, and Im sure many US citizens will agree...

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by Static Split Screen
And of course Jacki takes it as a personal attack.

last I checked, I'm the only creationist on here. I think there used to be one or two others but I don't remember who they were and I don't think I've seen them about in a long while.
every ignorant and/or mean spirited comment on here was directed towards creationists and said something to the effect of "creationists are all stupid. they believe in a higher being that they can't even see." except of Jackal's which was a rather irrelevent spew with the point of.....?

so yeah, I kind'a take it rather personally. and I rather resent your way of stating this as if it's so uncalled for.

Danny, I do acknowledge that you at least had the decency to speak against the idea and not the people who believe it. for once, I think you'd actually be the better in this thread to discuss with.:-p

[Dalton C Calhoun]

I wish I knew some non-Christian creationists...or a Christian that believed in Intelligent Design but didn't believe that Jehovah was the creator. Christians really need to look into that whole affirmative action thing and hire some help from other religions.

If Muslim extremists believed in Intelligent Design would they blow up archeological excavations and museums?

Why is it that Intelligent Design looks a lot like un-Intelligent Design? Simply creating things doesn't take much creativity. Evolution was pretty clever...

Christians should apply the Bible to other parts of their lives as well. In making shopping lists, "Hmm...bread and every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Should I get some Twinkies too?" In deciding what to wear, "...neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee? Hmm...oh well, I guess this expensive cotton/polyester dress has to be thrown out with all the expensive rayon/silk shirts I bought."

Do you think Christians ever contemplate that if ancient people were exposed to modern science that it would blow their minds? Do you think if God mentioned animals and foods that the people of Palestine had never seen that their curiousity would engulf them? Why would God go to the trouble of explaining things that for many years, no one on earth would have truly understood? Would God want people focusing more on science or more on moral and spiritual issues?

If Christians insist that they get to put a sticker in science textbooks that say that evolution is just a theory, do Evolutionists get to put a sticker in the Bible that says "The Bible is a spiritual book, not meant to be taken literally. Anything you read here may or may not have taken place as described. Applying the Bible to anything other than spiritual matters may result in disasterous consequences, see also the Crusades and the Spanish Inquistion."

Isn't it funny that there are still some people that fervently hate Creationists for having faith in a higher power when many Evolutionists are not even familiar with the specifics of Darwin's theory? Could it be that those Evolutionists are guilty of using a form of faith as well?

I don't know anything or care intimately about either one. I just like asking questions...

[sleepy sinner]

Can someone give me a like two line summary on what intelligent design is? I've heard the term but don't know how it differs from plain old creationism? Unless it's a synonym?

Anyway. Apart from what has already been discussed, my problem with the ideas that religions propagate is that they all claim to be the only answer, based on a few ideas that were spread around a few thousand years ago when actually, humans knew very little (or comparatively little) about anything. There's no flexibility. No inkling at all that this is a pretty mysterious universe in which things change by the second, in which many doctrines may intertwine and form part of the answer, in which naturally and obviously, many people will believe many different things and should not be overly praised nor damned for doing so.

I also wouldn't trust the words in any manuscript or ideology touched by a single human to have any connection with a higher power. Everything humans touch or write represents or is moulded to a human agenda. The only way a holy manuscript could possibly be viable to me was if it was handed to me by the God itself. If ANY other human comes between me and that manuscript, I void it's authenticity.


As to evolution, I guess there are similar reasons (it is handled by humans etc) to void it. However, evolution is not necessarily a doctrine that directly connects itself to moral or religious issues in any way - it attempts neither to prove nor disprove the existence of a God. It's an accumulation of evidence that surprisingly points to potential and alternative human origins. Do you really think when scientists found the first clues to evolutionary progression that they only found them because they wanted to disprove God? No, they were just THERE.
Just because the evidence MAY invalidate religious theories doesn't mean that scientists are TRYING to invalidate religious theories.
On balance, because evolution is more neutral an argument than those tainted by religious doctrine, I find it easier to swallow.

I admit that doesn't mean I know enough about it to claim it's the only universal answer to everything. There may be many things we don't know yet.

[Jackal]

I showed an example of one of the 40% who believes God will come back in their lifetime.

Sorry Jacki, not taking the bait this time.

[Six Ways]

Originally posted by sleepy sinner
Do you really think when scientists found the first clues to evolutionary progression that they only found them because they wanted to disprove God? No, they were just THERE.

This pretty much sums up the main reason I think religion is bull. Science is based upon what you find, religion is based upon making sure you selectively find the right thing to 'prove' what you've already said.

[Nak Nak]

I'm a creationist. I believe that we were created from the energy of light by the omnipresent consciousness of the universe in which we live.

[Static Split Screen]

Originally posted by Nak Nak
I'm a creationist. I believe that we were created from the energy of light by the omnipresent consciousness of the universe in which we live.

[Bumblebee mouth]

Creationists believe that the world was created exactly as the old testament states. Intelligent design doesn't go this far. It just states that a god had to have designed everything.

One of these days I will get around to reading that book. I believe the main idea of that book is the "irreducibly complex" argument. This argument states that complex things (the eye for example) could not have evolved because if even one part doesn't work or is missing the whole thing doesn't work. This argument ignores the possibility that such a complex system could have evolved gradually from simpler systems. That article I mentioned proved that it is possible for "irreducibly complex" systems to come about through the mechanisms of evolution. Something else implicit in this argument is that it basically says "well, we don't know how this thing evolved, and it's incredibly complex, so some super-intelligent being must have created it." I'll be the first to admit that we don't know how most things evolved, but does that mean it didn't evolve. The Romans didn't know how the sun rose and set, so they attributed it to the god Apollo. We now know there is no god Appolo, but instead the world spins. Just because we don't currently understand how some things evolved doesn't mean that a god created them.

Finally, if someone wants to believe in intelligent design, that's fine and dandy, but you can't claim that it is a science. If it is a science then you should be able to apply the scientific method to it. If someone can explain to me how to do this then I'll shut up. The two are mutually exclusive. Intelligent design assumes the existence of a being outside of our physical world. How can you possibly apply the scientific method to it then?

[Bumblebee mouth]

Originally posted by Narcissistic Nihilist
Ok, they ARE from a UK paper, but seriously, does anyone NOT beleive it? Having spent so long in the states, I do, and Im sure many US citizens will agree...

Sadly enough, I am inclined to agree with the basic sentiment of the statistics, but I do wonder how large and random their sample was. I have my doubts that things are really that bad.

[Spaced]

Originally posted by Bumblebee mouth
Creationists believe that the world was created exactly as the old testament states. Intelligent design doesn't go this far. It just states that a god had to have designed everything.

One of these days I will get around to reading that book. I believe the main idea of that book is the "irreducibly complex" argument. This argument states that complex things (the eye for example) could not have evolved because if even one part doesn't work or is missing the whole thing doesn't work. This argument ignores the possibility that such a complex system could have evolved gradually from simpler systems. That article I mentioned proved that it is possible for "irreducibly complex" systems to come about through the mechanisms of evolution. Something else implicit in this argument is that it basically says "well, we don't know how this thing evolved, and it's incredibly complex, so some super-intelligent being must have created it." I'll be the first to admit that we don't know how most things evolved, but does that mean it didn't evolve. The Romans didn't know how the sun rose and set, so they attributed it to the god Apollo. We now know there is no god Appolo, but instead the world spins. Just because we don't currently understand how some things evolved doesn't mean that a god created them.

Finally, if someone wants to believe in intelligent design, that's fine and dandy, but you can't claim that it is a science. If it is a science then you should be able to apply the scientific method to it. If someone can explain to me how to do this then I'll shut up. The two are mutually exclusive. Intelligent design assumes the existence of a being outside of our physical world. How can you possibly apply the scientific method to it then?

My thoughts exactly

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by Jackal
I showed an example of one of the 40% who believes God will come back in their lifetime.

oh I appologize, that has everything to do with evolution vs. Intellegent Design. :rolleyes:

oh and just so you know, I believe it is quite possible that Jesus will come back in my life time. My grandparents were hoping he'd come back before they died. their dead now. but I HIGHLY respect them, their attitude, their missionary work, their entire life, their views, and pretty much every other aspect of them. I hope to aspire to their greatness one day. their funerals were breathtakingly humbling.

bumblebee mouth, I thought you and I had already discussed this through and through. didn't you agree that creationism or intellegent design (if you want to make the difference) is a reasonable counter to evolution and should be considered? didn't we go through everything about how evolutionists twist the scientific methood just as much as anyone?
and you never did get back to me on my essay :-p so far the only flaw you said anything about was my incorrect statement about carbondating being used to date the earth.

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by Six Ways
This pretty much sums up the main reason I think religion is bull. Science is based upon what you find, religion is based upon making sure you selectively find the right thing to 'prove' what you've already said.

I need to find some links or something to back this up better and make it planer to understand, but try to stick with me on this, winston.
over the years, and I think mostly from the 70's on, there have been a lot of scientific discoveries that challange both evolution and creationist scientists to explain. both scientists will look at it and both scientists will explain it in a way that supports their theories.
take the stars for example. everybody uses starlight to date the earth. evolutionists say that the earth must be billions of years old because we can see the stars light and it takes that long for the light to reach us. (or something to that extent). creationists have a split view. I've heard the theory about how the universe is expanding and therefore the stars used to be closer and therefore their light didn't take as long to reach us. blah blah blah...

in almost everything you can find more than one and sometimes more than two plausable reasonings but all of them are geared to back up one of the main theories. both creationists and evolutionists are biased and search for what will support them.

in response to other things, I once read a book....or...part of a book....and one line that really stood out ot me was something to the effect of, "neither creationism nor evolution is a science because both attempt to explain the past. such theories are to be left for philosophy, not science. science can only hope to explain what is now and what may happen in the future."

I flip flop between both ideas (science or no) depending on the people I'm dealing with, but it's definately somethign to think about.

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by Dalton C Calhoun
Would God want people focusing more on science or more on moral and spiritual issues?

I think theres a balance to be had. but I suck at balance, so I usually swing towards whatever direction I feel is necessary to compesate for the others around me. :-o

by the way, welcome to the philosophy board, my friend. stick around, you'll have some fun....
I could start a thread about religious splicing if you want to rant about christianity being a conglomerate of a bunch of ancient religions. you'll have to explain the monotheism though.

[Spaced]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
didn't you agree that creationism or intellegent design (if you want to make the difference) is a reasonable counter to evolution and should be considered?

This is the entire issue. As far as I understand it, proponents of ID present it as a scientific theory, when to a large degree it is just the rehashed arguments of creationists. The literal interpetation of a religious text does not a science make!

[In Dust and Ashes]

I'd argue that logical, working, tangable, and otherwise evidence that can be and is studied (using the scientific methood) does make it a science.

[Spaced]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
I'd argue that logical, working, tangable, and otherwise evidence that can be and is studied (using the scientific methood) does make it a science.

It would if there was any, but any theory that relies on some metaphysical interference excludes itself from acceptable scientific practice.

[In Dust and Ashes]

no it doesn't.
if it's true than the specifics around it would be upheld in all physical things suseptible to research today.

for instance, the age of the earth, the flood, the animals, how everything lived together (as opposed to the idea that humans came way after dinos and the like).

I firmly believe all these aspcects of the creationist story are upheld in a wide variety of things able to be studied scientificly today.

[Squirrel]

Hey.





You guys.





Aliens, seriously.





Nazca lines, lookit.

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by Squirrel
Nazca
huh huh,

you said Nascar

huh, huh

[Squirrel]

Respect my beliefs!

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by Squirrel
Respect my beliefs!
Why? Do you believe Dale Jr is our creator?

[Squirrel]

I have absolutely no idea who that is.

[Spaced]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
no it doesn't.
if it's true than the specifics around it would be upheld in all physical things suseptible to research today.

for instance, the age of the earth, the flood, the animals, how everything lived together (as opposed to the idea that humans came way after dinos and the like).

I firmly believe all these aspcects of the creationist story are upheld in a wide variety of things able to be studied scientificly today.

All physical things "susceptible to research today", and the overwhelming majority of sceintific knowledge contradict with the creationist story. Hence why this debate continues, and creationists are forced to devise pseudo-scientific 'theories' in an attempt to support their supernatural beliefs

[sad machines]

I seriously don't understand how this argument gets so involved and complex.

I truly believe that the reason Creationists want to puch their noses into biology textbooks is because they have a terrible fear that Evolutionists are correct...thus rendering the Bible useless.

The problem with this is that Evolutionists are not trying to be malicious, or trying to shatter belief systems, they are merely trying to teach the evidence that is observed ON THIS EARTH AND SURROUNDING PLANETS , not things that cannot be seen, as described in the Bible.

It just seems very evident to me that throughout this debate, Creationists look like they are holding on to an argument that they fear has been proven incorrect.

For once, the Catholic church has the right idea...you can believe in God and evolution simultaneously. In fact, you'd be stupid not to.

[Bumblebee mouth]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
bumblebee mouth, I thought you and I had already discussed this through and through. didn't you agree that creationism or intellegent design (if you want to make the difference) is a reasonable counter to evolution and should be considered? didn't we go through everything about how evolutionists twist the scientific methood just as much as anyone?
and you never did get back to me on my essay :-p so far the only flaw you said anything about was my incorrect statement about carbondating being used to date the earth.

I do not agree that creationism/ID is a reasonable counter to evolution based on the fact that it is not scientific. Should it be discussed? Sure. Should it be taught in science courses? No. There may be some evolutionists who twist the scientific method. There's bound to be some scientists that do that in any field. How do you think evolutionists twist the scientific method? (Just to make sure, the scientific method is observation, hypothesis, experimentation, etc. until you arrive at a theory.)

Example why evolution is a science: evolution predicts that closely related species should share structural homologies. Test: compare the bones in the arm/legs of mammals, the wings of birds, etc. and you find striking similarities. Could this be due simply to the fact that this is how god wanted it? Sure, but how could you test that?

Why creationism/ID is not a science: creationism predicts that god caused a massive flood. That there may or may not have been a flood is testable, but how can you test whether or not god caused it?


Another more philosophical problem I have with ID is that I see many things that aren't so intelligently designed. Consider the eye. What happens if you stare at the sun too long. You go blind for the rest of your life because your retina can't heal itself. Well, if the designer were so intelligent why not design the eye so that it could recover?


Oh, I think a good piece of evidence for evolution is domestic dogs. If you look at canines in the wild they all look fairly similar. But look at the huge number of very different breeds of domestic dogs. These breeds were made by artificial selection.

Post that essay again if you don't mind.

[Nak Nak]

Originally posted by Squirrel
Hey.





You guys.





Aliens, seriously.





Nazca lines, lookit.

Dumbass, the Nazca lines were created by humans before the Ice age. Despite what you may believe, there were advanced civilisations 10k + years ago. There is overwhelming evidence!

[Squirrel]

I agree. But maybe those are pictures they drew for aliens to look at, is all I'm saying. :yes:

[Nak Nak]

Originally posted by Squirrel
I agree. But maybe those are pictures they drew for aliens to look at, is all I'm saying. :yes:

Maybe, but why would the Star Children wish to view our crappy art? Maybe for amusement, much the same way as I love to laugh at the art of cretins and children.

[Squirrel]

Maybe they didn't want to and that's why they fucked off and never came back.

[Static Split Screen]

Or they're building a weapon in incinerate us and it's taking awhile.

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by Spaced
All physical things "susceptible to research today", and the overwhelming majority of sceintific knowledge contradict with the creationist story. Hence why this debate continues, and creationists are forced to devise pseudo-scientific 'theories' in an attempt to support their supernatural beliefs

that's a very ignorant statement. I challange you to bring me something that clearly and utterly contradicts creationism and I'll show you how uncertain it really is.

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by Bumblebee mouth
Post that essay again if you don't mind.

I don't have it, you'll have to ask ronan.

RONAN!!! GET YOUR BUTT IN HERE!

for the rest of your post:

1)(yay, numbers! I haven't done this in a while :) )
I think that perhaps in the begining with darwin and the like, evolution did follow the scientific methood. but now everywhere I look all I can find are scientists that have evolution as their standard. so the methood isn't observation, hypothesis, experimentation, etc. it's hypothesis, experimentation, experimentation, experimentation, experimentation, slightly altered hypothesis, still based on their begining hypothesis.

2)simularities in species could be from anything though. how can you use that to support evolution when it can support anything. in the end, it supports nothing. sure evolution can use it. evolution can cover it and give a possible explination for it, but you can't reverse it to be evidence for evolution when it's easily explained by any other theory concievable.

3)I think the point of creationism isn't to prove God did it, but to show that every point written about in the creation story is true to how it was told. and the more acceptable way of thinking is that if every point in it can be proven to be true the way it was told in the bible, then perhaps the bible story, including the mention of God, is true. so the creation scientists of today arn't attempting to prove God, but rather, prove that the bible is true to it's word.

4)I think that whole philosophical issue is really a nonissue. if anything, it's something you can take up with God. right now, that's my cop out approach.
if I had to make a rather blind assumption on behalf of God, I'd go with the theory that we were made rather perfectly, but sin screwed us over more ways than one.

5)I don't get how the dogs thing supports evolution.

[Spaced]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
that's a very ignorant statement. I challange you to bring me something that clearly and utterly contradicts creationism and I'll show you how uncertain it really is.

The age of the earth and Universe is, within all reasonable doubt, ancient, and verfied though various means (not carbon dating so don't go there). It may be older, it may be younger, although all reasonabale evidence points to them being billions of years old. The problem with creationism is that you have these 'certainties' based is faith that are not open to rational exploration. Therefore you cannot apply scientific thought to the concept of creation. In science, you cannot start out with an absolute answer, and adjust all you observations and 'experiments' to suit that. That is all creationism does. So conversely, can you provide me with any widely accepted evidence, without any uncertainty, that creationism is correct?

[Squirrel]

Originally posted by Static Split Screen
Or they're building a weapon in incinerate us and it's taking awhile.

I think Celine Dion is their revenge.

[Barbarian Love Elephant]

A Valid Beginning

Creationism is the unpopular theory currently under scientific evaluation by Creation Scientists across the globe and from every field of science imaginable. The theory states that around 6,000 years ago, the earth was formed by the words of God and within 6 days, every kind of animal and plant was in existence. It also states that about 4,000 years ago, there was a massive world wide flood that destroyed all that used to be and reshaped the earth to be what it is today. This theory has been the target of public scrutiny for decades, but many of its mockers are ignorant to the specifics of the theory or any of its supporting evidence. Creationism is as valid a theory for explaining the beginning of the earth as Evolution is. The evidence for it is greater than what can be explained in any one essay, but in one essay, a brief overview of the theory and its supporting evidence can be made.
Deciding the age of the earth is the first and probably hardest part of any theory on its origins. Past the written record of history, all we have is pieces of nature that we can hypothesize on using all that we know from today’s world. The most common and widely accepted way of dating anything that once was living is by using Carbon 14 dating. Evolutionists use this method as their primary source for claiming that the earth must be more than 3 billion years old. But creationists find fault in Carbon 14 Dating and do not accept it as an accurate depiction of the earth’s age for many reasons, the primary one being that it does not take into account the effects of a massive, world wide flood. A considerable amount of Carbon was buried underneath the flood waters which upset the balance of Carbon in the biosphere. This balance is needed for the decay rate of Carbon 14 to be constant in the remains of living organisms which is what Carbon Dating is a measurement of (Ham).
With this and other issues to bicker about in the Carbon Dating process, Creationist look to other sources to help tell the age of the earth. Of course, the primary source Creationists use to tell the age of the earth is the bible. By back tracking through the dates and ages of all those listed in the genealogy passages in the book of Genesis, historians have come up with a round figure for the time that God created the heavens and the earth somewhere around 6,000 years ago. To support that theory, creation scientists have collected a mass variety of clues and pieces of information that point to a young dating of the earth. For example, using the theory of plate tectonic subduction and rates at which sediments erode to become mud on the sea floor, creationists calculate that 24 billion tons of mud are created and accumulates on the bottom of the ocean every year. If the earth were as old as Evolutionists claimed, the sea floor would be packed with mud many miles deep; but that is not so. This is just one of many arguments that creationists use to support their young earth theory.
One of the first substances named in the book of Genesis when God created the earth was water. Genesis 1:2 says “the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” Before there was even light, there was water and this water played a very important role in the rest of the earth’s history. The flood was a cataclysmic event that reshaped the earth and its atmosphere to be what it is today.
Noah was told to build an Ark, or boat, to carry at least 2 of every kind of animal on earth and seven of “clean” animal and of every kind of bird. Jonathan Sarfati explains in his essay about the ark that “kinds” most likely means the genus from which its decedents were derived from (Sarfati). This cuts down the number of animals on the ark, considerably.
After all were in the ark, the earth was flooded for 40 days and 40 nights until there was no dry land left. Genesis gives several hints to different places where the waters that flooded the earth came from. One of the main sources of water came from one of the most unexpected places—the ground. Genesis 7:11 talks of the foundations of the deep opening up and the flood gates of heaven being released. Today, many scholars and scientists are debating what this actually means and are coming up with theories for where the flood waters came from. One notable theory is stated as this:
The ocean floor rapidly lifted up to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) due to an increase in temperature as horizontal movement of the tectonic plates accelerated. This would spill the seawater onto the land and cause massive flooding -- perhaps what is aptly described as the breaking up of the "fountains of the great deep"(Noah’s).

After forty days and forty nights, the skies stopped raining, but it wasn’t for another 150 days before there was any possibility of finding dry land. The flood is a very

[Barbarian Love Elephant]

important part in the Creationism Theory as it helps explain how the earth got to where it is today. The theory of the flood does not come up short in explaining such things as oil deposits and can be supported through geology and fossil studies that show evidence of catastrophic changes and deaths at a certain point in history. Sedimentary rock layers across the earth reveal sudden deaths of animals and humans by flood waters. This is globally consistent and can even be found in some of the most unexpected places such as the Nevada Desert, where fossils of fish and other watery creatures indicate that it too was once underwater.
Familiar bones and some not so familiar were buried together in the flood. They died at the same time and can be found in the same layers of Sedimentary rock side by side. The Flood theory helps explain why this is so and doesn’t get thrown off balance when asked how or when the unfamiliar creatures in the fossil record died off. It stays strong through many of the widely spread criticism, though it has never been popularly known for such.
Evidence to support the Creationist theory covers all fields of science and involves great depth and understanding of many factors including biblical text and even Evolution. It’s certainly a worthy opponent for Evolution and popular science and needs to be understood by both critics and believers alike. Only when both sides are understood and accepted as valid points can science itself strengthen and grow.
Works Cited
Ham, Ken and Sarfati, Jonathan and Wieland, Carl. What About Carbon Dating? 2004.
November 15, 2004. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
Noah’s Flood-Where Did the Water Come From? 2004. November 15, 2004.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/flood-waters.asp
Sarfati, Jonathan. How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark? 2004. November 15, 2004.
http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp

[sad machines]

This essay still relies on the general "method" of Creationists:

"Okay, the Bible says it's this way...so let's go find some vague evidence that can prove that this is true."

In other words...start with a theory and work backwards.

Everything in science has always used a completely different method:

Observe what is fact in order to generate a theory and move forward.

[sad machines]

...And also...

Intelligent Design is trying to make its way into school curriculum by claiming to be "theory."

The problem with this is the different definitions of -Theory-.

Evolution is a scientific theory...which means it has been tested rigorously and can be recreated in experiments.

The general, street definition of "theory" is an idea, or a possibility, a guess, or a hypothesis.

By ID calling itself a theory, it is falsely giving the impression that it is on the same level as Evolution. ID is only a "theory" by the general definition...it is nowhere near the definition of scientific theory.

It CANNOT be tested, and it certainly can't be simulated, which means it is entirely based on faith, which means it is not a science and should not be included in science class.

[Spaced]

Just so everyone is clear, there is no evidence for a global flood, however many creationists think so.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

[In Dust and Ashes]

supporting the flood (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp)


sad machines, I'll answer you later. it could be later tonight, or it could be later next week, depending on whats happening tomorrow, but I will answer you.

[XenonDreams]

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It makes no scientifically testable claim, its proponents can only point out the flaws in evolution.

Microevolution, as in the process of populations of species adapting to conditions, has actually been observed in nature. Natural selection is real.

Macroevolution, as in how life got from a bunch of molecules and atoms, to, well, us and everything else alive on the planet, is not proven, and can never be proven to the point of absolute certainty. However it is the only current theory using falsifiable hypotheses. Science, as it turns is not in the bussiness of proving anything--merely disproving everything else. Evolutionary theory has many flaws and gaps in it, but none of its shortcomings in any point to a scientifically defensible idea that life and the universe must have been deliberately designed.

Also, I've rarely, if ever, heard a creationist explain why the broader universe appears to be 14 billion years old. God's trying awfully hard to trick us, because he would have had to also create the light from the whole rest of the universe already most of its way to the earth 6000 or how ever many years ago.

And in any case, it always seemed to me that if there was a god, evolution was a far more sublte and grand way of creating life.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by XenonDreams
And in any case, it always seemed to me that if there was a god, evolution was a far more sublte and grand way of creating life.

I've missed seeing you around.

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
supporting the flood (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp)
wow, im impressed these people managed to get enough brain cells together to make such a well put together sie. Pity the content is all guff.

[sad machines]

The flood argument seems rediculous to me...

I mean, in all probability, most of the corners of the world were underwater at some point in history.

And, since Creationists say our dating methods are SO flawed, they can't prove that all of the world was flooded at the same point in time.

The only reason Creationists use the flood as an argument is that it is the only thing that is somewhat examinable in nature.

[sad machines]

Originally posted by Narcissistic Nihilist
Pity the content is all guff.


Geez, some of this "evidence" is laugh-out-loud stupid.

"There's a giant rock somewhere near Mt. St. Helen...must've been put there by Noah's Flood."

"There's a big hole called the Grand Canyon...must be from the flood."

This, in no way, disproves evolution, nor does it make a strong case for creationism.

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by sad machines
Geez, some of this "evidence" is laugh-out-loud stupid.

"There's a giant rock somewhere near Mt. St. Helen...must've been put there by Noah's Flood."

"There's a big hole called the Grand Canyon...must be from the flood."

This, in no way, disproves evolution, nor does it make a strong case for creationism.
Creationism exists because it does!

Its a great line of thinking!

How about saying: "There isnt a grand canyon outside of the Rockies, therefore there was no flood" ...that would kinda screw em up.

[BeautifulRefrain]

hambakmeritru, you really believe that the earth was created in 6 24 hour days 6,000 years ago?

All I want to say is, a 'day' in original aramaic translates to 'a significant period of time'.
Chronologically, the Bible is completely correct when it comes to the formation of the earth. But this modern translation of the Bible that you read is seriously flawed.

I personally believe there is a superior being who created the universe, I'm not saying it was the Judeo-Islamic-Christian God necessarily, but a higher power nontheless. And I really don't understand why ID and evolution are seen as contradictory. They are not mutually exclusive Theories. I have a lot more to say on the subject but I'm too busy at the moment.

[Herr Lipp]

dinosaurs.

[sad machines]

Originally posted by BeautifulRefrain
And I really don't understand why ID and evolution are seen as contradictory. They are not mutually exclusive Theories.

I think you have the right idea...

Religious people should accept this viewpoint in order to stop this controversy. Religion is one thing, science is another.

Just accept that the Bible shouldn't be taken so damn literally. The people who wrote it didn't know shit about the earth.

[Herr Lipp]

And what REALLY is the difference between "talking to God/Angels" and being a schizo?

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by sad machines
The people who wrote it didn't know shit about the earth.

actually, its really shown that they knew an amazing amount about the earth, it's place in the universe, and how it all worked.

walter, Dinosaurs isn't an arguement or proof of anything. your ignorance is blinding.

can I ask that people at least be versed in creationist theory before attacking it? I've had to work my butt of to learn everything I can about evolution.

[In Dust and Ashes]

I don't really have time for all of these posts right now and some are a little overwhelming.

you know it's really odd, but the evolution/creation debate always comes when I'm too busy to get that involved....or maybe its that I'm always too busy to get involved. *shrugs* I don't know.

[sad machines]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
actually, its really shown that they knew an amazing amount about the earth, it's place in the universe, and how it all worked.

Oh, they new about how the sun was the center of our solar system? Why, then, was Galileo banned and arrested by the church for making such claims?

And, they thought the Earth was flat.

This is the whole problem with ID claiming to be a science...first they say everything was known when the Bible was written, but then they claim to be a reasonable approach to research.

Why would anything be researched if everything is already known and all the answers are in the Bible?

[In Dust and Ashes]

dont' mistake the church for the teachings of the bible.

I think it's in the book of Job that the earth is refered to as a globe (implying that it is round).

[Six Ways]

Apparently, the earth was not thought to be flat for nearly as long as it is generally thought.

[sad machines]

There are people not specific to any church that STILL believe that the earth is flat:

"Flat Earthers.-- Members of the Flat Earth Society believe that the shape of the Earth is flat because a literal reading of the Bible proclaims it (Schadewald, 1991). Charles K. Johnson is the head of the International Flat Earth Society, headquartered in Lancaster, CA, and he is very serious about the planet being as the ancients perceived it: circular and flat, not spherical."

So obviously, this is subject to interpretation, just like everything else in the Bible.



I must agree with you on one thing though....

Grease 2 was a great movie.

[BeautifulRefrain]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
dont' mistake the church for the teachings of the bible.

I think it's in the book of Job that the earth is refered to as a globe (implying that it is round).

Very good point. The church and the Bible are too commonly considered the same thing. I put way more trust in the Bible than I do the church. However, I can't get ahold of an original copy... therefore I'm very careful not to put too much faith in it.
Thus, I really find no validity in your argument. Your bible tells you exactly what midevil minds soaked in old dogmas and the patriarchal culture of the time wanted you to know... not what Jesus' desciples wanted you to know... and certainly not what Moses wanted you to know.
I believe the ultimate message of the Bible has remained the same... but not these little details that cause people to go on religious crusaides againts modern science.

[Fab]

Originally posted by sad machines
I must agree with you on one thing though....

Grease 2 was a great movie. i must protest, I thought it was stupid when I was only 11 "reproduction! reproduction! where does the pollen go?".

[In Dust and Ashes]

I havent seen the movie for a very long time. but what's her face was my role model and I loved it growing up....
and I love motorcycles...
a lot.....
....I can't even mention them anymore without desperately wanting to ride one. :-o

[Static Split Screen]

What's your idea behind dinosaurs, Jacki? God just put them there to throw us off and test belief? Practical joke?

[Spaced]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
supporting the flood (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp)


sad machines, I'll answer you later. it could be later tonight, or it could be later next week, depending on whats happening tomorrow, but I will answer you.

It would have been nice if you acknowledged that the link I posted directly refutes the claims of the link you posted afterwards. Actually, its pretty funny

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by Static Split Screen
What's your idea behind dinosaurs, Jacki? God just put them there to throw us off and test belief? Practical joke?
You would have thought they would have mentioned dinosaurs in the bible.

...and Jesus and disciples wandered onto the Sea of Gallilie and saw a huge dinosaur. "My, what a big fucking lizard, Lord" said the disciples. And Jesus saw he had a thorn stuck in his paw. Jesus then removed the thorn from the paw and the lizard became his friend.
Jesus then sent him up to a lake in Scotland, where fat American families spend their fat American dollars, and oh did Scotland praise the Lord.

[sad machines]

Originally posted by Narcissistic Nihilist

...and Jesus and disciples wandered onto the Sea of Gallilie and saw a huge dinosaur. "My, what a big fucking lizard, Lord" said the disciples.

:-D :-D :-D

I just laughed my ass off.


But actually, I'm sure there is some incredible vague reference to "serpents" or something in the bible that Creationists use as evidence for dinosaurs.

[Jackal]

I asked Jacki about dinosaurs on the first day I posted, I never got an answer. I was being a bitch that day, but still, I do want to know how the Christians/her church deals with them.

[Herr Lipp]

I posted "dinosaurs" on the last page. Laura's just brimming with original ideas.

[Herr Lipp]

Originally posted by Narcissistic Nihilist
Jesus then sent him up to a lake in Scotland, where fat American families spend their fat American dollars, and oh did Scotland praise the Lord.

Bill Hicks. What a guy.

[Nak Nak]

Originally posted by Narcissistic Nihilist
You would have thought they would have mentioned dinosaurs in the bible.

...and Jesus and disciples wandered onto the Sea of Gallilie and saw a huge dinosaur. "My, what a big fucking lizard, Lord" said the disciples. And Jesus saw he had a thorn stuck in his paw. Jesus then removed the thorn from the paw and the lizard became his friend.
Jesus then sent him up to a lake in Scotland, where fat American families spend their fat American dollars, and oh did Scotland praise the Lord.

I was just thinking about that when laura posted!

[L'egoMan]

intelligent design has nothing to do with science because you can not use scientific methods to prove this theory. It is as easy as that.

Intelligent design is about politics and conservative christians trying to gain power and influence over a department which threatens them - science.

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by Walter Sopchak
I posted "dinosaurs" on the last page. Laura's just brimming with original ideas.
Yeah, like you really were the first ever to think of that werent you? :rolleyes:

[Jackal]

In this thread, he was.

[sad machines]

Let's get this thread moving again...

What is the stance of Young Earth Creationists on dinosaurs anyway? I have heard rediculous things like:

"Dinosaurs were around when the earth was created 6000 years ago (alongside man)."


Okay, seriously, I can see why some people would question our fossil dating systems to some extent, but do they really believe that scientists are off by hundreds of millions of years?????


That is equivalent to Evolutionist saying:

"Yes, Jesus was a real person, except he was actually a three-headed sea serpent from Venus. You Creationists were off just a little bit."

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by Jackal
In this thread, he was.
and....?

That doesnt stop his hypocrisy.

[Jackal]

Hipocrisy never stops.

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by Jackal
Hipocrisy never stops.
Not in the chav-scums case, no.

[Spaced]

Here's some further arguments against Id from an article in today's paper
Denton ID article (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-great-designer-mythology/2005/10/16/1129401142311.html)

[Six Ways]

I haven't read the last 6 or so posts, but Dinosaurs rock. Faeries, Jesus, and women drivers suck.


Alright, I'm joking, women drivers can be cool, whatever. I;m drunk, and this is like the 6th time I've said it on Blamo tonight! Woohoo! Or something. At least I'm a happy drunk.

[Fab]

fairies rock as long as you don't spell it like a twat.

[Herr Lipp]

Originally posted by Narcissistic Nihilist
Yeah, like you really were the first ever to think of that werent you? :rolleyes:

Yes, I was.

[Six Ways]

Originally posted by Fab
fairies rock as long as you don't spell it like a twat.

Why do you think I spelled it like a twat?

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by Walter Sopchak
Yes, I was.
Funny how the first documentation on the subject was way before you were born.

Nothing like lying to get you out of your mess eh chav-scum? :yes:

[jean le nègre]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
once again, I challange you to read "Darwins Black Box" and tell me what's wrong with it specificly. because the only other person on here that has read that book was run off by you guys before he could tell me where the author went wrong. I WANT TO KNOW!

as for everything else in this thread...
you guys are a waste of time. this isn't even an open debate thread, this is an extremely closedminded "let's bash the other side" thread. I have half a mind to join in, but I've worked so hard not to lower myself to that.

I wish Joder was still here :(


i've read Darwin's Black Box and i can tell you where the author goes wrong:

Basically, Behe's (the author) argument is that complete evolution (à la Darwin) cannot be true because the development of many extremely small-scale biochemical "machines" (cells, cell parts, etc.) and their processes are so complex that they would require magnifient evolutionary jumps that debunk Darwin's idea of gradual evolution (and natural selection). Thus, there must be an intelligent designer who designed (if nothing else) these extremely complex biochemical machines and processes. To be more specific, he argues that certain cells are "irreducibly complex"...i.e. you can reduce a living cell only to its basic parts – take out any of those parts and you no longer have a cell and there is no explanation as to how the cell formed with its parts other than by being designed by an intelligent designer.

The problem Behe has is that he failed to read the literature surrounding the theory of evolution. The "problem" he suggests (irreducibe complexity) has already been explained. One of the more popular theories is that these extremely small-scale complex "machines" form through natural selection via random adoption (cellular parts that serve one purpose can over time, through a combination of random mutations and natural selection, become part of another, more sustainable process). Or more simply, cell parts that are ineffective are "drafted" into other processes instead of merely disappearing from an organism. This can be seen even in the humans of today: we share many proteins in our lungs with apes, many of which are inactive in the apes but in humans serve various purposes that enhance lung capacity – the protiens seem to have been adopted into humans' more complex lung structures rather than disappearing.

Intelligent design is just a fantastic logical fallacy. But then again, I'd say Darwinian evolution is a logical fallacy as well (to a far lesser extent, of course) because it bases so much of itself on the concept of time (which insanely defies logic).

[sad machines]

Darwin's Black Box is just another attempt by ID to disprove Evolution...without giving another logical explanation.

The reason this debate is so complex is for two reasons:

1) ID is trying to make a case against Evolution without providing strong evidence that supports Creation. A fundamental characteristic of a debate is that one tries to disprove their opponent while suggesting a better alternative. ID is not suggesting a better alternative.

2) Evolution has incredible amounts of evidence supporting its position...but there is no way to change most people's belief system. When it comes to religion, people are stubborn as hell and refuse to change beliefs that they have based their whole lives upon.

But when it comes to what should be taught in science class...it doesn't matter who is right...the fact is that evolution is science and ID is religion.

[Squirrel]

I like dinosaurs. I had a teacher at school who didn't believe in them.

[sad machines]

Originally posted by Squirrel
I like dinosaurs. I had a teacher at school who didn't believe in them.

Was it a science teacher? I certainly hope not.

[Squirrel]

No, it was just textiles. But then one time someone locked this kid in a cupboard in her class, and not only did she not notice him missing, she also opened the cupboard and the kid didn't say anything and she didn't even see him. So I don't think she was exactly golfing with a full set of clubs.

[Saxton]

Here's my two cents...

I'm a Christian. And I believe that God created the Earth. However, I think science seems to point towards evolution. Evolution theory has a lot of holes (let's not pretend it doesn't) but I think that simply means we don't know everything that went on in the process. I have no doubt that the clever scientist will someday figure out the jist of what went on. But I have no problem saying that this process was engineered by the divine. After all, what are the chances tnat a planet would form just the right distance from the sun, with just the right circumstances, and that evolution process would proceed in a fashion that such a complex form of life (like ourselves) could flourish? I'd say pretty slim, and as we continue to explore the Universe, I'd guess we'd continue to find that while we may not be alone - we're going to find that life is pretty rare out there.

As Jacki knows, I believe that the first couple chapters of Genesis are true: But not in a historical sense. How could they be a historical record of something nobody witnessed? I don't think they were ever intended to be taken as a literal, historical account of what went on. Whoever wrote those chapters would probably think that was silly. I also believe that there are contradictions between the first two chapters of Genesis. I think it's a fictional story meant to communicate a truth: that God created the world. I also respect Jacki's more conservative opinion. She trusts in faith, the rest of you trust in logic. I personally think neither is bad, but neither is worthy of blind devotion.

As a final note, Christians who get worked up about this issue to the point where they cause act of violence (smashing up museums, or whatever) drive me nuts. Christians would do well to remember that they are supposed to be imitators of Christ. If they followed His example by loving their neighbor and showing a preferrential option for the poor instead of boming abortion clinics, killing Jews and all the other stupid things they do - the world would be a much, much happier place.

[ramblingrose]

Originally posted by Squirrel
No, it was just textiles. But then one time someone locked this kid in a cupboard in her class, and not only did she not notice him missing, she also opened the cupboard and the kid didn't say anything and she didn't even see him. So I don't think she was exactly golfing with a full set of clubs.

was she called Mrs Pygott?

[Mary Alice]

Originally posted by Saxton
Here's my two cents...

I'm a Christian. And I believe that God created the Earth. However, I think science seems to point towards evolution. Evolution theory has a lot of holes (let's not pretend it doesn't) but I think that simply means we don't know everything that went on in the process. I have no doubt that the clever scientist will someday figure out the jist of what went on. But I have no problem saying that this process was engineered by the divine. After all, what are the chances tnat a planet would form just the right distance from the sun, with just the right circumstances, and that evolution process would proceed in a fashion that such a complex form of life (like ourselves) could flourish? I'd say pretty slim, and as we continue to explore the Universe, I'd guess we'd continue to find that while we may not be alone - we're going to find that life is pretty rare out there.

As Jacki knows, I believe that the first couple chapters of Genesis are true: But not in a historical sense. How could they be a historical record of something nobody witnessed? I don't think they were ever intended to be taken as a literal, historical account of what went on. Whoever wrote those chapters would probably think that was silly. I also believe that there are contradictions between the first two chapters of Genesis. I think it's a fictional story meant to communicate a truth: that God created the world. I also respect Jacki's more conservative opinion. She trusts in faith, the rest of you trust in logic. I personally think neither is bad, but neither is worthy of blind devotion.

As a final note, Christians who get worked up about this issue to the point where they cause act of violence (smashing up museums, or whatever) drive me nuts. Christians would do well to remember that they are supposed to be imitators of Christ. If they followed His example by loving their neighbor and showing a preferrential option for the poor instead of boming abortion clinics, killing Jews and all the other stupid things they do - the world would be a much, much happier place.

I can dig it.

[sad machines]

Originally posted by Saxton
Here's my two cents...
I believe that the first couple chapters of Genesis are true: But not in a historical sense. How could they be a historical record of something nobody witnessed? I don't think they were ever intended to be taken as a literal, historical account of what went on. Whoever wrote those chapters would probably think that was silly. I also believe that there are contradictions between the first two chapters of Genesis. I think it's a fictional story meant to communicate a truth: that God created the world.


Well, whoever wrote that stuff didn't do a good job. If they wanted to educate people about how the world was created, they shouldn't have written a bunch of rediculous tales. And I know that Christians would say that they did this in order to separate the faithful from the faithless. Well, that is not a very good way to get everyone faithful.

And if it's not a historical account...then it must be entirely fantastical...based on stories and no evidence.

[Saxton]

Originally posted by sad machines
Well, whoever wrote that stuff didn't do a good job. If they wanted to educate people about how the world was created, they shouldn't have written a bunch of rediculous tales. And I know that Christians would say that they did this in order to separate the faithful from the faithless. Well, that is not a very good way to get everyone faithful.

And if it's not a historical account...then it must be entirely fantastical...based on stories and no evidence.

Hey, if Mary Alice can dig it, it's all good. :-D

On a serious note, whoever wrote that stuff lived at 2500 years ago or so. They really had no idea how the Earth was created, and so essentially mythological tales was the best they could do.

I look at it like this: The ancient Greeks didn't know why the seasons changed and crops wouldn't grow in the Winter. So they made up the story of Persephone being kidnapped by Hades, and having to stay in the Underwold in the Winter, and her mother would not let the crops grow. This story, despite being historically inaccurate and clearly mythology, communicates a fundamental truth: crops don't grow in the winter. It is my opinion that the Genesis Creation narrative is a mythological story designed to communicate the fundamental truth that God created the world. I think that truth was as plain to the author as "crops don't grow in the winter."

Now, obviously, this sets me apart from the Conservative blockhead Christians that say stupid things on the news and the Conservative sincere Christians like Jacki. But I don't think Christians need to feel uncomfortable about this. After all: When Jesus told parables, wasn't He using mythological stories that were unrooted in historical fact to communicate fundamental truths? Why should we be uncomfortable with this in the Old Testament if we are comfortable with it in the New Testament?

This next paragraph is a tangent, feel free to skip it if this sort of things doesn't interest you.

The answer I always get from Christians is: "Where do we draw the line? Was the Ressurection of Christ mythology??" Well, you can draw the line wherever you want it. I think people need to draw it for themselves. For me, the Ressurection seems like a likely historical event. Something happened to turn a bunch of scared Galliean fishermen into world shaping Apostles. Each one of them died grisly deaths because of their commitment to this truth (the Ressurection). And none of them renounced it. I can't see them doing this unless they really believed Christ rose from the dead. Now, I believe the Ressurection happened for other reasons too. But historically, I have no reason to doubt the historical veracity of the Ressurection. Maybe we don't have an accurate historical record of exactly what went down, but... Jonah getting swallowed by a whale, and some of the other crazy things that happened in the Bible... I just don't seem them as historical fact. But the Ressurection of Christ? Some people have tried to be a Christian without believing in this (Tolstoy, for example) but I don't think it works. Christians have every reason to believe Christ rose from the dead.

[negatifzeo]

The only thing that can be taught is that which we KNOW. We KNOW with the theory of evolution what we have observed and what we have deduced from those observations, therefore that is all we can teach. I have nothing against philosophizing and spirituality, and I think it's only natural that all people do it. All people SHOULD do it. But this practice has no business being institutionalized.

[Squirrel]

You can take a class in theoretical physics though.

[negatifzeo]

I have no knowledge of the subject other than what I've read in The Dancing Wu-Li masters. But I think that's besides the point. Theoretical Physics is not a religion, is it? There's got to be a basis for these theories, they can't just be making them up. A class on Theoretical Physics is one thing, introducing an idea with no scientific basis to be taught to children is another.

[Squirrel]

I know, I'm just screwing around.

[sad machines]

Originally posted by Saxton
[B]

On a serious note, whoever wrote that stuff lived at 2500 years ago or so. They really had no idea how the Earth was created, and so essentially mythological tales was the best they could do.

I look at it like this: The ancient Greeks didn't know why the seasons changed and crops wouldn't grow in the Winter. So they made up the story of Persephone being kidnapped by Hades, and having to stay in the Underwold in the Winter, and her mother would not let the crops grow. This story, despite being historically inaccurate and clearly mythology, communicates a fundamental truth: crops don't grow in the winter.

Now, obviously, this sets me apart from the Conservative blockhead Christians that say stupid things on the news and the Conservative sincere Christians like Jacki. But I don't think Christians need to feel uncomfortable about this. [B]

Your opinion is well-stated and commendable. I wish that all Christians saw things this way, instead of just insisting that evolution is crap and the Bible is a textbook.

So...do you feel that Intelligent Design should be taught in Biology class...or do you feel it should be kept to Religious education and the two should be kept separate?

[negatifzeo]

I think it needs to be taught, but how it is taught is pretty important. It should be taught to people as a phenomenon, a cultural oddity..... People should definitley be made aware to realize that Wow! A bunch of people believe something simply because they were told to, and they let people, no, insist people govern them and everyone else based on this false belief. Seems like something for social studies.

[Saxton]

Originally posted by sad machines

So...do you feel that Intelligent Design should be taught in Biology class...or do you feel it should be kept to Religious education and the two should be kept separate?

I think it's an important minority view, and I don't mind it getting mentioned. Should it be taught instead of Evolution? I don't think so. Do I have a problem with teachers mentioning Intelligent Design as an alternative position? No. I still don't see why they must be contradictory. I guess, personally, I wouldn't want to have to choose between them, and dislike seeing them set against each other.

[DrHibbert]

If they're not contradictory, then why can't they teach evolution without mentioning god? If evolution is the constant, and atheism and theism are in disagreement, then why can't we teach evolution and let each child come to a determination of his or her own as to why evolution happens? Why do we need stickers in books to rub it in people's faces when the two sides agree that evolution is a real phenomenon?

[sleepy sinner]

Originally posted by Bumblebee mouth
[B

One of these days I will get around to reading that book. I believe the main idea of that book is the "irreducibly complex" argument. This argument states that complex things (the eye for example) could not have evolved because if even one part doesn't work or is missing the whole thing doesn't work. [/B]

At least in microevolution I'd say conserved sequences explain this quite well on a simple level. If you know at all what I'm referring to? Mutations arise constantly in sequences flexible enough to be able to express the mutation (whether it be deleterious, neutral or beneficial) without altering the entire essential structure of an organism/organ/tissue etc. Conserved sequences are identified however(which don't tend to mutate) because they do encode essential functions and mutations in these sequences tend to be lethal/very deleterious to survival. This is how every individual has different eyes (and yes, some are deleterious or defective - myopic etc) without necessarily losing the basic conserved eye structure or complete vision itself.
For example, evolutionary relatedness is traced through the conserved 16S ribsosomal RNA subunit sequence. Without this conserved function, it appears life or at least protein synthesis can not occur. I've mainly touched on conserved bacterial protein domains however, so am not quite sure about a human system.

[Fab]

Originally posted by Saxton
I look at it like this: The ancient Greeks didn't know why the seasons changed and crops wouldn't grow in the Winter. So they made up the story of Persephone being kidnapped by Hades, and having to stay in the Underwold in the Winter, and her mother would not let the crops grow. This story, despite being historically inaccurate and clearly mythology, communicates a fundamental truth: crops don't grow in the winter. It is my opinion that the Genesis Creation narrative is a mythological story designed to communicate the fundamental truth that God created the world. I think that truth was as plain to the author as "crops don't grow in the winter." I don't think that's a great analogy for your point, because in the Greek sense, what you state to be the fundamental truth is that crops don't grow in the winter. This is something that was observed and couldn't be denied, and a story was made up around it.

In the story of the creation, the observable and only part that can't be denied is the fact that the world was created, not that God created it, God (to me) was a part of the story created around the observable truth.

[Six Ways]

Originally posted by Fab
I don't think that's a great analogy for your point, because in the Greek sense, what you state to be the fundamental truth is that crops don't grow in the winter. This is something that was observed and couldn't be denied, and a story was made up around it.

In the story of the creation, the observable and only part that can't be denied is the fact that the world was created, not that God created it, God (to me) was a part of the story created around the observable truth.

Sorry, Saxy baby, but I gotta say it:

Pwntd.

[Six Ways]

I haven't really been keeping up with this thread, but I'd like to throw Flying Spaghetti Monsterism into the works here. As an argument against ID being taught of course.

Or rather, an argument against ID being taught in Biology at least. You can teach it in religious studies, but you sure as fuck better teach FSM with an equally straight face.

[sleepy sinner]

You wouldn't teach ID in biology because it has no biological content or relation to biology.

It's a religious standpoint or opinion and thus would belong being taught in a religious studies or philosophy type of class.

[Herr Lipp]

Take a ganders at this story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4419796.stm

[Six Ways]

Originally posted by sleepy sinner
You wouldn't teach ID in biology because it has no biological content or relation to biology.

It's a religious standpoint or opinion and thus would belong being taught in a religious studies or philosophy type of class.

That's not what George W. Bush thinks. I hope the W stands for wanker or something. Unlikely, but an entertaining prospect.

[ramblingrose]

On a vaguely relevant tangent, I read recently that there are now only two states (California was one and I forget the other) where they don't teach abstinence exclusively in sex education classes. Way to up the divorce rate, idiots.

[vordabois]

:lol:

Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastafarian

Brilliant!


Flying Spaghetti Monsterism

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (FSM) is a satirical parody religion created to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to allow the teaching of the supposed problems with evolution.

The "religion" has become an Internet phenomenon that has garnered many "followers" of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (sometimes referring to themselves as "Pastafarians," a pun on Rastafarians) who claim to have been touched by "His Noodly Appendage" and preach the word of their "noodly master" as the one true religion. Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is primarily the invention of Bobby Henderson, a graduate of Oregon State University with a degree in physics.


Developments

In June 2005, Bobby Henderson submitted an open letter to the Kansas Board of Education in response to their scheduling a hearing debating whether to give intelligent design equal time with evolution by natural selection in biology classes. On his Web site, named venganza.org after the Spanish word for revenge, he formally requested that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism be given time in classrooms equal to that given to intelligent design and to "logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence" (evolution). He warned that if this was not done, "we will be forced to proceed with legal action." Shortly afterwards, he received sympathetic responses from three members of the board.

The site received worldwide attention when Boing Boing featured it in June 2005. Traffic exploded in August, when FSM was repeatedly featured on Boing Boing and other blogs and Internet humor sites such as Something Awful and Fark.com. Articles in the mainstream media soon followed. FSMism has since received positive analysis from a number of academics.[2] Anthropologist of religion Susan Johnston, for example, argues the FSM has aspects of both male and female, "with both 'noodly appendages' and two round meatballs which clearly represent the Breasts of the Great Mother Goddess."

The "Latest News" section of Henderson's site notes that U.S. President George W. Bush [3] and U.S. Senator Bill Frist [4] have publicly supported the teaching of "different ideas" (Bush) and "a broad range of fact, of science, including faith" (Frist) on the origin of life, alongside evolutionary theory. Henderson infers that they support the teaching of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism — though neither has publicly stated a position specifically on FSM.

In August 2005, in response to a challenge from a reader, Boing Boing announced a $250,000 USD challenge, payable to any individual who can produce empirical evidence proving that Jesus is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, though Jesus is not a part of, or worshipped in Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.[5] The challenge is modelled after a similar challenge issued by creationist Kent Hovind, which has been criticized by scientists as being logically flawed in design.[6] The FSM prize was soon raised by matching reward funds to $1 million USD.


Beliefs

Many of the "beliefs" proposed by Henderson were intentionally chosen to parody arguments commonly set forth by proponents of Intelligent Design:

* An invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, starting with a mountain, trees and a "midgit" (sic). All evidence pointing towards evolution was intentionally planted by this being.
* Global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct consequence of the decline in numbers of pirates since the 1800s. A graph showing the inverse correlation between the pirates and global temperatures was also provided. This component of the theory highlights the logical fallacy of correlation implying causation.
* It is disrespectful to teach their beliefs without wearing "His" chosen outfit, full pirate regalia.
* The monster continues to guide human affairs with his "noodly appendage".
* Prayers to "Him" are typically ended by "Ramen", instead of "Amen".
* Heaven has a stripper factory and a beer volcano.
* Bobby Henderson is the "prophet" of this religion.
* Every Friday is a religious holiday.

Wikipedia links to several articles published by some other global publishing companies...

New Scentist:
"The Flying Spaghetti Monster" (http://www.newscientist.com/backpage.ns?id=mg18725112.800)

Der Spiegel (German) :
"Evolution Debate Creates Monster" (http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzkultur/0,1518,370849,00.html)

Lawrence (Kansas) Journal-World:
"Evolution debate creates monster" (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/aug/24/evolution_debate_creates_monster/?education)

[vordabois]

Complete with artwork that I just couldn't leave out... :-p

[vordabois]

Images depicting the creation of the universe typically show the Monster, a tree-covered mountain, and a "midgit."

[vordabois]

Originally posted by Six Ways
I haven't really been keeping up with this thread, but I'd like to throw Flying Spaghetti Monsterism into the works here. As an argument against ID being taught of course.

Or rather, an argument against ID being taught in Biology at least. You can teach it in religious studies, but you sure as fuck better teach FSM with an equally straight face.

So yeah, there you go. I saw the term "Pastafarian" somewhere and lo and behold...

More links:

Wichita Eagle:
"Evolution Debate Spawns a Saucy Monster" (http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/local/12497453.htm)

Washington Post:
"Verbatim: Noodle This, Kansas" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/27/AR2005082700019.html?nav=most_emailed)

New York Times:
"But Is There Intelligent Spaghetti Out There?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/arts/design/29mons.html?ex=1282968000&en=ee37c2cf9d5884e7&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

Austin American Statesman:
"Another theory of creation for Kansas" (http://www.statesman.com/search/content/insight/stories/09/4noodlethis.html)

Daily Telegraph:
"In the Beginning, there was the Flying Spaghetti Monster" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/11/wfsm11.xml)

Gelf Magazine:
"An interview with the Prophet Bobby Henderson, the voice of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism" (http://www.gelfmagazine.com/mt/archives/touched_by_his_noodly_appendage.html)

Gazette Times:
"Flying Spaghetti Monster gains following" (http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2005/09/25/news/the_west/west03.txt)

Idaho Mountain Express:
"Intelligent Designer or Flying Spaghetti Monster?" (http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?issue_date=10-12-2005&ID=2005105688)

[Spaced]

:lol: Noodly appendage...classic

[revgoozen]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru

as for everything else in this thread...
you guys are a waste of time. this isn't even an open debate thread, this is an extremely closedminded "let's bash the other side" thread. I have half a mind to join in, but I've worked so hard not to lower myself to that.

I wish Joder was still here :(

i've been busy having a baby (correction, my wife was having the baby, i held a leg and said push), so i'm coming a little late in the game... allow me to reply in typical fashon... creationism and id are not observable or repeatable. they are therefor unscientific. creationism being taught anywhere in an american public school is obviously unconstitutional. id probably could be taught in school, but definately not in science class. it might be more apporopriate in social studies.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by revgoozen
my wife was having the baby

Congratulations! :yes:

[vordabois]

Pat Robertson Warns Pa. Town of Disaster
Associated Press
November 10th, 2005

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson warned residents of a rural Pennsylvania town Thursday that disaster may strike there because they "voted God out of your city" by ousting school board members who favored teaching intelligent design.

All eight Dover, Pa., school board members up for re-election were defeated Tuesday after trying to introduce "intelligent design" — the belief that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power — as an alternative to the theory of evolution.

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city," Robertson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club."

Eight families had sued the district, claiming the policy violates the constitutional separation of church and state. The federal trial concluded days before Tuesday's election, but no ruling has been issued.

Later Thursday, Robertson issued a statement saying he was simply trying to point out that "our spiritual actions have consequences."

"God is tolerant and loving, but we can't keep sticking our finger in his eye forever," Robertson said. "If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them."

Robertson made headlines this summer when he called on his daily show for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

In October 2003, he suggested that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device. He has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_re_us/robertson_evolution

[Spaced]

Originally posted by vordabois
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_re_us/robertson_evolution

These people are hilarious and frightening at the same time.
As an aside to FSM, how come proponents of ID don't push the creation stories of other religions/cultures other than their own as well. A lot of them are far more creative than the Judeo-Christian story, and are surely worthy alternatives to Evolution ;)

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by revgoozen
i've been busy having a baby (correction, my wife was having the baby, i held a leg and said push), so i'm coming a little late in the game... allow me to reply in typical fashon... creationism and id are not observable or repeatable. they are therefor unscientific. creationism being taught anywhere in an american public school is obviously unconstitutional. id probably could be taught in school, but definately not in science class. it might be more apporopriate in social studies.
Congratulations Derrick, may they be as cute as your first born!

[revgoozen]

Originally posted by vordabois
Congratulations! :yes:

Originally posted by Narcissistic Nihilist Congratulations Derrick, may they be as cute as your first born!

thank you and thank you.

[sleepy sinner]

Originally posted by revgoozen
i held a leg

That's cute.

Congrats. Your second, yes?

[Saxton]

Originally posted by Fab
I don't think that's a great analogy for your point, because in the Greek sense, what you state to be the fundamental truth is that crops don't grow in the winter. This is something that was observed and couldn't be denied, and a story was made up around it.

In the story of the creation, the observable and only part that can't be denied is the fact that the world was created, not that God created it, God (to me) was a part of the story created around the observable truth.

Uh oh, Luke says I got pw4... whatevered. ;)

To the ancient Hebrew that wrote these stories, the world could not have been created another way. The ancient person did not have another way to explain the fact that the Earth was, that I am aware of. The alternative to believing in a divine creator or creators for the ancient person was to think, "You know, let's not think about why/how we are here, and build a giant statue of a penis and bow down to that instead." (I'm very sorry to any Baal worshippers I offended with this comment... like the Geico commercial with the cavemen). The ancient Hebrew is saying to his and her neighbors in the ancient Near East: "YHWH created the world, and you made your god. Clearly our tribal god is superior to your tribal god."

So in the modern world, it gets p3905wned or whatever. In the ancient world that authored and was the intended reader for this text, it did the p4wgiawing.

Yet, I think the truth that the biblical authors were trying to communicate ends up being true - even though they do not have a logical defense set up for it. It wasn't meant for your jaded, postmodern intelligence. My reasons for believing that God somehow guided the formation of our Earth and all the cosmos run much deeper than "the Bible told me so, it's right in the front of the thing, how could you miss it, omg?!?!" But I think the ancient Hebrew author(s) of Genesis were the proverbial blind squirrel who found the proverbial nut of "God created the world".

Does that help to clarify? Because it didn't seem very lucid as I just reread it.

[revgoozen]

Originally posted by Saxton
Uh oh, Luke says I got pw4... whatevered. ;)

To the ancient Hebrew that wrote these stories, the world could not have been created another way. The ancient person did not have another way to explain the fact that the Earth was, that I am aware of. The alternative to believing in a divine creator or creators for the ancient person was to think, "You know, let's not think about why/how we are here, and build a giant statue of a penis and bow down to that instead." (I'm very sorry to any Baal worshippers I offended with this comment... like the Geico commercial with the cavemen). The ancient Hebrew is saying to his and her neighbors in the ancient Near East: "YHWH created the world, and you made your god. Clearly our tribal god is superior to your tribal god."

So in the modern world, it gets p3905wned or whatever. In the ancient world that authored and was the intended reader for this text, it did the p4wgiawing.

Yet, I think the truth that the biblical authors were trying to communicate ends up being true - even though they do not have a logical defense set up for it. It wasn't meant for your jaded, postmodern intelligence. My reasons for believing that God somehow guided the formation of our Earth and all the cosmos run much deeper than "the Bible told me so, it's right in the front of the thing, how could you miss it, omg?!?!" But I think the ancient Hebrew author(s) of Genesis were the proverbial blind squirrel who found the proverbial nut of "God created the world".

Does that help to clarify? Because it didn't seem very lucid as I just reread it.

you've made a great defense of your personal belief system, and a reasonable defense of the ancient jewish thought process - but you've not made a rationale case for teaching ID in science class.

[Saxton]

Originally posted by revgoozen
you've made a great defense of your personal belief system, and a reasonable defense of the ancient jewish thought process - but you've not made a rationale case for teaching ID in science class.

Right. But that's cool, because I don't want ID taught in science class, unless some better evidence comes along the pike. School should teach the facts, and let the kids do with those facts what they wat. If the teacher wants to mention it as an alternative viewpoint: fine. If not, that's fine too. :-D

[sad machines]

If all Christians saw things open-mindedly, the way Saxton does, we wouldn't be having this debate.

It's too bad there has to be so many people who just think that "the good book says so, and every other idea is rubbish."

[revgoozen]

Originally posted by Saxton
Right. But that's cool, because I don't want ID taught in science class, unless some better evidence comes along the pike. School should teach the facts, and let the kids do with those facts what they wat. If the teacher wants to mention it as an alternative viewpoint: fine. If not, that's fine too. :-D

as long as it's not being taught as an alternative in science class, i'd say i agree.

[Fab]

Sorry Saxton, I'm just not buying your argument. The same could be said of the Ancient Greeks story about thingy having to go to Hades, no one at the time thought anything different, and those who did would have been ridiculed. In its own time, that did the pw137ing.

In both cases there's a leap of faith involving Gods of some description as supreme beings that in their own time were perfectly acceptable, but there's nothing to disinguish the leaps of faith from each other.

I think we'll just have to agree to differ.

[Spaced]

Not that I want to dig up old threads, but just heard that the US Federal Court has finally ruled that ID is unscientific, and shouldn't be taught in science classes. Hooray for that. Hopefully there aren't any appeals!

[Leela]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, since this thread is way too long and I'm way too impatient, but:

Alot of people think that we evolved from monkeys. This is false, or more likely false. The theory of evolution teaches us that we have common ancestors, not that we evolved from them.


And btw, I think Intelligent Design is Crap.

http://www.venganza.org/

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by Spaced
Not that I want to dig up old threads, but just heard that the US Federal Court has finally ruled that ID is unscientific, and shouldn't be taught in science classes. Hooray for that. Hopefully there aren't any appeals!
Yeah, I heard that. A true victory for the US.

[sad machines]

Originally posted by Nymphadora
Alot of people think that we evolved from monkeys. This is false, or more likely false. The theory of evolution teaches us that we have common ancestors, not that we evolved from them.


And btw, I think Intelligent Design is Crap.

http://www.venganza.org/

This makes no sense whatsoever. You are saying that evolution is true...but we didn't evolve.

I think many people refuse to accept the idea because they hold humans higher than other animals. But we are just animals...we are like Chimpanzees with a more advanced brain. That is it.

[Leela]

Originally posted by sad machines
This makes no sense whatsoever. You are saying that evolution is true...but we didn't evolve.


um NO I'm SAYING that we didn't evolve from chimpanzees, that cimpanzees and humans evolved from a common ancestor. We DID evolve, but not necessarily from chimps OK

[sad machines]

Originally posted by Nymphadora
um NO I'm SAYING that we didn't evolve from chimpanzees, that cimpanzees and humans evolved from a common ancestor. We DID evolve, but not necessarily from chimps OK

Oh, okay. Thank you for clarifying. I understand your point now. I totally agree.

[Herr Lipp]

A chimp is not a monkey you 'tard.

[sad machines]

Originally posted by Herr Lipp
A chimp is not a monkey you 'tard.

Some people still haven't evolved.

[Herr Lipp]

:-p

A wise man or woman once said (on blamo I think) that the smaller the monkey, the more evil they look.

[Carnage]

What's the Evolutionists answer to this question:

If we're all descended from primates, why are the primates still here?

[Carnage]

Originally posted by RosegardenMercury
anyways...I was at the Masonic Temple recently and even they feel evolution should be taught in school and ID in church if it's legitimized...


what the bejesus have they got to do with anything?

[Fab]

Originally posted by Carnage
What's the Evolutionists answer to this question:

If we're all descended from primates, why are the primates still here? Are you just playing Devil's advocate or do you think you have a legitimate point?

[Carnage]

fuck off you cunt.

someone asked me it and I didnt know how to respond. dont reply to my posts if you dont have anything worthwhile to say.

[Fab]

Calm down captain, it just seems a very silly question is all, whoever asked it quite clearly doesn't understand evolution.

The answer is that we didn't evolve from the same primates that are around today, we evolved from now extinct sub-species, which also evolved into the other kinds of modern primates. The whole species doesn't simultaniously evolve, it's just one mutation ofter another in a baby that is successful enough to breed and pass on its mutated genes, which eventually will be different enough from the original that it can be classed as a different species.

[Carnage]

why didnt you just say that in the first place?

thanks.

[Fab]

Originally posted by Carnage
why didnt you just say that in the first place?

thanks. i just get annoyed by people who think they understand stuff (but actually don't) using their ill-formed knowledge to try and make a point, like tom cruise with his "i understand psychology" bollocks.

[Nak Nak]

Originally posted by RosegardenMercury
I just thought I'd add that...I had to visit there on a school trip...what do they have to do with anything....well of the majority of those who signed the constitution...50 of them were Masons...and they're a rather peculiar secret society. The other is Scull