Members EpiPaul03 Posted August 13, 2006 Members Share Posted August 13, 2006 Originally posted by voodoopower Ignore the stigma of darwinism and creationism. Just a simple question. Yes, however, I don't completely agree with the whole theory of evolution. As we make new discoveries we'll always find more and more. If anyone thinks that the theory of our evolution is set it stone, it's far from it. There are new discoveries everyday. I think in a lot of the theory there are places that have evidence but can't be fully proven even though they seem logical. As we tie all the loose ends we'll eventually come to a final conclusion. But as for now, it'll be changing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blargh Posted August 13, 2006 Members Share Posted August 13, 2006 Originally posted by Echoes Design is the only explanation...to deny it is showing 'blind ignorance' to the facts at hand.... What a silly statement. I'll freely admit I don't know how life started, I think all the theories of biogenesis don't make much sense, but I'd rather not know than accept some silly, unsupported creationist nonsense just to have some kind of instant intellectual gratification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MonikerLewinsky Posted August 13, 2006 Members Share Posted August 13, 2006 Originally posted by blargh Clearly you haven't, because irreducible complexity has many an argument against it. But since you don't want to be proven wrong, you'll call it a "ridiculous, off the top of their head explanation". Lame. I've read several evolutionary explanations of this example of IR. I would bet my paycheck you haven't ready anything more meaningful than tab for "Stairway to Heaven" since highschool. (If you've made it that far) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MonikerLewinsky Posted August 13, 2006 Members Share Posted August 13, 2006 Originally posted by blargh What a silly statement. I'll freely admit I don't know how life started, I think all the theories of biogenesis don't make much sense, but I'd rather not know than accept some silly, unsupported creationist nonsense just to have some kind of instant intellectual gratification. Um, its called abiogenesis. I mistyped, but I know better than to quote a mistype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pink freud Posted August 13, 2006 Members Share Posted August 13, 2006 in a way yes, but also in a way, no.i believe genetically, we have evolved from lower life forms.but socially, we have degraded.we are the only species on this planet that does not follow the laws of nature, and we don't realize that we will pay for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MonikerLewinsky Posted August 13, 2006 Members Share Posted August 13, 2006 Originally posted by AgentOrange Biogenesis? As in life producing new life? Ive seen animals being born so yeah, i have. And yes, it does require a ton of mutation an selection, but if you use plants or bacterial life, life with very short generation times, you can observe trends in real time. Severe examples such as those found in plants growing in contaminated spoil demonstrates seletion for randomly occuring genotypes and the subseqent selection pressures and proliferation of that type. The literature is full of this stuff to be honest Anyways, bedtime, ill argue with you another time. I look forward to it James I hope you could figure out I meant by the context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echoes Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by blargh What a silly statement. I'll freely admit I don't know how life started, I think all the theories of biogenesis don't make much sense, but I'd rather not know than accept some silly, unsupported creationist nonsense just to have some kind of instant intellectual gratification. You don't HAVE to believe in God if you don't want to...man:rolleyes: all I'm saying is that with the preponderance of evidence DESIGN is the only conclusion...to think that this is all an accident or to pretend that it is an accident is the definition of blind ignorance... Biological, archeological, physiological, astronomy...on and on you name it and there is DESIGN "INNATE' within.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echoes Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by pink freud in a way yes, but also in a way, no. i believe genetically, we have evolved from lower life forms. but socially, we have degraded. we are the only species on this planet that does not follow the laws of nature, and we don't realize that we will pay for it what laws do you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GasMask Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by Echoes You don't HAVE to believe in God if you don't want to...man:rolleyes: all I'm saying is that with the preponderance of evidence DESIGN is the only conclusion...to think that this is all an accident or to pretend that it is an accident is the definition of blind ignorance...Biological, archeological, physiological, astronomy...on and on you name it and there is DESIGN "INNATE' within.... WOW! What a Crock! Anyone who does not agree with your narrow minded viewpoint is guilty of "blind ignorance"? Oh Puhleeezzzzz! The fact is- there is an overwhelming body of evidence supporting evolution. Virtually every educated scientist accepts evolution as a proven fact. On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence supporting "intelligent design". NONE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members savoldi Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by voodoopower I have no idea what you are jabbering about but please vote in the poll. If you didn't understand what I wrote maybe you need a bit more ascending. Or descending. Anyway, there's NO WAY you're going to get a simple yes or no to that question in this place. And that should even be obvious to those amoebas I was jabbering about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MonikerLewinsky Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by GasMask WOW! What a Crock! Anyone who does not agree with your narrow minded viewpoint is guilty of "blind ignorance"? Oh Puhleeezzzzz! The fact is- there is an overwhelming body of evidence supporting evolution. Virtually every educated scientist accepts evolution as a proven fact. On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence supporting "intelligent design". NONE. Wow, you couldn't have made yourself look anymore ignorant than you just did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GasMask Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by MonikerLewinsky Wow, you couldn't have made yourself look anymore ignorant than you just did. Then prove me wrong! I challenge you to provide one piece of scientific evidence that supports "intelligent design". You can't do it! I guess it is easier for you to throw out an insult than to have an intelligent debate. But since you have nothing to support your view, I can understand your cowardess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members savoldi Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by Echoes You don't HAVE to believe in God if you don't want to...man:rolleyes: all I'm saying is that with the preponderance of evidence DESIGN is the only conclusion...to think that this is all an accident or to pretend that it is an accident is the definition of blind ignorance...Biological, archeological, physiological, astronomy...on and on you name it and there is DESIGN "INNATE' within.... The fact that humans found rules of order in the unverse does not mean they were intelligently designed that way. Science peels back layers of ignorance. If God is at the center of all things, science only needs to find the last layer on any one of them and you'll have your creator. Assuming, of course, that we are capable of recognizing the face of God when we see it. And since personal interpretation of scientific results is subject to emotional enthusiasm and often shaded by such, faith may never become obsolete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MonikerLewinsky Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by GasMask Then prove me wrong! I challenge you to provide one piece of scientific evidence that supports "intelligent design". You can't do it! I guess it is easier for you to throw out an insult than to have an intelligent debate. But since you have nothing to support your view, I can understand your cowardess. I guess if you can offer credentials of some sort to suggest your qualified to approve of deny evidence either way then I'll spend some time to offer some.EDIT: BTW, you threw out the first insult born of ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 17 Tubes Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by Echoes science looks at 'what IS' and comes to certain possible conclusions...interesting that when it comes to 'origins' science begins to pontificate a 'theory' (really barely a hypothesis) and then (this is the best part!!!) it says: we don't know how our 'theory' is true but we are certain that given enough time we scientists will find sufficient evidence and facts to verify what we postulate. AH, friends, this is not 'science' it is 'religion'....and a bad one at that! and, TRUTHFULLY! the scientific evidence denies Darwin and supports DESIGN!... so, how come the scientists don't want to follow the evidence when it comes to origins:confused: I don't see why that is such horrible scenario to you.Do you realize how many important discoveries have been made by accident? What that means is that people have found very relevant and everyday miracles by investigating "something they weren't sure about". They "postulate" a "theory" and then follow SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES and PROCEDURES to show that is either true or not true. Yes, there will be error. Yes, there will be ill-results and ill-intent, as in any human endeavor. But "Science" is no worse (and of course, no better) than religion. Both have good and bad aspects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 17 Tubes Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by Echoes You don't HAVE to believe in God if you don't want to...man:rolleyes: all I'm saying is that with the preponderance of evidence DESIGN is the only conclusion...to think that this is all an accident or to pretend that it is an accident is the definition of blind ignorance...Biological, archeological, physiological, astronomy...on and on you name it and there is DESIGN "INNATE' within.... You attribute "design" and "innate" to things you do not understand. I belive that *could* be a mistake. I think God chuckles over us, as we try to prove he exists due to lack of any other ideas or "evidence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GasMask Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by MonikerLewinsky I guess if you can offer credentials of some sort to suggest your qualified to approve of deny evidence either way then I'll spend some time to offer some. Just as I thought! You had the opportunity to provide us with any piece of evidence to support your opinion. Instead- all you have is an excuse. I'm not surprised. Virtually every single scientist accepts evolution. That is a simple fact. I guess you think you are smarter than every one of them. You think they are all ignorant because they don't share your view? The overwhelming majority of respondents to the poll disagree with you as well... I guess you think they are all ignorant also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MonikerLewinsky Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by GasMask Just as I thought! You had the opportunity to provide us with any piece of evidence to support your opinion. Instead- all you have is an excuse. I'm not surprised. Virtually every single scientist accepts evolution. That is a simple fact. I guess you think you are smarter than every one of them. You think they are all ignorant because they don't share your view? The overwhelming majority of respondents to the poll disagree with you as well... I guess you think they are all ignorant also. Us? Who's us? YOU asked for evidence. You have a computer, quit begging me for it and go look for yourself. That is unless you don't really want to see it, which is what I suspect. It's not my job to inform you, take some initiative and better inform yourself.BTW- The most ignorant dumbass retard scientist who doesn't agree with evolution would still own you.Now I have a challenge, offer some sort of understanding of the subject without plagiarizing talkorigins.org or the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DeathMonkey Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by CliffC8488 This is why our current society is so screwed up. Scientific method has been replaced by opinion polls. Despite overwhelming evidence for (insert topic here, i.e. global warming, evolution, etc.), the public is brainwashed by propaganda from those with an agenda.The administration censors facts that go against policy, deliberately tries to replace truth with dogma and cultures an environment of general distrust of science and those who dare speak out against them.It's precisely this kind of mentality that eventually leads to things like Auschwitz. Just look at this forum. There was a post the other day where someone was advocating killing the relatives of those who are linked to terrorism. WTF?!!!!!So in answer to the question, all scientific evidence says a resounding yes.And so what? Is this so bad? What does it matter if I descended from pond scum? Is this any worse than descending from some dude who wore a fig leaf and ate an apple?CC A-{censored}ing-men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nutter Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Voted yes. I work with cells. And they do change, sometimes within a few weeks. Imagine what would happen if I left them for a few million years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DeathMonkey Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 OK, so, you take it as fact that Jesus walked on water, rose from the dead, and turned water into wine, but you don't have faith in the fossil record or the clear evolution and mutation of, say, flu germs from season to season??? You people take the {censored}ing cake, I swear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MonikerLewinsky Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by DeathMonkey OK, so, you take it as fact that Jesus walked on water, rose from the dead, and turned water into wine, but you don't have faith in the fossil record or the clear evolution and mutation of, say, flu germs from season to season??? You people take the {censored}ing cake, I swear. Who was your question directed to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MonikerLewinsky Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by Nutter Voted yes. I work with cells. And they do change, sometimes within a few weeks. Imagine what would happen if I left them for a few million years. What line of work are you in? How do they change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GasMask Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by MonikerLewinsky Us? Who's us? YOU asked for evidence. You have a computer, quit begging me for it and go look for yourself. That is unless you don't really want to see it, which is what I suspect. It's not my job to inform you, take some initiative and better inform yourself. BTW- The most ignorant dumbass retard scientist who doesn't agree with evolution would still own you. Now I have a challenge, offer some sort of understanding of the subject without plagiarizing talkorigins.org or the like. I was simply pointing out that you have no evidence to support your opinion, which is why you hide behind insults rather than providing any supporting facts to back your view. It's easier for you to just call somebody who disagrees with you ignorant, rather than support your opinion. This shows how weak your argument is. It amazes me how somebody can just ignore the massive body of evidence supporting evolution. On the other hand, there is simply no scientific evidence to support Intelligent design. I've challenged you to prove me wrong on this point- but you cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MonikerLewinsky Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by GasMask I was simply pointing out that you have no evidence to support your opinion, which is why you hide behind insults rather than providing any supporting facts to back your view. It's easier for you to just call somebody who disagrees with you ignorant, rather than support your opinion. This shows how weak your argument is. It amazes me how somebody can just ignore the massive body of evidence supporting evolution. On the other hand, there is simply no scientific evidence to support Intelligent design. I've challenged you to prove me wrong on this point- but you cannot. Thats what I thought.BTW-Again, you started with the insults, so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.