Members blargh Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by Echoes one cannot escape the overwhelming evidence AGAINST Darwin and for Design.. wow, thats a good one where is this "overwhelming" evidence? surely it must greatly outweigh the mounds of evidence FOR the theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nutter Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by MonikerLewinsky Right. My point was you still have a K9, just faster. But in a million years, you probably wouldn't have a K9 anymore. 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 HERE. Although you won't be able to keep up with any of them. You just keep proving my point for me. Your arguments are weak. Otherwise you would not resort to posts like this. That link is dribble. Conjecture not fact. 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 But in a million years, you probably wouldn't have a K9 anymore. Who's to say? They haven't broken out of their genetic boundries, why would we assume they ever would? As a matter of fact, the more they are bred, the less they would have to work with, e.g. the greyhound will never be a true wolf again. Why assume they would become better down the line? 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 You just keep proving my point for me. Your arguments are weak. Otherwise you would not resort to posts like this. That link is dribble. Conjecture not fact. Please talk to someone else. 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 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. here is one in probably 100 sites I could point you toward...as well as stacks of evidence after evidence... http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#design_in_the_universe choose from hundreds of articles FILLED with facts and evidences...let me know when you are done reading...I will give you dozens of more sites and info:thu: 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 Echoes here is one in probably 100 sites I could point you toward...as well as stacks of evidence after evidence...http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#design_in_the_universechoose from hundreds of articles FILLED with facts and evidences...let me know when you are done reading...I will give you dozens of more sites and info:thu: I posted a great link for him and he didn't read any of it, I wouldn't waste another second, he isn't interesed in actually reading. 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 wow, thats a good one where is this "overwhelming" evidence? surely it must greatly outweigh the mounds of evidence FOR the theory? is that YOU in your avatar?start here and then we MAY move onto biology...http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#design_in_the_universe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blargh Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by Echoes here is one in probably 100 sites I could point you toward...as well as stacks of evidence after evidence...http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#design_in_the_universechoose from hundreds of articles FILLED with facts and evidences...let me know when you are done reading...I will give you dozens of more sites and info:thu: Woohoo, probability arguments... it's hard to be hit by lightning, yet it always hits something... it's hard to win the lottery, someone always wins. 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 Please talk to someone else. If you really don't want to debate me, then why did you continue to attack me on your VERY NEXT POST? You want me to talk to somebody else? You want to have the last word? Fine!!! But don't turn right around and go off on me again. I have seen the true measure of your character. I am not impressed. 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 MonikerLewinsky I posted a great link for him and he didn't read any of it, I wouldn't waste another second, he isn't interesed in actually reading. the evidence is there if people are intellectually honest...if they are not? you are right:thu: 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 blargh Woohoo, probability arguments... it's hard to be hit by lightning, yet it always hits something... it's hard to win the lottery, someone always wins. By this you mean "we're here, so evolution must have happened."? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blargh Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by Echoes is that YOU in your avatar?start here and then we MAY move onto biology...http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#design_in_the_universe The number one flaw in all those arguments is that it assumes life could only be as it is now, and no other way. I don't really feel like reading all of it, but if you think any points here are particularly poignant, point them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nutter Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by MonikerLewinsky Who's to say? They haven't broken out of their genetic boundries, why would we assume they ever would? As a matter of fact, the more they are bred, the less they would have to work with, e.g. the greyhound will never be a true wolf again. Why assume they would become better down the line? "Better" is a terrible word. Is a dog better than a cat as a hunter? Anyway maize is the best example of a completely new species arising from something else. It is almost always faster and easier in plants. The greyhound will eventually become a wolf again if you breed lots of them with lots of wolves enough times over a long time. 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 If you really don't want to debate me, then why did you continue to attack me on your VERY NEXT POST? You want me to talk to somebody else? You want to have the last word? Fine!!! But don't turn right around and go off on me again. I have seen the true measure of your character. I am not impressed. lol. Settle down Beavis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nutter Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by blargh The number one flaw in all those arguments is that it assumes life could only be as it is now, and no other way. I don't really feel like reading all of it, but if you think any points here are particularly poignant, point them out. Yeah, that assumes everything is static which is fundamentally flawed. Things change over time. 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 The greyhound will eventually become a wolf again if you breed lots of them with lots of wolves enough times over a long time. I've asked that question to a few biologists (one is a professor of biology at a very good college). and they seem to believe once a dog has been bred that far there wouldn't be enough genetic material to ever get it back to a wolf. Acually, My question was could I breed wolves to Great Danes, back to wolves and then to pugs. If I'm wrong it's because the people who informed me are wrong. I can double check with them though. 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 Science is 'choked' by the very virtue that it is LIMITED to the examination of the PHYSICAL/MATERIAL WORLD as ALREADY unfolded (ie: PREEXISTING...) and therefore cannot LEGITIMATELY speak to subjects outside of it's realm...ie: Origins.. Which means, according to you, that human senses will NEVER be able to determine if God does or does not exist. Thereby saddling you with the problem of your faith being a LEGITIMATE reason for believing in intelligent design. That "leap" is where you're going to lose people. It's like automatically assuming lights in the night sky are spaceships from other planets. They're just lights until we can prove they're more than that. Maybe you need more faith in science and the motivating and creative power of human curiousity. I have a sneaking suspicion that faith may not be the only way to find God. And all we really need to find is just the tiniest piece of him in some tangible way. Then we won't need faith to extrapolate the rest. And if and when we do find that evidence, we need to be intelligent and perceptive enough to realize what we're seeing. Accepting the astonishing on a world-wide level might TRULY be impossible. After all, we're only human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nutter Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by MonikerLewinsky Acually, My question was could I breed wolves to Great Danes, back to wolves and then to pugs. That would take a very very long time, and you'd need a massive population pool. To "go backwards" you'd also need the original population genetically intact, because genes are lost and new ones gained so it becomes almost impossible to get the same species back. As a rough example, it'd take you ages to breed a white person from two black people, but the job's a whole lot easier if you've got a white person to breed with the black person. But it'd still take a long time, and this is between the same species. With speciation we're talking millions of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Loghead Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 A third of the Forum believes in Creation or Intelligent Design? That's interesting. 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 Woohoo, probability arguments... it's hard to be hit by lightning, yet it always hits something... it's hard to win the lottery, someone always wins. WOW! there are over 100 articles loaded with facts on that site! you are one FAST reader:eek: and smart too!... http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php speed read this ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Loghead Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by Echoes WOW! there are over 100 articles loaded with facts on that site! you are one FAST reader:eek: and smart too!...http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.phpspeed read this ... What did you do the last thread we were arguing in? 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 That would take a very very long time, and you'd need a massive population pool. To "go backwards" you'd also need the original population genetically intact, because genes are lost and new ones gained so it becomes almost impossible to get the same species back. As a rough example, it'd take you ages to breed a white person from two black people, but the job's a whole lot easier if you've got a white person to breed with the black person. But it'd still take a long time, and this is between the same species. With speciation we're talking millions of years. Yeah, it would be easy with mixing them back into the general population, but thats really not the point of my question. I meant following bloodlines through generations, keeping the pool limited to the same level of change but without inbreeding. 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 Woohoo, probability arguments... it's hard to be hit by lightning, yet it always hits something... it's hard to win the lottery, someone always wins. and yet, it falls heavier on the synapses than a 'pig' bone that evolutionists tried to turn into an 'ape-man society'...what a joke! ....nothing from nothing = nothing are you retarted? 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 Loghead What did you do the last thread we were arguing in? there's plenty of threads to argue in!welcome LOG! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.