Members MonikerLewinsky Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by Loghead A third of the Forum believes in Creation or Intelligent Design? That's interesting. Not really. A 3rd of the forum is sceptical of evolution, and some of the proponents of evolution said they would consider newer better theories. Creationism and ID are only relevant by association. 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 there's plenty of threads to argue in! welcome LOG! Thank you, but this isn't an argument that I find very stimulating. 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 MonikerLewinsky Not really. A 3rd of the forum is sceptical of evolution, and some of the proponents of evolution said they would consider newer better theories. Creationism and ID are only relevant by association. I see....I guess. 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 I meant following bloodlines through generations, keeping the pool limited to the same level of change but without inbreeding. My question was could I breed wolves to Great Danes, back to wolves and then to pugs. So to answer your original question, no. Not the back to wolves bit. We start with just wolves. And we have to assume once they speciate, there is absolutely no interbreeding. You can go wolves -> great danes -> pug -> cat (!) even but not back to the original wolves. If they did, they wouldn't be wolves. They might look and act like them, but they wouldn't be able to breed with the original wolves which means they are essentially a separate species. 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 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? What the hell are you talking about Life didn't come from nothing, it came from abiotic molecules replicating in some way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Loghead Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 I have a friend who is a jellyfish. I suppose I may be distantly related to him. 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 Thank you, but this isn't an argument that I find very stimulating. I find it very interesting that people just accept Macro-Evolution as fact ...without giving it any thoughtful study! The 'worldview' implications if evolution is WRONG is astounding!...man, put a 'lab coat' on some nerdy looking people and everyone bows down to them as if they were GOD! believing every word without examining their creditability....and, these are the same people that judge Christians and Darwin dissenters as 'naive dolts' that believe anyone and anything...probably why Darwinian scientists are so THREATENED with ID and Creationism, cause it attacks their cheesy 'power base' 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 the hell are you talking about Life didn't come from nothing, it came from abiotic molecules replicating in some way LOL!!! hahahahaha...you go girl!...and, er, where did the molecules come from? 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 I find it very interesting that people just accept Macro-Evolution as fact ...without giving it any thoughtful study! The 'worldview' implications if evolution is WRONG is astounding!... man, put a 'lab coat' on some nerdy looking people and everyone bows down to them as if they were GOD! believing every word without examining their creditability....and, these are the same people that judge Christians and Darwin dissenters as 'naive dolts' that believe anyone and anything... probably why Darwinian scientists are so THREATENED with ID and Creationism, cause it attacks their cheesy 'power base' As I understand it, evolutionary biology is a science that seeks to provide answers by using the scientific method, and opponents object to the answers to which evolutionary biology points. Whazza big deal? 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 So to answer your original question, no. Not the back to wolves bit. We start with just wolves. And we have to assume once they speciate, there is absolutely no interbreeding. You can go wolves -> great danes -> pug -> cat (!) Originally posted by Nutter even but not back to the original wolves. If they did, they wouldn't be wolves. They might look and act like them, but they wouldn't be able to breed with the original wolves which means they are essentially a separate species. So they would be "dumbed down" versions of the originals. Now if this is true (which it is- and provable) how does it help or hurt evolutionary theory?It seems to me that the population as a whole of whatever species will lose genetic material over time, but where would it ever gain genetic material necessary to evolve into higher, more complex life forms? 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 I have a friend who is a jellyfish. I suppose I may be distantly related to him. I'm sure that the conversations between you and your 'jellyfish' buddy are very stimulating! 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 LOL!!! hahahahaha...you go girl!...and, er, where did the molecules come from? I don't know, I can't look back 15 billion years. Unlike you, I don't claim to know all the answers. 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 I'm sure that the conversations between you and your 'jellyfish' buddy are very stimulating! Less and less stimulating as time goes by. He seems to be frozen in a block of ice like some stone-age man. Actually, he is more of a stoned-age man. 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 blargh I don't know, I can't look back 15 billion years. Unlike you, I don't claim to know all the answers. Do you really feel the need to know how molecules originated? I never feel this urge. I guess I'm just not the curious sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Loghead Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 I just removed a splinter from my fingertip. I 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 As I understand it, evolutionary biology is a science that seeks to provide answers by using the scientific method, and opponents object to the answers to which evolutionary biology points. Whazza big deal? the 'theory' of macro-evolution would not even exist if Darwin was using the scientific method in the first place...he tossed out a 'hypothesis'... the joke is: evolution scientist find a baby back rib in the trash and with tax payer's money CREATE (yes, 'create') an entire civilization (purley speculative mind you) and then later, when someone finally discovers the HOAX ...they say: yea, but the theory is still good! it is intellectually dishonest to 'chase' evolution as one ignores the glaring FACTS of design:rolleyes: how often does chaos arrange into COMPLEX order??? hahahahaha....fools! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CliffC8488 Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Why do people reject evolution? Most scientists, myself included, are trained to be analytical, unbiased and objective. We simply want to understand the world around us. It doesn't mean that we are atheists. There's room for spirituality alongside science. But the study of evolution isn't about determining whether or not there is a god. Science strives to answer what, where, when and how but NOT why. The study of evolution simply tries to explain how we got here. Nothing more. So why reject evolution despite the preponderance of evidence? If we scientists felt that ID was a more credible theory we'd certainly embrace it. But it just doesn't hold up to the scientific method. Sorry. I've thought about this long and hard and I think I have a rough understanding. I think the ID folks are afraid that evolution means there is no god. So if there is no god there is no afterlife and that frightens them. Fear of death is the most basic of emotions, the only thing more frightful is the finality of death. I'm surprised by the poll results. I figured the results would be more even. CC 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 I just removed a splinter from my fingertip. I 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 the 'theory' of macro-evolution would not even exist if Darwin was using the scientific method in the first place...he tossed out a 'hypothesis'... the joke is: evolution scientist find a baby back rib in the trash and with tax payer's money CREATE (yes, 'create') an entire civilization (purley speculative mind you) and then later, when someone finally discovers the HOAX ...they say: yea, but the theory is still good! it is intellectually dishonest to 'chase' evolution as one ignores the glaring FACTS of design:rolleyes: how often does chaos arrange into COMPLEX order??? hahahahaha....fools! You really are beyond help 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 the 'theory' of macro-evolution would not even exist if Darwin was using the scientific method in the first place...he tossed out a 'hypothesis'...the joke is: evolution scientist find a baby back rib in the trash and with tax payer's money CREATE (yes, 'create') an entire civilization (purley speculative mind you) and then later, when someone finally discovers the HOAX ...they say: yea, but the theory is still good!it is intellectually dishonest to 'chase' evolution as one ignores the glaring FACTS of design:rolleyes: how often does chaos arrange into COMPLEX order??? hahahahaha....fools! Darwin's theory, or hypothesis, makes sense to me. It seems to explain quite a bit. Do I want to know how chaos arranges itself into order? Nope. I don't care. The design bit sounds a bit pointless to me. There would have to have been a sentience to do the designing, and then there would have had to have been a sentience to design that designer, and then there would have had to have been a sentience which designed that designer, which means that M. C. Escher must have evolved from LSD and could be reborn as a hall of mirrors. 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 those opposable thumbs evolved over time...trillions of years it took ...and out of the primordial soup? springs up! LogHead! (with opposable thumbs)...hahahahaha... This explains why I like soup, especially chowder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CliffC8488 Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 The biggest problem with the ID argument, (and any arguments involving deities, supreme beings, "designers", etc.) is they fall into a catch-22. OK, so who designed the designer? CC 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 CliffC8488 If we scientists felt that ID was a more credible theory we'd certainly embrace it. But it just doesn't hold up to the scientific method. Sorry. I've thought about this long and hard and I think I have a rough understanding. did you hear the one about the scientist that ran into a man's bedroom with a yardstick so he could 'measure' the man's dreams???hahahahahaha....as 'if' one could squeeze the origins of our existence into a 'scientific' (ie: naturalistic worldview... ) method???gee wizz, the scientist can't measure it with his micrometers and his microscope...therefore! it doesn't exist! yessir-ee...if I can't explain it in my naturalistic science terms then I'll take my petri dishes and go home! bwaaaahahahago back to your lab and stick yer head in the sand...oh! and keep ignoring the OVERWHELMING evidence for a design to our universe (and we all know that a 'design' means that there is a designer' ) 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 did you hear the one about the scientist that ran into a man's bedroom with a yardstick so he could 'measure' the man's dreams??? hahahahahaha.... as 'if' one could squeeze the origins of our existence into a 'scientific' (ie: naturalistic worldview... ) method??? gee wizz, the scientist can't measure it with his micrometers and his microscope...therefore! it doesn't exist! yessir-ee...if I can't explain it in my naturalistic science terms then I'll take my petri dishes and go home! bwaaaahahaha go back to your lab and stick yer head in the sand...oh! and keep ignoring the OVERWHELMING evidence for a design to our universe (and we all know that a 'design' means that there is a designer' ) Now you've just degenerated to nonsensical rambling... im out of here. 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 CliffC8488 The biggest problem with the ID argument, (and any arguments involving deities, supreme beings, "designers", etc.) is they fall into a catch-22. OK, so who designed the designer?CC That's a double edged sword. Evolutionists have the problem of "first life." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.