Some front line views of the war against God.

[braddog10]

After reading some here I felt this fitting, not so much as a reply but as a dedicated thread.

There is a real spiritual war out there against God, and the forces involved know that the "Family", "The Mind", and "Journalism/education" is major spiritual high ground to take.

EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed (http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php)

If you have a question about his intellegence and view please note this in His Bio Link below:

"He graduated from Columbia University in 1966 with honors in economics and as valedictorian of the 1970 Yale Law School class. He has worked as a poverty lawyer, a trial lawyer, a university adjunct (American University, University of California at Santa Cruz and Pepperdine University), a speech writer for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford and a columnist for The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Herald Examiner, King Features Syndicate, Los Angeles Magazine, New York Magazine, E! Online and The American Spectator. He also writes frequently for The Washington Post. Stein has written and published 16 books (seven novels, nine nonfiction books)".

Ben Stein (I) - Biography (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0825401/bio)

He has wrestled through the core of the highest levels of Journalistic politic/correctness.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

i am deaf, what's the video all about?

[braddog10]

It's a clip about the censorship of God in the education system. The NEA (National Education Association) is entirely too cerebral to consider intelligent design as a viable option. It's a career killer to suggest such.

Good to see ya Buddy

[dannyboy420]

Intelligent design. What a funny name for mythology.

[Fallen_Icarus]

Intelligent design. What a funny name for mythology.

LOL

Seriously I believe this was due to "Ken Miller" who proved in a courtroom that intelligent design would not work inside of a classroom, dogmatic teaching results in a standardized form of belief and lacks the open questioning and inquisitive nature which is only a tiny part of our brain (im being sarcastic).

Intelligent design some believe would consist of a singular sentence and the rest of the year would be science and rationality and reasoning, intelligent design has no weight behind it therefore there is nothing to teach.

Of course you are welcome to take classes in mythology and religious studies yet let us not bombard our entire educational system with intelligent design.

The one thing teaching intelligent design in the classroom creates is a form of learning by where you are teaching literally 'not to learn and question'. Evolution teaches an underlying message of advancement of learning and an advancement of the human race as a whole, which is to be honest what is really happening to us.

So it fits in well with whatâ??s 'really' happening today as oppose to a backward form of Judea Christian teaching of creationism.

There is no mass conspiracy here, it is just the best decided method and I personally agree with it. Evolution may not be true, yet it is not as dictatorial as a teaching as oppose to "God Did It" if you wish to study intelligent design and believe in it then do so at your own free will, a science class will not stop you.

Remember still I take no side on evolution, and would not dictate it as absolute truth in a classroom to children or even 'tell them to believe it' it has still to be proven to be true.

Yet I do take a side on our childrenâ??s "evolutionary thinking" (as in moving forward and advancing).

[braddog10]

I see you guys have life all figured out. . . and your world works for you.

Wisdom is actually seeing that there are more questions than answers when knowledge is gained.

Do we not all have narrow views?

[rebgirl420]

Intelligent design. What a funny name for mythology.

hahahahahahh

[mfqr]

Remember still I take no side on evolution, and would not dictate it as absolute truth in a classroom to children or even 'tell them to believe it' it has still to be proven to be true.


Well, no, nothing has to be proven to be true. Did gravity have to be proven before it existed? It just has to be proven for you to understand and accept it as truth.

Perhaps evolution isn't the end-all be-all theory of how we, or any living organism came to be. Neither is Intelligent Design. I agree with everything else you said, Fallen_Icarus.

The real question is, how did that first unicellular organism come into existence on our planet, before it evolved into a multicellular organism, etc? Did they come on an asteroid? If there is a God, did that God place it on our planet? Did Aliens plant it on our planet as an experiment? Did Aliens plant it on our planet to create an ally? Is, perhaps, our and every organism's existence on this planet evidence that there is extraterrestial life out there, somewhere? Without a doubt, there has to be. And I believe they are here -- but that's beyond the point.

[killerweed420]

I would much prefer our public schools just teach the facts. Let them investigate mythology on there own or when they get to college or go to a private school. And quit demonizing drugs and abortion and other things in public school. Just the facts. Let the kids with there parents input decide what they want to believe in.

[mfqr]

I would much prefer our public schools just teach the facts. Let them investigate mythology on there own or when they get to college or go to a private school. And quit demonizing drugs and abortion and other things in public school. Just the facts. Let the kids with there parents input decide what they want to believe in.

Too bad it isn't like that, huh? Grade school thorugh high school is all bullshit. It is indeed a place to indoctrinate kids early to the American belief system, and society. It's hardly about learning what really is, especially when it comes to the subject of History. Biased textbooks, biased teachings given by teachers. The teacher's don't usually know this, either, because they have as well been indoctrinated. It's sad. We don't educate anymore... we indoctrinate. Although, college is a bit different, in that it does actually teach more than indoctrinate. But the indoctrination is still there, partly due to the fact that there's so much homework and reading. It becomes your life.

[cadmiumblimp]

Did Aliens plant it on our planet as an experiment? Did Aliens plant it on our planet to create an ally?
You're leaving out the question of where the aliens came from. Most likely, some place very similar to we're from, only a long way off.

Is, perhaps, our and every organism's existence on this planet evidence that there is extraterrestial life out there, somewhere?
Of course our existence is near proof of intelligent life somewhere out there. If we can exist here and there is an infinite universe out there, there has got to be someone else out there. The sad thing is that they're all so far away that we'll never see them in our lifetimes.

I would much prefer our public schools just teach the facts. Let them investigate mythology on there own or when they get to college or go to a private school. And quit demonizing drugs and abortion and other things in public school. Just the facts. Let the kids with there parents input decide what they want to believe in.
This is why I don't like education being run by the government, because of course the government is going to shove their views onto the poor, poor children. Of course, any private school is usually run by some organization that has it's own agenda also.

We don't educate anymore... we indoctrinate.
Was it ever any other way?

[LuckyG]

Too bad it isn't like that, huh? Grade school thorugh high school is all bullshit. It is indeed a place to indoctrinate kids early to the American belief system, and society. It's hardly about learning what really is, especially when it comes to the subject of History. Biased textbooks, biased teachings given by teachers. The teacher's don't usually know this, either, because they have as well been indoctrinated. It's sad. We don't educate anymore... we indoctrinate. Although, college is a bit different, in that it does actually teach more than indoctrinate. But the indoctrination is still there, partly due to the fact that there's so much homework and reading. It becomes your life.

I had an article kicking around, unfortunately I seem to have misplaced it. Anyway, it dealt with exactly what you're talking about. It quoted documents from the 1930's where it was made clear that the American educational system was being revised to create a large mass of general labourers, easily manipulated and used to repetitive mind-dulling tasks, while shooting a select few rapidly to the positions of power. From what I remember, a lot of it is based on wealth - although it can carry over to simply being able to afford private schooling.

In any case, I'm of the opinion that we should teach scientific beliefs in schools, and religious beliefs in church. But that's me.

[mfqr]

You're leaving out the question of where the aliens came from. Most likely, some place very similar to we're from, only a long way off.


I'm speaking about how we could have came to be, not how extraterrestials did. But if I were to go that far, that question would be asked.



Of course our existence is near proof of intelligent life somewhere out there. If we can exist here and there is an infinite universe out there, there has got to be someone else out there. The sad thing is that they're all so far away that we'll never see them in our lifetimes.


Those were not questions I couldn't answer myself, just to let you know. They were a bit rhetorical. I already am 100% sure there is extraterrestial life, and I'm sure the universe is filled with it... intelligent or not.



This is why I don't like education being run by the government, because of course the government is going to shove their views onto the poor, poor children. Of course, any private school is usually run by some organization that has it's own agenda also.


Yep.



Was it ever any other way?


No, you're right. It most likely hasn't been, which is sad. Excuse me for saying "anymore." I'll rephrase: "We don't educate... we indoctrinate."

[mfqr]

I had an article kicking around, unfortunately I seem to have misplaced it. Anyway, it dealt with exactly what you're talking about. It quoted documents from the 1930's where it was made clear that the American educational system was being revised to create a large mass of general labourers, easily manipulated and used to repetitive mind-dulling tasks, while shooting a select few rapidly to the positions of power. From what I remember, a lot of it is based on wealth - although it can carry over to simply being able to afford private schooling.

In any case, I'm of the opinion that we should teach scientific beliefs in schools, and religious beliefs in church. But that's me.

Haha, yes. That is it. Our educational system pumps out "obedient workers," for the most part. What the system does not do is pump out free thinkers.

And yes, I do agree that unbiased science and unbiased history should be taught in schools, and religion should be left to Church. Afterall, that is what Church is for, right?

[cadmiumblimp]

I'm speaking about how we could have came to be, not how extraterrestials did. But if I were to go that far, that question would be asked.
My point was supposed to be that extraterrestrials likely came about in the exact (or similar) way we did.

Haha, yes. That is it. Our educational system pumps out "obedient workers," for the most part. What the system does not do is pump out free thinkers.
And yet...here we are, thinking freely. I'm not disputing what you're saying, as I agree entirely, but schools (as they are now) can only go so far when it comes to indoctrination.

[mfqr]

My point was supposed to be that extraterrestrials likely came about in the exact (or similar) way we did.

And yet...here we are, thinking freely. I'm not disputing what you're saying, as I agree entirely, but schools (as they are now) can only go so far when it comes to indoctrination.

Not everyone really thinks freely. In fact, very few people do.

And yes, I was going to say that extraterrestials probably came in the way we did as well. Also, we're already in contact with them. So it is in our lifetimes. Not we as a public, but we as in a very small amount of people. Don't worry, we'll see extraterrestials much more intelligent and advanced than us soon.

SETI has actually picked up many extraterrestial signals, too. But they have been covered up by the government.

[Unknown American]

I do so love these intelligent design discussions.

As a Pastafarian or follower of the Flying spaghetti monster I feel it is important that my religion be taught so others can be "touched".

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/)

Note to mods this link is totally relevant to this conversation as is the FSM.

In the beginning, the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe, presumably when he was drunk. This aspect, known as Unintelligent Design, has successfully been used to explained disco and Jar Jar Binks, among other things. His Noodiliness created pirates as absolute divine beings. The declining numbers of pirates over recent years has caused the Flying Spaghetti Monster to become angry and punish us through global warming. Heaven consists of beer volcanoes and a stripper factory, while there is no known equivalent to Hell. This in a nutshell, is Pastafarianism.

[Nailhead]

Intelligent design. What a funny name for mythology.

lol, best post in this thread :thumbsup:

"Intelligent" design isn't based on facts or evidence, it's based on ignorance, or as Christians call it, faith. But all that aside, teaching "intelligent" design in public schools would violate our first amendment for freedom of religion. I don't see why the argument should continue beyond this point, simply put, teaching "intelligent" design in government required education is unconstitutional.

If you want your kids to believe in some fairy tale, send them to a private school that will teach them everything your cult believes in. If you don't have the money to send your kids to private school, too bad, send them to church on the weekends but leave the others alone!

[Fallen_Icarus]

Well, no, nothing has to be proven to be true. Did gravity have to be proven before it existed? It just has to be proven for you to understand and accept it as truth.


Firstly, im not saying things have to be proven for them to exist, that doesnâ??t make sense because elements of life exist which have not been proved yet - like conscious air, or intuition etc etc.

Read what I wrote again, im just saying teachers should ATLEAST tell students that evolution has still to be proven to be true, there are numerous missing links and Darwin also stole much of his work from his Grandfather (not that this has anything to do with the validity of the theory of evolution) - Evolution births ideas such as eugenics - which im sure you understand has resulted in some horrid experimental catastrophes - teaching that intelligence is in a blood line and power is in a blood line is not morally correct.

Evolution itself has no morality - Richard Dawkins - a profound evolutionist has spoken of the complete lack of morality in terms of evolution.

And if you donâ??t prove anything, then your basis is only a hypothesis - what if the theory of gravity was in actual fact - not right? It was only shown to be true when it was PROVED.

Your correct in a sense, but its a question of odds, often some theories just happen to be true once proven, some people create good theories, yet there are theories LIKE EVOLUTION OF US which needs to be proven true because - they may just be wrong.

Sorry to ramble on, I hope you understand my point.

Of course things do not have to be proven for them to exist but it would be nice to know if we actually did evolve from lower form animals into higher forms without any intervention, I was just saying people should not automatically rule out intelligent design as they do in schools, because they dont even give the kids an option (this is all I was saying).

There should be a balance in our schooling system by which children in science classes are still told that evolution is not proven IN OUR STORY (because it simply is not) there are numerous missing links blah blah.

Your American schooling system does not teach the benefits of communism and socialistic Governing im guessing?


I do so love these intelligent design discussions.

As a Pastafarian or follower of the Flying spaghetti monster I feel it is important that my religion be taught so others can be "touched".

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster


As stories of the bible are told at the beginning it should be said that nothing of the existence of Jesus Christ can be proven.

The same applies for the theories we teach our children of evolution.

They should know that it is as much BULL$%$£ a theory as the flying spaghetti monster. AND intelligent design.




"Intelligent" design isn't based on facts or evidence,

Well, neither is evolution when you try and explain our existence.

I noticed someone speaking of 2 theories to choose from?

Creationism or evolution?

How about a combination of these?

Perhaps we were created and designed and engineered to evolve at such a rapid rate compared to our cousin animals whom according to evolutionists such as Dawkins have also been on the same evolutionary path as us.

If we can genetically engineer animals, and considering the size of the universe (and the probability of the existence of intelligent 'aliens') then why cant they also engineer "animals"? (us).

[cadmiumblimp]

There is so much more evidence that evolution is how things came to be than that God just put it all there. We know that earth has been in existence for millions (billions?) of years, that humans haven't always existed here, and that living things do, in fact, evolve. Just because we don't know every step of the way from a single-celled organism to our current state doesn't mean we can't say that certain things had a certain likelihood of happening. The reason intelligent design shouldn't be taught in schools is because it simply is not science. Evolution, however, is. When you take an honest look at both, you can't spin it any other way.

[mfqr]

Firstly, im not saying things have to be proven for them to exist, that doesnâ??t make sense because elements of life exist which have not been proved yet - like conscious air, or intuition etc etc.

Read what I wrote again, im just saying teachers should ATLEAST tell students that evolution has still to be proven to be true, there are numerous missing links and Darwin also stole much of his work from his Grandfather (not that this has anything to do with the validity of the theory of evolution) - Evolution births ideas such as eugenics - which im sure you understand has resulted in some horrid experimental catastrophes - teaching that intelligence is in a blood line and power is in a blood line is not morally correct.

Evolution itself has no morality - Richard Dawkins - a profound evolutionist has spoken of the complete lack of morality in terms of evolution.

And if you donâ??t prove anything, then your basis is only a hypothesis - what if the theory of gravity was in actual fact - not right? It was only shown to be true when it was PROVED.

Your correct in a sense, but its a question of odds, often some theories just happen to be true once proven, some people create good theories, yet there are theories LIKE EVOLUTION OF US which needs to be proven true because - they may just be wrong.

Sorry to ramble on, I hope you understand my point.

Of course things do not have to be proven for them to exist but it would be nice to know if we actually did evolve from lower form animals into higher forms without any intervention, I was just saying people should not automatically rule out intelligent design as they do in schools, because they dont even give the kids an option (this is all I was saying).

There should be a balance in our schooling system by which children in science classes are still told that evolution is not proven IN OUR STORY (because it simply is not) there are numerous missing links blah blah.

Your American schooling system does not teach the benefits of communism and socialistic Governing im guessing?




As stories of the bible are told at the beginning it should be said that nothing of the existence of Jesus Christ can be proven.

The same applies for the theories we teach our children of evolution.

They should know that it is as much BULL$%$£ a theory as the flying spaghetti monster. AND intelligent design.





Well, neither is evolution when you try and explain our existence.

I noticed someone speaking of 2 theories to choose from?

Creationism or evolution?

How about a combination of these?

Perhaps we were created and designed and engineered to evolve at such a rapid rate compared to our cousin animals whom according to evolutionists such as Dawkins have also been on the same evolutionary path as us.

If we can genetically engineer animals, and considering the size of the universe (and the probability of the existence of intelligent 'aliens') then why cant they also engineer "animals"? (us).

Haha, I understood your point from the start. I just felt like replying in the way I did, because the way you worded it meant that it has to be proven to be true, and you did in this post again, too. I knew what you meant, don't worry - I'm an intelligent being ;).

But I see what you're saying, that God gives morality. You don't think we're smart enough to come up with our own ideas of morality? That perhaps our consciousness and intelligence evolved over time, thus everyone naturally taking the course of Altruism? Most people help others out if need be, and not all of them believe in God either. And since they don't believe in God, then God doesn't share his morality with them. You know, it's funny though, because all religious people will always find an excuse and justification for anything - because it's all covered in religion.

"God gives morality" - How is that even a working argument? It isn't, because you have not yet even proven that God exists. We have way more evidence for evolution than for God. A lot of religious people use the Bible to actually argue. Which is a totally incorrect way of arguing, because one has yet to prove that the Bible is right about everything. It's really too bad that people are so brainwashed. I feel sorry for people who have dug their great intelligence and consciousness into a deep hole with religion. Sorry, that's just my view. But it is a real sad story, and hopefully one day this will all be ended.

I think Evolution is the closest we have gotten to how it is, but it's possible it's different. God creating everything? Give me a damn break... it's such a load of crap. Only the ones involved in religion can't see it - we atheists and agnostics can smell it from a mile away.

[Fallen_Icarus]

There is so much more evidence that evolution is how things came to be than that God just put it all there

And what do you think 'put your theory here'?

What 'put the evolutionary process' here?

Did it just form out of thin air and start evolving into different animals?

Well according to evolution (and if you know anything about the subject), we evolved from rocks!

Did you just make this comment up yourself with no thought or reasoning? I mean have you actually researched into the lack of evidence supporting the theory of evolution?

The fact that I speak of 'intelligent design' should not auto drive your brain toward me indoctrinating people into a Judea Christian God creationist perspective of reality and existence. All I am saying is that it should be taken into account that there is as much evidence for evolution to be truth as much as there is evidence to prove that everything was created by God.

I am not a creationist and you are free to form an attack on creationism all you like but to not firstly understand the complete lack of evidence for evolution firstly this is a pillar of evidence one must overcome!

Evolutionists believe they are climbing the mountain of knowledge - just remember when you reach the top a creationist could be already sitting there.:thumbsup:

Evolutionists say that apes have the same amount of chromosomes (donâ??t quote me on this) as humans, well there is something else which has the same amount of chromosomes than humans, and its tobacco lol. Did we evolve also from tobacco?

So may I suggest to the atheist/evolutionist to do research on the actual validity of your own 'belief' before making comments on how "ignorant" and "futile" the creationists argument is.

This is all im saying.


Just because we don't know every step of the way from a single-celled organism to our current state doesn't mean we can't say that certain things had a certain likelihood of happening.

And it also does not mean you can flood schools with this belief, call it truth while dismantling any creationists perspectives or arguments when you yourself are defending a belief which was founded by a plagiarist and which gave birth to some of the most immoral theories on human control around today.


The reason intelligent design shouldn't be taught in schools is because it simply is not science. Evolution, however, is. When you take an honest look at both, you can't spin it any other way.

May I suggest you read a book called 'Islam and Science' and then tell me that religion has not aided science in any way in history.

This is a joke.

Science took its foundations from religious doctrines and ancient civilizations, science didnâ??t just begin in America, people such as the Mayans, Aztecs, Hindus, Caral, Sumerians, the Islamic Empire etc, all of these people had profound knowledge of the universe, nature, the human body, physics and chemistry etc not to mention the profound knowledge of our solar system, the Egyptians etc, all also were incredibly spiritual and religious.

Some of these civilizations lived for a millennia in peace, (research the 'Caral'), ancient civilizations built or created what we use today such as forms of Government, politics, socialistic idealism, mathematics and construction which we cannot yet match (pyramids).

Like I said, you should respect religion.

To do not is ignorant.

[Fallen_Icarus]

But I see what you're saying, that God gives morality

I do not recall saying this, infact I do not recall saying anything about where morality should or does come from.

All I said is there is a considerable question of morality about evolution, you could say to an evolutionist - "but what about morality?" If survival of the fittest has no morality one should kill one another to survive, is this moral? (the evolutionist MUST answer yes or he/she will be in contradiction).

I hope your reading my posts thoroughly and not just skimming the text! lol

Im not saying that all evolutionists are evil (but there is a question of morality which must be placed to them, which often as dawkins experiences on a regular basis, cannot answer) I dont proclaim that evolutionists are vindictive people who are looking out for only themselves, often people cannot live happily knowing they have done harm to others, its called guilt and that is a form of punishment.

There is good and evil in every school of thought, you will find corruption in religion aswel as in evolution you will also find good in each because good and evil lies within us all, this is the reason why it follows us into every doctrine of belief, system of governing or theory we create.

I am just saying to the evolutionists whom castigate the terrible attrociousness of religion to firstly think of their own belief and what that has contributed in terms of evil beliefs and doctrines such as eugenics as one particular example im sure you are familiar with.


"God gives morality" - How is that even a working argument? It isn't, because you have not yet even proven that God exists.

I never once put forward this arguement, I have not once even said I believe or do not believe in God.

I presume you are not directly debating with me and simply asking good questions.


A lot of religious people use the Bible to actually argue. Which is a totally incorrect way of arguing, because one has yet to prove that the Bible is right about everything. It's really too bad that people are so brainwashed. I feel sorry for people who have dug their great intelligence and consciousness into a deep hole with religion. Sorry, that's just my view. But it is a real sad story, and hopefully one day this will all be ended.

Go on youtube.com and type in "Dr Zakir Naik" and then come back and let me know if its had any effect on your current opinion.


I think Evolution is the closest we have gotten to how it is, but it's possible it's different. God creating everything? Give me a damn break... it's such a load of crap. Only the ones involved in religion can't see it - we atheists and agnostics can smell it from a mile away.

Well whats the atheists Bible?

The origin of species?

Whos their Jesus? their God? - Charles Darwin?

Do you see the paradox?

[cadmiumblimp]

I mean have you actually researched into the lack of evidence supporting the theory of evolution?
No, I can't say that I have, though I do believe I know enough to say that it is quite plausible and much more plausible than...other things.

The fact that I speak of 'intelligent design' should not auto drive your brain toward me indoctrinating people into a Judea Christian God creationist perspective of reality and existence.
This would be fine, but the words 'intelligent design' actually refer to a very specific viewpoint put forth by fundamentalist Christians. To be honest, because of that, I've always seen 'intelligent design' as a bit of a misnomer, since it has nothing to do with science. Myself, I believe it's very likely there are higher powers out there that may or may not have had a role in our creation, but I believe that SCIENCE is more on the side of our having evolved from SOMETHING, rather than everything having just appeared here over seven days.

Evolutionists believe they are climbing the mountain of knowledge - just remember when you reach the top a creationist could be already sitting there.:thumbsup:
I have no problem with that, except for the fact that a "creationist" generally refers to a fundamentalist Christian who believes the world was created in seven days approximately 10,000 years ago. Completely preposterous.

So may I suggest to the atheist/evolutionist to do research on the actual validity of your own 'belief' before making comments on how "ignorant" and "futile" the creationists argument is.

This is all im saying.
Again, the very thought that the earth was created in seven days approximately 10,000 years ago is preposterous. Also, as I said, I have no problem with the possibility of a higher power.

And it also does not mean you can flood schools with this belief, call it truth while dismantling any creationists perspectives or arguments when you yourself are defending a belief which was founded by a plagiarist and which gave birth to some of the most immoral theories on human control around today.
Science deals with what can be seen and observed. That's why you don't have intelligent design in science classes -- it can't be seen and observed. If there's no designer to be seen and observed, you can't really put it in a classroom. Evolution, on the other hand, CAN be seen and observed.

Like I said, you should respect religion.

To do not is ignorant.
When religions stop spreading falsehoods I'll start respecting them. Religion has a tendency to become just as immoral as as anything else.

[Fallen_Icarus]

No, I can't say that I have, though I do believe I know enough to say that it is quite plausible and much more plausible than...other things

Well may I suggest you do some reading into what you seem to 'believe' in, before you form any attacks on 'creationism'.


This would be fine, but the words 'intelligent design' actually refer to a very specific viewpoint put forth by fundamentalist Christians.

Not true, seemingly you have not purchased yet a dictionary so I will paste you the meanings of the words 'intelligent design'.

**Yawns**


it is a noun and its abbreviated form is ID. It means a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings ...
bloggerparty.com/newest_words_in_the_dictionary_for_2005


Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God, based on the premise that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection

hmm, do you see the word 'christian' in any of those definitions?

I dont.

You percieve it to be related to christianity yet islamic people are also creationists, I again suggest you read the book 'science and Islam'.


I have no problem with that, except for the fact that a "creationist" generally refers to a fundamentalist Christian who believes the world was created in seven days approximately 10,000 years ago.

Well in the Quran it defines these days as each being many thousends of years.

Do your research, I cannot be bothered to teach you.


Science deals with what can be seen and observed. That's why you don't have intelligent design in science classes -- it can't be seen and observed.

Have you ever seen a man evolving from an ape?


When religions stop spreading falsehoods I'll start respecting them.

And you say this in defence of evolution which does nothing but what you have just described?

[TryptamineScape]

I had an article kicking around, unfortunately I seem to have misplaced it. Anyway, it dealt with exactly what you're talking about. It quoted documents from the 1930's where it was made clear that the American educational system was being revised to create a large mass of general labourers, easily manipulated and used to repetitive mind-dulling tasks, while shooting a select few rapidly to the positions of power. From what I remember, a lot of it is based on wealth - although it can carry over to simply being able to afford private schooling.

In any case, I'm of the opinion that we should teach scientific beliefs in schools, and religious beliefs in church. But that's me.

I completely agree with you. I always felt like I wasn't really learning anything in school as much as I was being bullshitted. I learned much more on my own than I did in high school. It was an obvious dogmatic exercise in obedience more than it was educational. I hate it, but there's nothing we can do from inside this forum. There seems to be alot of us that agree on the same things. How much power could we be coming together as one and proposing numerous new ideas to the same people over and over? Too bad no one is ever down with me on that.

[GraziLovesMary]

Ahhhhhh another religious debate. How wonderfully mundane and repetitious. One side is totally left-wingest, the other side is hard-core right-wingers and the minority in the middle tries to mediate.

wheeeeeeeee..... im having fun





:wtf:

[Hardcore Newbie]

Ahhhhhh another religious debate. How wonderfully mundane and repetitious. One side is totally left-wingest, the other side is hard-core right-wingers and the minority in the middle tries to mediate.

wheeeeeeeee..... im having fun





:wtf:Sounds just like politics, eh?

[mfqr]

I do not recall saying this, infact I do not recall saying anything about where morality should or does come from.

All I said is there is a considerable question of morality about evolution, you could say to an evolutionist - "but what about morality?" If survival of the fittest has no morality one should kill one another to survive, is this moral? (the evolutionist MUST answer yes or he/she will be in contradiction).


It isn't a question about morality. Why do you bring morality into it? You can't disprove evolution by bringing up a point about "morality." Richard Dawkins, though, does argue that Altruism is actually something that every human shares to an extent. He says that it is a hunter-gatherer kind of evolution of consciousness, which is to help others in need. So yes, it can be argued that morality can be fit into evolution. I still don't know why you bring up the concept of morality in offense to Evolution theory. It confused me, so I made the assumption that you simply meant that Creationism supports the concept of morality... and a lot of Creationists use that argument. Sorry for the misunderstanding.



I hope your reading my posts thoroughly and not just skimming the text! lol


Well, your posts get kind of long and boring, so I do end up skimming.



Im not saying that all evolutionists are evil (but there is a question of morality which must be placed to them, which often as dawkins experiences on a regular basis, cannot answer) I dont proclaim that evolutionists are vindictive people who are looking out for only themselves, often people cannot live happily knowing they have done harm to others, its called guilt and that is a form of punishment.


Oh, okay. Whatever.



There is good and evil in every school of thought, you will find corruption in religion aswel as in evolution you will also find good in each because good and evil lies within us all, this is the reason why it follows us into every doctrine of belief, system of governing or theory we create.


I see much more corruption in the realms of religion than in the realms of the theory of Evolution. Religion is a doctrine, and Evolution is a theory. Perhaps you mean that you see corruption in science as well? Of course there is. One example is the demonizing of cannabis, and false scientific reports on how "bad" it is.



I am just saying to the evolutionists whom castigate the terrible attrociousness of religion to firstly think of their own belief and what that has contributed in terms of evil beliefs and doctrines such as eugenics as one particular example im sure you are familiar with.


Well, I don't know much about Eugenics, so I can't say much about it. However, we both know that religion has been committing atrocities for thousands of years. Evolution has only been a theory for a fraction of that time. So considering the time, religion has committed many more atrocities.



I never once put forward this arguement, I have not once even said I believe or do not believe in God.


Misunderstanding.



I presume you are not directly debating with me and simply asking good questions.


Nope, it was just a misunderstanding.



Go on youtube.com and type in "Dr Zakir Naik" and then come back and let me know if its had any effect on your current opinion.


I will, but I guarantee it won't turn me to religion.



Well whats the atheists Bible?

The origin of species?

Whos their Jesus? their God? - Charles Darwin?

Do you see the paradox?

Thanks for that tasteless bit of sarcasm. Atheists have no Bible, and believe in no God. That's what Atheism is. Me, however... I am agnostic.

[mfqr]

I watched a bunch of videos of Dr. Zakir Naik. He's a smart man, but I'm not convinced. My opinion remains the same, sorry.

[Fallen_Icarus]

It isn't a question about morality. Why do you bring morality into it? You can't disprove evolution by bringing up a point about "morality."

Im not and never have tried to disprove evolution, I simply said that there exists the question of morality in regards to the theory of evolution, saying this does not mean I am attempting to 'disprove' it.

For all we know morality does exist in evolutionary thinking and we will all be punished for putting our own selfish desires and needs before others, on the other hand there could be no universal law or God to punish us for trying to survive.

Im just saying that these are the kinds of questions which need to be addressed by evolutionists, including the lack of evidence and the negative aspects to the theory, atleast give the students/school kids creationism as another potential viable option.

You cant just rule it out.

Im not taking either a creationists or evolutionists perspectives side.

Its easy to debate someone when you categorize them into a particular belief, or segment of thinking. This is the first step, to find out exactly what you wish to shoot down.


Well, your posts get kind of long and boring, so I do end up skimming.

Well I cant always compensate for the lack of your attention span, if you find them boring then dont read them. Believe in evolution as you see fit to believe it is true then please do so.

Like I said before, atheists are at the bottom of the pile for me, and im no creationist (confused?)


I see much more corruption in the realms of religion than in the realms of the theory of Evolution. Religion is a doctrine, and Evolution is a theory.

You seem to be one of the millions of people who move from one theory to the other without questioning yourself or the theories you believe.

Im presuming at some point in your life you were religious, something, some kind of questioning and thinking brought you away from it and you chose evolution?

How about questioning evolution?

There is as much evidence to support evolution as there is to support the creation of us by the Judea Christian God.

Take that into consideration before you move on forums proclaiming how stupid creationists are.


Religion is a doctrine, and Evolution is a theory.

And what point are you trying to make here? That doctrines are more evil than theories?

And how do you go about measuring such an absurd statement?

If your brother was a more intelligent/stronger individual than you then eugenics tells me (which derives from evolution) that you are inferior, you are not needed on this earth so you will be killed.

Your wasting valuable resources by existing (remember we are trying to improve humanity) - who needs disabled people? Who needs deaf people? Who needs any of these people?

This is the thinking that evolution has given birth to.

EUGENICS

So donâ??t ever sit there saying that religion has not caused as much evil as evolution because if you do research on some of the horrific aspects and history of eugenics programmes it will lead you to the most horrid areas of Nazi Germany you have ever seen in your life.

So think about that before you accuse religion of such evils, and what evils? Corrupt priests and caliphs? Notice the word CORRUPT!



Perhaps you mean that you see corruption in science as well? Of course there is. One example is the demonizing of cannabis, and false scientific reports on how "bad" it is.

Demonising cannabis? Is that the best you can come up with? How about eugenics which I keep mentioning? How about preservation of blood lines? Nazi Germany practiced eugenics and population control thoroughly.

Evolution gives birth to ideologies such as the Superior master white races such as the aryans race, who feel they are the most evolved species.

Remember evolution states that we evolved from rocks.

Why donâ??t you do some research on Josef Mengele, a profound believer of evolution and eugenics.

Nazi eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics)

Josef Mengele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele)

(I hope im not boring you)

If you believe in evolution and I asked you questions such as, do you think innocent people should be killed so that you can survive? You would have to answer yes to avoid contradiction.

Charles Darwin was a racist plagiarist, who wrote his grandfathers work the origin of species.

Im not going to debate from a creationists perspective with you because I not once said I support the views of creationism, I am just saying that evolutionist/atheists should firstly consider the validity of their own beliefs before claiming creationists are idiots and retards.


Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwinâ??s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitlerâ??s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitlerâ??s administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the â??superior raceâ??. This required at the very least preventing the â??inferior racesâ?? from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latterâ??s gene pool. The â??superior raceâ?? belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwinâ??s original â??survival of the fittestâ?? theory. This philosophy culminated in the â??final solutionâ??, the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as â??inferior racesâ??.

So before you make claims such as:


I see much more corruption in the realms of religion than in the realms of the theory of Evolution.

I suggest you research 'in favour of your opposition' if you truly believe you are correct about what you say then look at it from every angle.

People often say the Nazi movement was a mass implementation of Darwinian thinking.

I would agree.

I just want you to understand what you are actually saying when you type messages on here. You need to look at both sides of the story, I am in no way saying evolution is not true, I am in no way saying creationism is or is not true. You can put words in my mouth and categorize my belief system all you like yet this is an illusion you are creating to entertain your boredom.

Evolutionists must realise the lack of evidence of what they talk about in terms of criticizing creationists, this leads me back to the original subject about teaching evolution in schools as oppose to creationism. As you know I still stand by my claims that children should be told of the lack of evidence, and the negative side of evolution, and also shown creationism/intelligent design as a viable reason for our coming of existence.

This was my original point, the fact that I mentioned the "question of morality" is just an example of one of the items which should be told to students with regards to the theory of evolution, I by no means say that evolution completely lacks morality (but there is a huge question mark) yet these kinds of questions and 'sides of the story' are never put forward in education.

The history of the evils of religion, evolution and indoctrination into cults for example itself must be addressed - this does not mean mfqr you need to post me back a message complaining about me criticizing indoctrination and cults - but in essence this is what you have been doing over your past few messages (an example being the subject of evolution and morality).

This is why I say I hope you are reading my posts thoroughly, if you lose attention then I guess this is not an area for you.

You said:


Well, your posts get kind of long and boring, so I do end up skimming.

Cannabis has been shown to lower the attention spans of smokers and effect memory and concentration maybe you should cut back on the weed?

(Im actually trying to make this more fun for your brain by changing colours and text size and fonts etc, I hope this helps.)

Im just giving examples of the kinds of questions which are never asked by evolutionists of themselves or even by creationists about their own beliefs.

The ignorance exists on both sides.

And you are free to disagree.

[Delta9 UK]

Cannabis has been shown to lower the attention spans of smokers and effect memory and concentration maybe you should cut back on the weed?

(Im actually trying to make this more fun for your brain by changing colours and text size and fonts etc, I hope this helps.)

Im just giving examples of the kinds of questions which are never asked by evolutionists of themselves or even by creationists about their own beliefs.


No offense but that's pretty desperate. To be honest your whole post is desperate. What examples - you don't have a clue what you are talking about.



Evolutionists must realise the lack of evidence of what they talk about in terms of criticizing creationists, this leads me back to the original subject about teaching evolution in schools as oppose to creationism. As you know I still stand by my claims that children should be told of the lack of evidence, and the negative side of evolution, and also shown creationism/intelligent design as a viable reason for our coming of existence.


Oh man, stop - my sides are splitting.

There really is tons of evidence - from many fields - which consolidates evolution. You know this already, that's why you are trying so hard to argue against it.

You guys scare the shit out of me.

[cadmiumblimp]

You keep bringing up the question of morality. Why? Evolution doesn't tell us we are required to kill people weaker than ourselves, it tells us people weaker than ourselves are less likely to survive.

[Hardcore Newbie]

If your brother was a more intelligent/stronger individual than you then eugenics tells me (which derives from evolution) that you are inferior, you are not needed on this earth so you will be killed.This is obviously false. If we take this to the extreme, then only one person can be rated the "strongest" and all others should perish, thereby eliminating the species.


Your wasting valuable resources by existing (remember we are trying to improve humanity) - who needs disabled people? Who needs deaf people? Who needs any of these people?Hawking is a man who is unable to take care of himself, but he is a brilliant mind. Do we "need" him? No, but he sure is nice to have around.


This is the thinking that evolution has given birth to.No it hasn't.


If you believe in evolution and I asked you questions such as, do you think innocent people should be killed so that you can survive? You would have to answer yes to avoid contradiction.No you don't. Most humans realize, perhaps on some innate level, that killing off our own has less value than helping each other survive. Most humans develop something called empathy that makes us feel awful about harming one another. Having someone physically weaker and less intelligent around myself has no bearing on my ability to survive. Why not keep them around?

I can use different colours, sizes and fonts as well, it's annoying.

[Delta9 UK]

^^ Plus you never know when one of your "less than stellar" genetic friends might just have something really handy in their genes.

Selective mutation ~ genetic variation :thumbsup:

Evolution didn't give rise to Eugenics - Wankers did.

[Fallen_Icarus]

This is obviously false. If we take this to the extreme, then only one person can be rated the "strongest" and all others should perish, thereby eliminating the species.

Yes it is false, which is exactly my point, why you felt the need to quote and describe your own opinion of it being false I do not know.

That extreme you described could be used in the context of many theories if I took them to 'their extreme'. It doesnt matter, the fact remains that eugenics teaches these elements of selective breeding no matter what extreme you wish to take them to.


Hawking is a man who is unable to take care of himself, but he is a brilliant mind. Do we "need" him? No, but he sure is nice to have around.

Yes eugenics does disregard disabled people as inferior, which in the case of stephen hawking simply is not true, disabled people ARE NOT INFERIOR which is my point, again you do not debunk my points only reinforce them.


No it hasn't

Yes it has, much of the foundations of eugenics are derrived from extreme darwinistic teachings, or if you prefer to find me another origin please do so.

Nazi Germany based much of its movements with a darwinistic ideology of a superior race (this is darwinism).


No you don't. Most humans realize, perhaps on some innate level, that killing off our own has less value than helping each other survive. Most humans develop something called empathy that makes us feel awful about harming one another. Having someone physically weaker and less intelligent around myself has no bearing on my ability to survive. Why not keep them around?

If you believed in evolution and you also disagree with random acts of violence, or a 'kill to survive' action of murder you would be in as much contradtion as me following chrstianity and saying praising jesus is stupid.


Evolution didn't give rise to Eugenics - Wankers did.

Modern day eugenics which focuses upon the aspects which I have described above in previous posts was founded by Sir Francis Galton in 1865 - who was Charles Darwins half cousin.

Let me elaborate with an extract on actual eugenic theory and how it smacks of evolution and darwinistic elements.

"Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[1] Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering. More controversially, some, such as the Nazi regime in Germany, used eugenics as a pretext for racial discrimination.

Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral and is based on, or is itself, pseudoscience. Historically, eugenics has been used as a justification for coercive state-sponsored discrimination and human rights violations, such as forced sterilization of persons who are claimed to have genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized population and, in some cases, outright genocide of races perceived as inferior or undesirable".

Again I do not speak of evolution being incorrect, I am just saying (I feel I am repeating myself for no reason) that there are certain elements which must be addressed about evolution in the classroom.

I wish people would actually stick to the subject of evolution in the classroom and not rant on about debate points between creationism and evolution.


Oh man, stop - my sides are splitting.

There really is tons of evidence - from many fields - which consolidates evolution. You know this already, that's why you are trying so hard to argue against it.

You guys scare the shit out of me.

Can you prove we evolved from apes?

Wow, because seriously there are a ton of institutions who are offering millions to anyone who can prove evolution.

Which is why we have so many cases of 'fake missing links'.

I seriously do not trust the comments and intellect on this site when I have heard people say:


"science deals with things we can see and observe, thats why evolution is in our classrooms"

To which I replied:


"Have you ever seen an ape evolve into a man?"

hmm...

I understand that you wish to brandish me a creationist and shoot down creationism, then please do so, I am by no means a creationist or an evolutionist, both parties are lacking great deals of evidence.

I wont ever forget the evolutionist who said we have the same number of chromosomes as apes, which is a viable enough explanation as to why we got here as humans (that we evolved from these apes).

To which the creationist replied, well, I know something else which has the same number of chromosomes as humans and its tobacco.

The crowd applauded, the debate continued.

.....Oh and please do explain how evolving from rocks is a good enough explanation as to why we are here today (and dont hide behind your 4 billion years of evolution story).

[Fallen_Icarus]

Oh and delta 9, you asked in your previous post for me to find you a website offering substantial amounts of money for people like you to prove evolution.

Creation Science Evangelism - Creation, Evolution, Dinosaurs, and the Bible. (http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67?pg=250k)

Prove it. :thumbsup:

Its been up for nearly 20 years and nobody can prove it.

Its still going strong.

So there you are.

Remember, dont expect me to debate about evolution as if im some kind of creationist, if thats what your looking for here then you wont find it.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Yes it has, much of the foundations of eugenics are derrived from extreme darwinistic teachings, or if you prefer to find me another origin please do so.

Nazi Germany based much of its movements with a darwinistic ideology of a superior race (this is darwinism).Astrology is based upon the positions of the stars. Just because there is something wrong with astrology, that doesn't invalidate the position of the stars, only the assumptions or interpretations derived from them.


If you believed in evolution and you also disagree with random acts of violence, or a 'kill to survive' action of murder you would be in as much contradtion as me following chrstianity and saying praising jesus is stupid.Why is this? What if I view evolution simply as something that happens, and not something we are to persue? We do kill to survive, we kill many other animals and plants. We've set up a society that not everyone needs to be a hunter or a gatherer. The people collecting and hunting the food could simply not allow anyone else to get it, but then some of the other 6 billion people might realize this and kill the hunters (with more advanced weaponry), and hunt on their own. We've come to realize that the species can survive though sharing and diversity (ie: not killing each other). How does this conflict with evolution again?

And Dr. Dino... I'm off to a concert, but if no one else point out the many flaws of the contest design itself, I'll do so either tonight or tomorrow, without bringing up Dr Dino's moral character.

[Fallen_Icarus]

Astrology is based upon the positions of the stars. Just because there is something wrong with astrology, that doesn't invalidate the position of the stars, only the assumptions or interpretations derived from them.

No its not because you are not in touch with the foundations of this debate and why I brought up the whole question of eugenics.

You are hijacking this thread.

My original reasons for bringing up eugenics was based around the fact that evolutionary thinking and doctrines which were created by the founder of evolution Charles Darwin gave birth to terrible atrocious ideologies SUCH AS eugenics.

These points in turn are not communicated effectively in the schooling system (which is the original topic - stick to it or leave this thread and create your own if you wish to debate evolution Vs creationism), the negative sides to evolution AND creationism must be addressed, unfortunately we give the children no choice - you cannot just rule out creationism and say we evolved from rocks because there is no evidence to support evolution anyway.

How on earth can you replace a theory which has no evidence to support it with another theory with no evidence and label the latter as truth?

Do you see the paradox evolutionists reside in now?

Atleast give them the option and hold creationism as a viable reason for existence.

You cannot whatsoever, any evolutionist cannot rule out intelligent design, this is something you will have to live with until you complete the endless task of trying to prove that we evolved from rocks, into aquatic organisms and so forth into apes and into humans.

Of course animals in their kingdom may evolve without taking into account the fact that the theory of evolution has created such terrible things in OUR societies and history.

This is why you have not realised the foundations of my points in this debate which did not concern you, you just jumped in uninvited as you always do.


Why is this? What if I view evolution simply as something that happens, and not something we are to persue? We do kill to survive, we kill many other animals and plants. We've set up a society that not everyone needs to be a hunter or a gatherer. The people collecting and hunting the food could simply not allow anyone else to get it, but then some of the other 6 billion people might realize this and kill the hunters (with more advanced weaponry), and hunt on their own. We've come to realize that the species can survive though sharing and diversity (ie: not killing each other). How does this conflict with evolution again?

Again I must point out for the millionth time that your debates and points do nothing by exemplify the theory of evolution which itself has never been proven and along with an atheists perception of causes of existence.

You are free to believe, as creationists do in a theory which is based upon no evidence.

I have not once said that evolution is not true, yet if you wish to continue to categorize me into the segment of creationists then please do so, I am not one.


And Dr. Dino... I'm off to a concert, but if no one else point out the many flaws of the contest design itself, I'll do so either tonight or tomorrow, without bringing up Dr Dino's moral character.

Again - why do you continually stray from points you cannot answer?

The man can be a rapist for all I care, he could be an inter dimensional alien being from mars with a wife and children on private health care with BUPA. It doesnt matter.

I didnt give that link to reccommend a speaker/author to you.

I did it because Delta 9 asked me to provide it for him as evidence, and yes I provided it. Which is more than what I can say for evolutionists and their evidence!:)

It doesnt matter who offers the reward, the most significant factor is that none of you atheistic evolutionists can answer to it.

And this is a reason why we should still give our children the option of choosing intelligent design above evolution.

Dont fool yourselves into thinking evolution and scientific study is 'above' religion.

I want everyone in here to - if they believe so much that their scientific athetistic study is above religion to read a book called "Science and Islam".

Like I said you may think your climbing the mountain of truth, yet when you reach the top a creationist COULD be sitting there.



Dont rule out creationism and think you are 'above' it because you watch Richard Dawkins videos on youtube, I know people - a profound amount of creationists who study science related subjects in masters and Degree level qualifications, they are all creationists.

Studying science for some of my friends brought them closer to religion, one friend in particular said science and islam do not contradict each other.

So I believe that children in the educational system should be given the option of creationism as it is still as viable a theory as evolution.

This is all im saying, I by no means intend to say evolution is entirely not true.

[mfqr]

No its not because you are not in touch with the foundations of this debate and why I brought up the whole question of eugenics.

You are hijacking this thread.

My original reasons for bringing up eugenics was based around the fact that evolutionary thinking and doctrines which were created by the founder of evolution Charles Darwin gave birth to terrible atrocious ideologies SUCH AS eugenics.

These points in turn are not communicated effectively in the schooling system (which is the original topic - stick to it or leave this thread and create your own if you wish to debate evolution Vs creationism), the negative sides to evolution AND creationism must be addressed, unfortunately we give the children no choice - you cannot just rule out creationism and say we evolved from rocks because there is no evidence to support evolution anyway.

How on earth can you replace a theory which has no evidence to support it with another theory with no evidence and label the latter as truth?

Do you see the paradox evolutionists reside in now?

Atleast give them the option and hold creationism as a viable reason for existence.

You cannot whatsoever, any evolutionist cannot rule out intelligent design, this is something you will have to live with until you complete the endless task of trying to prove that we evolved from rocks, into aquatic organisms and so forth into apes and into humans.

Of course animals in their kingdom may evolve without taking into account the fact that the theory of evolution has created such terrible things in OUR societies and history.

This is why you have not realised the foundations of my points in this debate which did not concern you, you just jumped in uninvited as you always do.



Again I must point out for the millionth time that your debates and points do nothing by exemplify the theory of evolution which itself has never been proven and along with an atheists perception of causes of existence.

You are free to believe, as creationists do in a theory which is based upon no evidence.

I have not once said that evolution is not true, yet if you wish to continue to categorize me into the segment of creationists then please do so, I am not one.



Again - why do you continually stray from points you cannot answer?

The man can be a rapist for all I care, he could be an inter dimensional alien being from mars with a wife and children on private health care with BUPA. It doesnt matter.

I didnt give that link to reccommend a speaker/author to you.

I did it because Delta 9 asked me to provide it for him as evidence, and yes I provided it. Which is more than what I can say for evolutionists and their evidence!:)

It doesnt matter who offers the reward, the most significant factor is that none of you atheistic evolutionists can answer to it.

And this is a reason why we should still give our children the option of choosing intelligent design above evolution.

Dont fool yourselves into thinking evolution and scientific study is 'above' religion.

I want everyone in here to - if they believe so much that their scientific athetistic study is above religion to read a book called "Science and Islam".

Like I said you may think your climbing the mountain of truth, yet when you reach the top a creationist COULD be sitting there.



Dont rule out creationism and think you are 'above' it because you watch Richard Dawkins videos on youtube, I know people - a profound amount of creationists who study science related subjects in masters and Degree level qualifications, they are all creationists.

Studying science for some of my friends brought them closer to religion, one friend in particular said science and islam do not contradict each other.

So I believe that children in the educational system should be given the option of creationism as it is still as viable a theory as evolution.

This is all im saying, I by no means intend to say evolution is entirely not true.

Damn, you just repeat yourself all the time. In every post.
Also, I think that you're just a troll, now that I think about it.

[Fallen_Icarus]

Damn, you just repeat yourself all the time. In every post.
Also, I think that you're just a troll, now that I think about it

The reason I have to repeat myself so much is people just dont listen, they cant read or they have difficulty understanding what I am actually trying to say.

For about 20 posts now ive been saying that. ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT CHILDREN SHOULD BE GIVEN CREATIONISM AS A VIABLE REASON AS TO WHY WE ARE HERE.

Due to the lack of evidence of evolution, this makes creationism just as viable, I know this is very hard to accept for the atheists but your in the same boat as creationists in terms of proof of YOUR THEORY

Didnt you look at it this way?

Dont you ever question your own beliefs?

Do you even study your own beliefs or do you simply presume that there IS evidence out there and that evolution IS true?


I think that you're just a troll

Im getting really sick of this annoying phrase, I really dont get how you relate a troll to someone who comes on the internet and debates about bringing creationism into the classroom.

And dont point fingers because I just hit you with the fact that your beliefs in evolution hold as much weight as your "enemy" creationism in terms of evidence and the lack of it, there is no difference between the two lol.

I mean look at this stupid attempt to debunk me:


Astrology is based upon the positions of the stars. Just because there is something wrong with astrology, that doesn't invalidate the position of the stars, only the assumptions or interpretations derived from them.

Of course this is correct, me believing that apples came from mars by a 5 million footed alien beast also does not invalidate the fact that apples exist.

:thumbsup:


We've come to realize that the species can survive though sharing and diversity (ie: not killing each other). How does this conflict with evolution again?

So how are the murderers punished?

How is a rapist, crimminal punished?

How are the fact that you kill these living beings punished?

Please answer me these questions in regards to darwinistic evolutioin without backtracking to a form of karmic punishment, because...

YOU WILL BE IN CONTRADICTION:D

:thumbsup:

[Fallen_Icarus]

No offense but that's pretty desperate. To be honest your whole post is desperate. What examples - you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

No delta 9, you are the one who doesnt know what he's talking about.

You said that eugenics has no relation whatsoever to Darwinist evolution schools of thought which are fundamentals to educational science and learning.

I also proved to you that it was Charles Darwinâ??s HALF COUSIN who created much of the modern basis and theory for eugenics.

HIS HALF COUSIN FFS!

LET ALONE THE THEORIES BEING RELATED, THE ACTUAL THINKERS BEHIND THIS SELECTIVE BREEDING AND CREATION OF A SUPER RACE CALLED EUGENICS ARE RELATED LOL

This is laughable!

Delta 9, smoking cannabis does have a profound effect upon your short term memory and ability to understand.

There are a profound amount of negative effects derived from cannabis, it is no miracle plant, it is no food sent from 'the gods'.

Just like there are a profound amount of flaws in evolution I ask only that the educational system hold creationism as a viable option and alternative which could also be true.

This is all im saying, when you get this into your mind im sure you will understand that for you to walk away from religion into evolutionary thinking you had to question and consider the lack of evidence with regards to religion, there is no reason why you should not do this with evolution and any other theory you come across and phase for a short period of time in your life believing you have found the pinnacle of understanding for humanity.

Because you are no way near.

[cadmiumblimp]

I also proved to you that it was Charles Darwinâ??s HALF COUSIN who created much of the modern basis and theory for eugenics.

HIS HALF COUSIN FFS!
So, uh, what's your point? I'm related to a lot of people who have viewpoints that are sometimes similar to mine and sometimes different from mine.

[Hardcore Newbie]

No its not because you are not in touch with the foundations of this debate and why I brought up the whole question of eugenics.

You are hijacking this thread.

My original reasons for bringing up eugenics was based around the fact that evolutionary thinking and doctrines which were created by the founder of evolution Charles Darwin gave birth to terrible atrocious ideologies SUCH AS eugenics.the reason I brought up Astrology was because astronomy gave birth to such silly ideas as astrology. I don't see how it's not relevant to show that just because evolution gave birth to some odd and flawed ideas, that evolution itself must be flawed.


This is why you have not realised the foundations of my points in this debate which did not concern you, you just jumped in uninvited as you always do.Sorry, I've read the entire thread, as I always do.


Again I must point out for the millionth time that your debates and points do nothing by exemplify the theory of evolution which itself has never been proven and along with an atheists perception of causes of existence.

You are free to believe, as creationists do in a theory which is based upon no evidence.

I have not once said that evolution is not true, yet if you wish to continue to categorize me into the segment of creationists then please do so, I am not one.
I haven't yet said that evolution or creation is true either, nor have I categorized you. It seems that you are the one that is prejudging me.


Again - why do you continually stray from points you cannot answer?

The man can be a rapist for all I care, he could be an inter dimensional alien being from mars with a wife and children on private health care with BUPA. It doesnt matter.

I didnt give that link to reccommend a speaker/author to you.

I did it because Delta 9 asked me to provide it for him as evidence, and yes I provided it. Which is more than what I can say for evolutionists and their evidence!:)

It doesnt matter who offers the reward, the most significant factor is that none of you atheistic evolutionists can answer to it.
I know the reason you mentioned Dr Dino, because Delta asked about this institute that offers money for proving that evolution can be proven. Now because this contest hasn't had it's money claimed, that doesn't show that evolution is not true. It's quite a possibility that delta also knows the fallacies of this contest, so he doesn't include it as a known contest. The reason I mentioned anything about his morality was to show that the contest has it's own problems, even if it were set up by someone else (a scientist even), so I can't pin it on Hovind being "crazy". I don't care what Hovind's morals are either, I just want to show the flaws of the contest.

from wikipedia, the definition of evolution


In biology, evolution is the change in the inheritedtraits of a population from generation to generation. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences (genetic variation) between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

Dr Dino's Definition of Evolution* (yes, he has an asterisk in his contest on the word evolution)


*NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God: 1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.3. Matter created life by itself.4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals). Evolution doesn't claim that these things happened without God. Hovind also wants one to "Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution ... is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence."

Evolution doesn't make the claim that it's the only way that it could have happened, just the most likely way based upon evidence. They can't prove that invisible evolution fairies, with no discernible mass or volume that can be captured with our testing measures, didn't bring upon the changes in any kind of evolution, because it wasn't observed, and there's no evidence for it (being unmeasurable and all).


Dont rule out creationism and think you are 'above' it because you watch Richard Dawkins videos on youtube, I know people - a profound amount of creationists who study science related subjects in masters and Degree level qualifications, they are all creationists.That's fine and dandy, I know quite a few scientists and engineers, most of who are atheists. That doesn't mean a thing.

[Hardcore Newbie]

I mean look at this stupid attempt to debunk me:



Of course this is correct, me believing that apples came from mars by a 5 million footed alien beast also does not invalidate the fact that apples exist.

:thumbsup:
that's exactly my point, now you are the one that is strengthening my argument. Just because darwin's half cousin (zomg half cousin cahoots WTF?!?! an aside, this is probably why people are calling you a troll) gave birth to eugenics, that doesn't invalidate evolution, as astrology doesn't invalidate astronomy, as apple alien beasts don't invalidate apples.

But you're presenting eugenics as a problem with evolution, at the same time as denying that there's a problem between apple beasts and apples.



So how are the murderers punished?

How is a rapist, crimminal punished?

How are the fact that you kill these living beings punished?

Please answer me these questions in regards to darwinistic evolutioin without backtracking to a form of karmic punishment, because...

YOU WILL BE IN CONTRADICTION:D

:thumbsup:In case you hadn't noticed, we've taken it upon ourselves to punish people who kill. To put it in simple terms, maybe humans have "evolved" to think that killing each other is bad. And regardless, I won't be in contradiction, because I still haven't stated if I believe in evolution. You're billing me as an "evolutionist" the same way others are accusing you of being a creationist, simply because you're putting up creationist arguments.

[Fallen_Icarus]

So, uh, what's your point? I'm related to a lot of people who have viewpoints that are sometimes similar to mine and sometimes different from mine.

Thanks for joining:thumbsup:

I donâ??t care about your relatives the fact remains that I have proved that eugenics and evolutionary Darwinist thinking are related, this argument is dead.

I ended it by showing that the two are incredible interlinked.

Okay?:thumbsup:


the reason I brought up Astrology was because astronomy gave birth to such silly ideas as astrology. I don't see how it's not relevant to show that just because evolution gave birth to some odd and flawed ideas, that evolution itself must be flawed.

Well actually this isnâ??t really a strong enough response to flaw the response I gave you.

I never once said evolution is flawed, if you actually read or understand anything of what im saying you wouldnâ??t need to waste my time.

Im not going to say it again because im sick of repeating myself.

I feel your being purposely ignorant to annoy me.

I never once said evolution is not true and flawed, I said that we must also show in education the negative side to evolution.

And I dont care what analogy you use from apples to aliens to astrology, it doesnt bother me the fact remains that the analogy you used was completley stupid and my response about the apple and the alien flawed it senselessly.

:thumbsup:


I haven't yet said that evolution or creation is true either, nor have I categorized you. It seems that you are the one that is prejudging me.

But your posts are directed to the defence of evolution, do not change your motives because it is clear you are here to defend a debate which doesnâ??t even exist.

You realised this too late and now your trying to drag yourself out of the silly boat lol.

I have no problem with evolution (ive been saying this all along if youve been paying attention) its just the fact that the negative aspects or alternative beliefs (which can be classed as just as valid) are just shoved to the bottom of the text book pile in education.

:thumbsup:


I know the reason you mentioned Dr Dino, because Delta asked about this institute that offers money for proving that evolution can be proven. Now because this contest hasn't had it's money claimed, that doesn't show that evolution is not true.

Yes exactly thank you for exemplifying the points I have been trying to make, I agree yet the same can be applied to creationism, which is why we should not shove the text books "to the bottom of the pile" in the classroom, we should give creationism as a viable option (this is all ive been saying all along) im not here to debunk evolution just to make you aware that it could be as flawed as the flying spaghetti monster

So thanks for understanding after all this time.

:thumbsup:


In case you hadn't noticed, we've taken it upon ourselves to punish people who kill. To put it in simple terms, maybe humans have "evolved" to think that killing each other is bad.

So you have no answer?

Do you realise that your 'system' only really punishes and catches a very very small percentage of the people who commit these acts.

Its all fine to believe that we have evolved enough not to want to kill each other but - we havent, and until you can prove that we have you have no explanation for my questions but utter hypothesis.


And regardless, I won't be in contradiction, because I still haven't stated if I believe in evolution. You're billing me as an "evolutionist" the same way others are accusing you of being a creationist,

By all means I do not mean to bundle you into the segment of evolutionists, but clearly if you dont agree with the fact that evolution has given rise to terrible schools of thought as has religion then what is your debate here?

Why are you here?

To tell me that im wrong? Wrong and that evolution has not actually been so bad that we shouldnt question it and give creationism to the children as a viable reason or option as to how and why we came about?

I await your response


that's exactly my point, now you are the one that is strengthening my argument. Just because darwin's half cousin (zomg half cousin cahoots WTF?!?! an aside, this is probably why people are calling you a troll) gave birth to eugenics, that doesn't invalidate evolution,

Wrong. Clearly you dont understand that I was finding a RELATION to eugenics and evolution not trying to DEBUNK evolution.

I did not attempt to relate eugenics to evolution as a means to invalidate it, (I think your loosing track of this debate) Delta told me that the two are not related, I said that they are and I proved this, how on earth does this mean I wish to invalidade the theory of evolution? LOL.

Infact not once have I claimed evolution is untrue.

I simply said it has given birth to schools of thought based around eugenics and selective breeding, the person who thought up these items was related to Charles Darwin this does not mean that evolution is not true and I never said this was a reason why evolution is invalid.

So I await your response to this mistake you have made.


But you're presenting eugenics as a problem with evolution, at the same time as denying that there's a problem between apple beasts and apples.



No, you are free to perceive it this way as monkeys are free to perceive us as idiots.

Please... Read on..

Yet eugenics I have not once mentioned is a problem with evolution, clearly it works well with evolution but how about with morality and reasoning?

I suggest you fully understand the bases behind the fields of study you wish to debate about before confronting people and attempting to flaw them by creating your own targets to knock down.

If I have genuinely made a mistake you are free to debunk me and fool me as you please. I donâ??t care, I live and learn.

Yet I not once said that eugenics is in any way a means to debunk evolution and prove it invalid, this is stupid, neither did I say eugenics and evolution are incompatible (this even worse) I simply said that eugenics (being that it is tied in with evolution) and has a very large question mark about it, and thus must signal us to also display this question mark to the youth in classrooms.

Evolution carries certain negative fields of thought LIKE EUGENICS and human selective breeding which is one of the reasons why we should raise questions in classrooms of morality, you claim we will evolve and become moral 'Gods', your hypothesis may work if it were true yet today in todayâ??s world it is but a hypothesis which is not true.

Which is why if we pump childrenâ??s mind with theories which lack morality (being that you say we must be at a highly evolved conscious state to avoid murder, rape etc which we are not) it would be stupid to carry on teaching children theories which lack morality being as we have not reached this amazingly high evolved conscious level yet.

Even so, you cannot say if we will ever achieve it.

As we move forth into the future I only see war and conflict on a higher level.

[Chaotixxx]

My friends were devout christians years before we started smoking. By the time I moved, all those high talks about religion and the universe.. It took weed to unlock their minds and see how blatantly retarded religion is, and are atheist / agnostic to this day.

[Delta9 UK]

OK so what are the "problems" with Evolution that you keep banging on about. I don't see them mentioned here.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others.

If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better.

Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

[Delta9 UK]

We don't teach Eugenics in school as far as I'm aware ;). Morality has fuck all to do with evolution. If you think kids need moral guidance in a biology class then that's a whole other thread.

When I began studying Biology at school we DID cover the "problems" of Evolution. My 2 Biology A-Level teachers (until my Degree) were both the sort of true scientists who did discuss the topic liberally and from all angles. I had a thorough introduction and grounding that served my degree very well thank you. We discussed issues (many have been decided now) from a scientific standpoint like adults - nothing was hidden or brushed under the carpet etc.

I would like to hear what is "shoved to the bottom" and what "negative effects" there are of teaching evolution.

Are YOU learning it right now at school? Have you ever? How is it that you know so much about how it is taught in schools? Why do you care so much?

[imitator]

So what you are saying is, you feel that evolution is flawed, and since they are teaching flawed science, it should be ok to teach another flawed theory?

If creationism can provide more evidence, and more to say for their theory then, "god did it", then sure, teach it. But you cant really teach something that says, if you dont understand it, then god did it.

Not to mention, seperation of church and state. If these religious groups want to promote teaching of their beliefs, then they can provide money for it themselves. The Government should not be providing them money to spread their beliefs unless they are providing equal money to every other religion and their belief on the creation of the world and everything else entailed. When they start teaching the Buddhist beliefs, and the Roman/Greek beliefs, and everything else, then I will be fine with the Christian view on all of this being taught as a possibility.

So until the government starts providing equal funds for all religious beliefs in regards to this subject, it should not be providing any funds to any of them. The state should not be promoting a "state religion", because that is discriminating against all other beliefs.

[Krogith]

Does Something Evolve to become Less Productive?

[Cooter McDoogle]

Haha creationism.....

"The origins of the universe can be explained by ancient folklore that predates the discovery of the atom."

This is the problem, creationism is not an answer to the question of 'where did existence come from?'

God created the universe because his power is equal to his will.

Ok, How? How on a microscopic level was all matter formed? God wanted to so he did and then there we were? You're skipping the explanation part, but evolution doesn't pretend to have this answer either. WE DON'T HAVE THIS ANSWER AND NEVER WILL.

What creationism does is pretend we've always had the answer to where we came from. It casts aside genuine evidential analysis of our environment in favor of keeping our old ideas.

And as for eugenics I think the idea that a group of humans is superior to another is a lot older than the theory of evolution. Just because some bastards in Nazi Germany like to use the "theory of evolution" as an excuse for genocide does NOT tie eugenics to evolutionary theory. Every group that has ever gone to war thought they were superior and should survive while their enemies died. For thousands of years. Some even used religion as an excuse for their superiority.
huh..... The more ya know........

I'm sorry but nobody here knows enough about the universe to even begin to say how it all started.

And you are using the same explanation for reality as you were at age 5.

'God poofed us here' may be an excellent way for a child to conceptualize the world, but at some point you have to look a little closer at what the evidence suggests.

And don't bother with the quoting each sentence I said and then countering it with "but you can't prove that" Nothing can be proven. This is one of the most basic assumptions of science. Science never claims to have proven anything, and encourages inspection into every theory as such. Creationism seems to take this type of inspection as an insult. You don't start out with your answer and mold your hypothesis and evidence around that. You look at the evidence and then come up with a hypothesis. Your data either confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis (not prove).

Evolution is not an absolute, it's an idea to explain what we have observed with scientific inquiry. Creationism, on the other hand, is absolute and says that it can never change. Evolutionary theory has undergone a lot of changes since it was developed.

[Fallen_Icarus]

What creationism does is pretend we've always had the answer to where we came from. It casts aside genuine evidential analysis of our environment in favor of keeping our old ideas.

I agree, this is a stereotypical personality trait to creationism, but I am not here to debate the validity of the two theories creationism and evolution, I am just saying that because evolution holds the same lack of evidence as creationism then it too could be considered as viable.

Teaching creationism does not at all prevent schools from learning, if a class taught creationism with science I dont see how it would have stopped us from making the scientific discoveries we have made, it is not because of evolutionary thinking we have discovered so much, it is because of revolutionary thinking outside of the realms of religious doctrines.


And you are using the same explanation for reality as you were at age 5.

Who is that then?

What amazingly profound theory do you carry?

Evolution from rocks?


This is one of the most basic assumptions of science. Science never claims to have proven anything, and encourages inspection into every theory as such. Creationism seems to take this type of inspection as an insult.

No, this is wrong you are viewing creationism from the stereotypical judea christian perspective of the theory.

I suggest you read a book called "Science and Islam" and then tell me that creationism refuses inspection and use of science to disprove it.

Islam is actually the religion considered by millions accross the western world to be a religion which conforms with scientific theory.

One example of how creationism CAN work with science.

YouTube - Qur'an & Modern Science - Conflict Or Conciliation (15/24) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zthby8mOtYo)

:thumbsup:


Evolution is not an absolute, it's an idea to explain what we have observed with scientific inquiry. Creationism, on the other hand, is absolute and says that it can never change. Evolutionary theory has undergone a lot of changes since it was developed.

Firstly...

In what ways has the theory of evolution changed, can you give me any examples?

Because to my knowledge evolution has and always will be about evolving.

Your statement is wrong clearly, evolution teaches that we EVOLVED, creationism teaches that we were CREATED.

How do you go about changing evolution without taking away the element of evolving?

Same with creationism, how do you go about changing creationism without changing the possibility of us being created?

You can alter the theories, but this can be done with evolution as well as with creationism, im only to mention the number of different Gods people have made up such as Zeus, Brahma, Wotan, Thaw, and the great spaghetti monster to name but a few.

And you claim evolutionary theories can and have been adapted so I wont waste my time typing examples.

But the theories remain concrete in their concepts, if they did not then you cannot call them what they are.

Take evolving from evolution and you dont have evolution LOL

Take creating from creationism and you dont have creationism LOL

They are both absolutes.

:thumbsup:


What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others.

This is wrong! Do you have even the slightest understanding of evolution? The evolution you are rambling on about has always been mentioned by me! I said a few posts back that evolution is good at the smaller scale however how can you prove it on our scale?

YOU CANT

This is the last time im going to say this! I wont repeat this again because im just sick of it, im sick of the ignorance and the monotonous "search for a debate" you people are obssessed with!

All I am saying and all I ever did say was that due to the lack of evidence with regards to evolution IN OUR STORY then the same credit you atheists give to evolution about being valid we could give to creationism otherwise you would reside in a paradox!

We should also give creationism a viable explanation as to how we came about, you cant prove evolution is right so why should we have that theory as the figurehead of truth in our educational system?


If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence

Im not challenging the theory of evolution, it is common fact to anyone with 2 brain cells that there is no proof for evolution which is why we call it a theory, a monkey could work this out!

I feel like your being ignorant on purpose to annoy me!


We don't teach Eugenics in school as far as I'm aware

LOL are you serious?

LOL a "school of thought" is not literally a classroom full of kids learning the alphabet with a teacher.

Its a figure of speach!!!

Evolution is a "school of thought". Doesnt mean you go to a school called evolution lmao.


Morality has fuck all to do with evolution

LOL...


So what you are saying is, you feel that evolution is flawed, and since they are teaching flawed science, it should be ok to teach another flawed theory?

WRONG. I did not once say evolution is flawed.

I do not feel it is flawed, im sorry that you just cannot understand english but what is so hard about this?

ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT CREATIONISM SHOULD BE AS VIABLE AS EVOLUTION BECAUSE THEY ARE ON PARR WHEN YOU TAKE IT IN TERMS OF EVIDENCE, EVOLUTION IS NO GREATER A TRUTH IN TERMS OF EVIDENCE THAN CREATIONISM.

YOU CANT ARGUE THIS, ITS FACT, NOBODY CAN PROVE EVOLUTION, AND IM NOT SAYING ITS NOT TRUE! IM JUST SAYING THAT CREATIONISM SHOULD BE GIVEN IN EDUCATION AS A VIABLE REASON AS TO HOW WE CAME ABOUT.


If creationism can provide more evidence, and more to say for their theory then, "god did it", then sure, teach it. But you cant really teach something that says, if you dont understand it, then god did it.

But what more evidence do you see for phrases such as "we evolved from rocks?"

Can you answer this?

I understand that creationism is lacking evidence.

I also understand evolution is lacking evidence.

BUT WHY SHOULD ONE BE PUT ABOVE THE OTHER IN TERMS OF "BEING THE CORRECT THEORY TO FOLLOW?"

DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?


Not to mention, seperation of church and state. If these religious groups want to promote teaching of their beliefs, then they can provide money for it themselves. The Government should not be providing them money to spread their beliefs unless they are providing equal money to every other religion and their belief on the creation of the world and everything else entailed.

Why must creationism always be linked to the politics of religion or even religion itself?

We dont need to fund Pastors to tell children creationism is another viable reason as to how we were created.

LOL

Can you not be a creationist without being a christian?

And what you are talking of is just "another" belief which just happens to appeal to you (evolution).

Your in a complete paradox.

Your theory has as much lacking evidence as your opposing theory creationism yet you believe for some reason that yours is true? The same can go for the religious person, their theory is based upon no fact or evidence but they believe it is true.

What is the difference between the two people and their beliefs?

NOTHING

SO WHY SHOULD ONE BE PUT ABOVE THE OTHER?

PROVE EVOLUTION AND/OR CREATIONISM TO BE ABSOLOUTE TRUTH AND THEN YOU ARE AT LIBERTY TO PUT ONE ABOVE THE OTHER, UNTIL THEN WE SHOULD GIVE CHILDREN CREATIONISM AS A VERY GOOD REASON AS TO HOW WE CAME ABOUT.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?


So until the government starts providing equal funds for all religious beliefs in regards to this subject, it should not be providing any funds to any of them. The state should not be promoting a "state religion", because that is discriminating against all other beliefs.

Firstly I am not saying evolution is not correct, im just saying it should be given as a viable option (because it is!) along with evolution!

This does not mean we must wipe out all evolutionists and this type of thinking, why would we need to do this? This is stupid, we just need to offer it as a viable option (creationism).

I seriously think you guys are blowing this out of proportion, like I said I personally do not have a problem with evolution, some people have, I am very open minded, open minded enough to question my own beliefs, even the ones which form after I have left the former.

I will keep questioning them, I will question evolution, creationism and the great spaghetti monster, I think this is what you call learning, by all means evolution could be true, it is founded upon no evidence YET however so lets atleast provide creationism as a viable option to the children.

Let me explain this to you all.

I know this is not a very nice analogy to use so please forgive me.

If you see a piece of shit on the floor, you may think it is a disgusting piece of matter, yet why not look at the positives? Its relieved someone... Its biodegradable and will probably feed some species of the ecological system.

We must take the positives and negatives of EVERY theory we look at into consideration, this is all I am saying, there is no need to debate with me in regards to evolution being true!

I hope this explains to you exactly what I mean now.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Mr. Clandestine]

I just think it's borderline hilarious that evolutionists are exceedingly quick to call Christians and other creationists "naive", "narrow minded", etc., for believing in the concept of a higher authority, and the remote possibility that they're not at the top of the intelligent-being hierarchy. Yet, they get all defensive when a creationist laughs at the idea that the entire universe, and all the mass therein, was created by some enormous galactic fart known as the infamous "big bang" theory!

As a Christian, I'll raise my children by the word of the Bible. And there's no evolutionist who has a right to tell me I'm wrong...just like I won't judge their beliefs (or lack thereof), and tell them that they should raise their children a certain way. It's not in my nature or religious belief to judge others. Call me ignorant if you really want to, and have nothing better to do with your time...but I'd rather base my beliefs around a theoretical faith in a higher power, as opposed to endless theories concocted by abjectly biased "scientists", who get their rocks off by claiming that the universe created something from nothing and having nothing to back up their assertation - other than more theoretical assertations by like-minded individuals.

[Delta9 UK]

This is wrong! Do you have even the slightest understanding of evolution?


LOL - well you certainly don't. You keep mixing it up with Abiogenesis - get your facts straight.

I'm degree educated in Genetics and Microbiology so go for your life :D

The rest of your post was well.... mostly bold.

Try and understand you don't actually know what you are arguing about. You aren't even arguing about evolution ffs!.

[Cooter McDoogle]

forums like this make me wanna quit smokin cannabis


and move to a country that is not christiania, or jihadistan.

Creationism?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Seriously?!?!?!?!?

wow


And I really like the 'well science is just like a religion too, it's just another belief system and science can't prove anything'

whether you want to admit it or not, you are wrong if this is what you think.
science can't prove anything because nothing can be proven.

and please please show us this complete lack of any evidence supporting the theory of evolution. please say what you mean by 'there's no evidence in support of evolution.' (on this forum i guess it'd be 'THEIRS no evidance four evalution') It's a theory, yes, and it has problems, lots of them. But please be specific when you claim a widely accepted scientific theory comes from nowhere. Not that I care what you say, I'm officially done with this forum. High school stoners wondering how loud God can fart? yikes

As for the original topic, not teaching religious doctrine in public (meaning fucking PUBLIC) schools does not amount to a war against God. This is the United States, and in this country we have freedom of religion. This does not mean ' well us christians are the majority so our religion's gonna get taught in our schools.' Creationism is a religious idea, our schools should be religiously neutral since we have freedom of religion. (I can just hear the replies now)

I think it'd be pretty easy to have a day in class where all theories are introduced, but given equal weight? I honestly think most kids are able to figure out what is bullshit and what is based on reality. So teach intelligent design, creationism, whatever. The students will develop their (There) own spirituality anyways, and if they're (Their) smart, they'll throw aside any spaghetti.

So go ahead with the usual
-quote sentence
-'nuh-uh, nuh-uh! you don't know that for sure! my way is equally likely and thusly better.'

-quote next sentence
-'i teach at princeton and you're wrong!'

bye kids
have fun in the 21st century

[imitator]

Why must creationism always be linked to the politics of religion or even religion itself?


Because this is politics. People are trying to use politics to put creationism teaching into our public schools. Or did you miss the earmark for the teaching of creationism. Last I checked, that is federal tax money being given for that, which goes completely against the seperation of church and state. It doesnt have anythign to do with personal beliefs or not, the government should not be funding, or help fund any religion, unless its willing to fund all of them. When we have Islamic viewpoints and Buddist viewpoints on all of this alongside creationism and evolution, then I will have no problem, until then, it is wrong and against the ways of this nation as written by our forefathers that the government in any way help support the spread of one religion or religious viewpoint over others.


Firstly I am not saying evolution is not correct, im just saying it should be given as a viable option (because it is!) along with evolution!

This does not mean we must wipe out all evolutionists and this type of thinking, why would we need to do this? This is stupid, we just need to offer it as a viable option (creationism).

I am assuming you mispoke there and meant to say creationism somewhere in that first sentence. Otherwise I am not sure what on earth you are trying to say.

Creationism is a religious belief that goes against other religions and their beliefs, and has no place being funded by the government in a government funded public school. I dont care what its trying to say, and this has nothing to do with my belief system in any way, its just wrong on a fundamental level. I have no problem with the theory, or the theory being taught, but when my tax money is being put towards something that is obviously biased in that it is not being done for any other religion and their beliefs, then I have a problem. I will not let my taxes promote a specific religion and its beliefs over another. If you want to teach creationism, then you need to teach all the other alternatives. And I dont see what the problem is with that, by your own accord you just want people to be presented all the options.

Public schools should not be a place that promotes any kind of religion, at all, ever. Evolution, at its most basic form, doesnt offend any religion, only when used in hyperbole is it ever anything offensive(we evolved from monkeys, rocks, retarded fish frogs, whatever). Any teacher worth their weight is going to teach students that its a theory, and show the problems with it. If they dont, it is not the fault of the theory, its the fault of the teacher, and teh school system.

But as I have said before, provide teaching on every single religions view on creation and life and whatnot, or none of them at all. There are multiple religions out there that do not agree with creationism in any way, shape or form... and I do not think its right to include some peoples religious beliefs in the teachings at school, but not others. Personally, I think it would be great if schools taught a little bit from every major religion past and present, so that people could be more well rounded and have a better perspective.


You can alter the theories, but this can be done with evolution as well as with creationism, im only to mention the number of different Gods people have made up such as Zeus, Brahma, Wotan, Thaw, and the great spaghetti monster to name but a few.


Tell me sir, how can you know that those gods listed there are made up? You can easily see the strong bias you have towards your religion of choice, and against all other religions in everything you type. I dont think you are for teachign creationism because you want things to be equal, it has alot more to do with dogma and alot less to do with any noble cause. Maybe I am off base, and if so, then my most humble apologies, but that is exactly how you come off to me.


ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT CREATIONISM SHOULD BE AS VIABLE AS EVOLUTION BECAUSE THEY ARE ON PARR WHEN YOU TAKE IT IN TERMS OF EVIDENCE, EVOLUTION IS NO GREATER A TRUTH IN TERMS OF EVIDENCE THAN CREATIONISM.

Ignoring your absolutely abhorant manner of posting with caps and garish colors to draw attention to yourself...

Thats fine, and you know what, if you want that, right on. But then I want schools to teach about FSM's version of everything, and Buddhisms, and Greek/Romans version... and every other viewpoint. Because any of those views could stand up to creationism and evolution if you believe that both creationism and evolution have the same amount of evidence to prove them.


But what more evidence do you see for phrases such as "we evolved from rocks?"

We evolved from rocks huh? You sure about that statement, sounds like another one of those horrible exaggerations to me? Kinda like the line that we all evolved from retarded fish frogs.

I see plenty of evidence though, see thats one of the problems that creationism has in comparison to evolution. We can test the theory of evolution, we can prove if its true or not given enough time. We cant prove shit about creationism. How do you prove or disprove that a God created everything around you? Even if evolution is all true, it still doesnt discredit creationism, which is something alot of pro-creationism people seem to forget about. God could have still made everything, and yet evolution could still be true. Unless you are talking about a Chrisitian version of creationism, but I could have sworn you said earlier that creationism didnt have anything to do with the politics of religion, or religion itself.


BUT WHY SHOULD ONE BE PUT ABOVE THE OTHER IN TERMS OF "BEING THE CORRECT THEORY TO FOLLOW?"


Im a philosopher, I think everyone should examine all possibilities instead of just simply accepting one thing as the truth and not searching anymore for answers.

That being said, what makes creationism, be it the chrisitian version, or any other, better to teach to people then the FSM theory of creation? Or Greek/Roman creation? Aztec creation?

If you arent willing to teach every possible variety, then I dont see a point in making an outcry for putting one theory above another.


And what you are talking of is just "another" belief which just happens to appeal to you (evolution).

My religious/evolutionary beliefs have little to nothing to do with what I was saying earlier. In fact, I dont think I once brought up anything that had to do with my beliefs at all. I never stated that I believe in evolution, nor have I stated that I do not believe in creationism. Therefore, you must be making assumptions. Might I ask that you stop doing that, as its rude.


PROVE EVOLUTION AND/OR CREATIONISM TO BE ABSOLOUTE TRUTH AND THEN YOU ARE AT LIBERTY TO PUT ONE ABOVE THE OTHER, UNTIL THEN WE SHOULD GIVE CHILDREN CREATIONISM AS A VERY GOOD REASON AS TO HOW WE CAME ABOUT.

I dont have a problem with any specific theory being discussed here. My fundamental problem with the entire ordeal is that we are taking government money and providing it to spread the beliefs of a SPECIFIC religious belief. And to try to claim otherwise is foolish, as creationism really only applies to a specific branch of religion. Christianity and Judism are not the only religions out there, and plenty of other religions have their views on creation and their own type of creationism, but I dont see you pushing to have those taught.

I just see the entire situation as very... prejudiced. I believe that every person should be free to have whatever religion they wish, and if you teach specific religious beliefs to students in school, you are not promoting that freedom, you are hindering it. You would not like it if someone was promoting and teaching a religious belief that went against everything you believed in, would you? This is the same thing, as creationism promotes the beliefs of only certain groups of religion, and those beliefs actually do contradict the beliefs of other religions. Evolution is independant of religious belief, because it does not try to answer how everything came to be, in any way. A god could have created everything that exists, but that doesnt disprove evolution, they are truely independant of each other unless you are talking about chrisitian creationism.


We must take the positives and negatives of EVERY theory we look at into consideration, this is all I am saying, there is no need to debate with me in regards to evolution being true!

Then you have no problem supporting that the earmark in the bill that was providing money to teach creationism in Louisiana, and have it instead go to the teaching of any and all other possible theories along with evolution?

Dont get me wrong, I agree with you, I think that this nation is doing as poorly as it is lately because of the lack of doing that very thing. The philosophers life of questioning everything and always examining things as much as possible has been tossed aside for the instant gratification that comes from ignorance and apathy.

Others may have an issue with creationism itself, but my issue has been and will likely always be with the spending of federal tax dollars on the promotion of a specific religious belief with no attempt to provide similar assistance to all other beliefs, to teach them on an equal playing field. Granted its a major slippery slope fallacy, but I firmly believe that things like this are the first steps taken towards pushing for a state sponsored religion, which isnt something that anyone should really want. The government should have no hand in teaching anything about any religion at all personally, but if they feel something needs to be taught, then they need to teach everything, not just things from a select religious viewpoint.

[Fallen_Icarus]

LOL - well you certainly don't. You keep mixing it up with Abiogenesis - get your facts straight.

I'm degree educated in Genetics and Microbiology so go for your life


All the more reason for you to understand the mistakes you have made throughout this "debate".

I have an accountancy and finance degree at LSE but that does not by any means make me a figurehead on financial theory, someone with no degree or qualification could wind up with a theory which could stagger the world of financial theorists.

So again, your wrong, you cant apply your CV to a cannabis forum and demand respect lol.

There is in fact no debate, I or nobody else is trying to prove or disprove evolution, I am just saying that due to the lack of evidence on both parties of evolution and creationism both are just as viable in terms of an option in education.

Prove evolution to be an absolute truth and then you can teach it with removing entire elements of creationism in your teachings.

Until that dayâ?¦

YOU COULD JUST BE WRONG!

DR Zakir Naik is a creationist whom im sure is as qualified as the likes of you, you cannot call him less of a scientist because he is a creationist lol.

You should never give people the opportunity to make a fool of yourself in a debate by saying sensless things which do not have any applicible reason for existence within the structure of the debate.


And I really like the 'well science is just like a religion too, it's just another belief system and science can't prove anything'

I did not once say that science cannot PROVE anything, when did I say this?

This clearly does not make any sense, anyone who believes science has not the ability to prove anything is clearly wrong.

SCIENCE HAS THE ABILITY TO PROVE THEOREM BUT YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THAT IT HAS NOT YET PROVED EVOLUTION WHICH MAKES CREATIONISM JUST AS VIABLE AS EVOLUTION.

THIS IS SOMETHING EVOLUTIONISTS MUST LIVE WITH UNTIL IT IS PROVEN.

Be careful of how you use your english.

Dont put words in my mouth, you lost your credability 3 posts back do not pile on the proof that you still have no credability or understanding of how to debate.

`
and please please show us this complete lack of any evidence supporting the theory of evolution. please say what you mean by 'there's no evidence in support of evolution.'

Are you serious?

This is like me asking an evolutionist to "please show me the lack of existence of creationism PLEASE!"

Are you serious about this?

Are you being purposely ignorant to annoy me?


It's a theory, yes, and it has problems, lots of them

You have just answered your own question, (the above one if you dont understand).

Yes the fact that it is a theory means it lacks evidence lol.

Sorry to do this, but im sure your used to having people run rings around you in a debate by now.


Not that I care what you say

Why are you here?

I didnt bring you here, if you dont care about what I say then why are you here?


Because this is politics. People are trying to use politics to put creationism teaching into our public schools. Or did you miss the earmark for the teaching of creationism. Last I checked, that is federal tax money being given for that, which goes completely against the seperation of church and state. It doesnt have anythign to do with personal beliefs or not, the government should not be funding, or help fund any religion, unless its willing to fund all of them.

Creationism itself can always contain the stereotype of the teachings of the Judea Christian God, yet what you fail to realise is that creationism and the teaching of it will only lead to a religious influx of doctrines and beliefs if we are still to pertain to the thinking that we must have a centralized theory of belief which is also founded upon no evidence as the spearhead of learning.

There is no need to being in creationism into schools alongside with Judea Christian teachings.

We donâ??t need to do this, we donâ??t have to, like you have pointed out, as there are many different theories to creationism there is also a number of different teachings for evolution (As has been pointed out earlier on in the thread) but teaching universal evolution does not always mean we must also teach every other theory of evolution, singularly the fact that they are all theories puts them on par in terms of evidence etc, which also puts creationism on par with evolution.

So why I ask, we donâ??t have the same ideas to teach creationism as we do when we teach other theories of evolution.

Teaching evolution does not mean we must teach other aspects of evolution and all other schools of thought, the same applies with creationism; the universal theories do not change in their concepts from the flying spaghetti monster to God.

It is still creationism.

I am no creationist, (you may find this hard to believe) but my arguments are in no way against evolution or in favour of creationism, my arguments are in favour of the fact that each can be classed as viable as the other!

Your only argument against this (because your a philosopher which means you should or must consider even your own theories of philosophy you may believe in) is the fact that this will slowly bring the church united with state education.

Can you explain exactly how this will happen?

Can you proclaim here and now that this WILL happen?

Im sure there are creationists whom believe in their theories without believing in a religion.

I was once a creationism who was very far from the doctrines of religion, so why on earth, if I learned this (creationism thinking) in school would it bring me closer to indoctrination to the bible??

Has the teachings of evolution dragged you to the doctrine of the origin of species?


Tell me sir, how can you know that those gods listed there are made up?

Tell me sir, how can you know that those Gods listed there are not made up?


dont think you are for teachign creationism because you want things to be equal

I think you are finally getting it.

I not once said I disgree with evolution, yes it is a good theory.


I dont think you are for teachign creationism because you want things to be equal, it has alot more to do with dogma and alot less to do with any noble cause.

I like this statement, you are a philosopher and not im guessing an out right evolutionist which is why I wont brandish you a complete hypocrite lacking universal understanding of the fact that evolution is as dogmatic as creationism, due to the fact it is lacking the same evidence for universal truth as creationism.


We evolved from rocks huh? You sure about that statement, sounds like another one of those horrible exaggerations to me? Kinda like the line that we all evolved from retarded fish frogs.

If you actually believe or look into evolution you will find that this is the actual universal concept of Darwinist evolution, right back to the smallest molecule, it actually (according to evolutionists) came out of a rock.


Im a philosopher

Which is why I donâ??t expect you to understand the above segment of obvious information, but if you were a good philosopher, I would.


I see plenty of evidence though, see thats one of the problems that creationism has in comparison to evolution. We can test the theory of evolution

If you see plenty of evidence, then why is evolution still a theory?

Infact why am I even here?

Like I said before, evolution is very good for explaining how lower form animals can form into higher form, yet to apply it to our own cause of existence and coming contains as much evidence as believing in the great african tinman.

I accept that evolution COULD be true in our case but saying this is simply backing a theory which you are discussing in the sense of truth.

Philosophize that.


How do you prove or disprove that a God created everything around you?

There is just as much chance creationism is correct as evolution, what if evolution is actually wrong?

Will you then read "science and the Quran"?

How do you prove that we evolved from rocks?

I can apply your argument against creationism also to evolution without contradiction, because I have been right all along, they are both theories which lack substantial evidence for you to call them truths and believe that one can be placed above the other in terms of validity.

You cannot contradict this, philosophise all you wish and create theories but you cannot contradict my original statement, I still stand by it and stick to the subject.


Dont get me wrong, I agree with you

:thumbsup:


Even if evolution is all true, it still doesnt discredit creationism,

Even if creationism is true, then it would not discredit evolution, like I said its a good method for survival to evolve around your surroundings, we have formed this method in business as we evolve around consumers and market trends.

That does not mean to say that a centralized force did not create these markets.

:thumbsup:


This is the same thing, as creationism promotes the beliefs of only certain groups of religion, and those beliefs actually do contradict the beliefs of other religions.

There is no need to interlink creationism so constantly as you do with religion.

Creationism does not stand apart from the bible and fall without it.

Aliens could have created us.

God could be a particular race of alien.

Allah could be another.

The great spaghetti monster could have come here to earth millions of years ago and engineered us to evolve at this rate.

Are you with me now?


God could have still made everything, and yet evolution could still be true.

Exactly, evolution could be true, but that does not disprove the existence of god.

SO WHY REMOVE CREATIONISM?

Am I using the wrong word here? Is intelligent design a better word that does not stereotype the Judea Christian biblical indoctrination?

Your actually agreeing with me!


I think everyone should examine all possibilities instead of just simply accepting one thing as the truth and not searching anymore for answers.

Well, Imitator, I have been saying this all along, but why are people disagreeing with me?

Because they PERCIEVE me to be a creationist dismantling evolution which I am not doing.

What if I am actually an evolutionist having doubts about the validity of evolution?


But then I want schools to teach about FSM's version of everything, and Buddhisms, and Greek/Romans version...

Many of the theories you are describing all contain the same basic concept of intelligent design, I dont care which God you think did it, it is not our job to convince children in education that this God or that God was responsible for it, it is our responsibility to offer the universal concept of 'intelligent design' as much a viable option and explanation as evolution.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Well actually this isnâ??t really a strong enough response to flaw the response I gave you.

I never once said evolution is flawed, if you actually read or understand anything of what im saying you wouldnâ??t need to waste my time.

Im not going to say it again because im sick of repeating myself.

I feel your being purposely ignorant to annoy me.

I never once said evolution is not true and flawed, I said that we must also show in education the negative side to evolution.
let's follow the argument. This is your reason



My original reasons for bringing up eugenics was based around the fact that evolutionary thinking and doctrines which were created by the founder of evolution Charles Darwin gave birth to terrible atrocious ideologies SUCH AS eugenics.

These points in turn are not communicated effectively in the schooling system (which is the original topic - stick to it or leave this thread and create your own if you wish to debate evolution Vs creationism), the negative sides to evolution AND creationism must be addressed

So to change some of the language that I've used in previous posts, but to generally make it mean the same thing...

My original reasons for bringing up astrology was based around the fact that astronomy and star positions which have been around a long time gave birth to silly and absurd ideologies SUCH AS astrology.

These points in turn are not communicated effectively in the schooling system, the negative sides to astronomy must be addressed.

Look familiar? You keep saying that you're not trying to use eugenics to show flaws in evolution, yet you do keeps saying that you're trying to show the link between them to show the "negative aspects" of evolution, which seems like a case of poe-tay-toe/poe-tah-toe to me.



And I dont care what analogy you use from apples to aliens to astrology, it doesnt bother me the fact remains that the analogy you used was completley stupid and my response about the apple and the alien flawed it senselessly.
How do you figure? I used a silly analogy to show that the link between eugenics and evolution is about the same as the link between astrology and astronomy. You even said, before replying with your own silly analogy, that my scenario was correct. But if the scenario is correct, how does it not apply to evolution and eugenics?

If you disagree with my reasoning, point out why it isn't a valid reasoning instead of just resorting to calling it stupid.

You need to make a link to eugenics, it seems, to have an argument that there are "negative aspects" to evolution. Claiming you've made the link by showing that the founders of each are related and that eugenics has a false interpretation of evolution is the best you can do?


I have no problem with evolution (ive been saying this all along if youve been paying attention) its just the fact that the negative aspects or alternative beliefs (which can be classed as just as valid) are just shoved to the bottom of the text book pile in education.
You do keep saying that, and you also keep trying to show "negative aspects" of evolution in the same breath.



Yes exactly thank you for exemplifying the points I have been trying to make, I agree yet the same can be applied to creationism, which is why we should not shove the text books "to the bottom of the pile" in the classroom, we should give creationism as a viable option (this is all ive been saying all along) im not here to debunk evolution just to make you aware that it could be as flawed as the flying spaghetti monster

So thanks for understanding after all this time.
I fail to see the relation between a Dr Dino contest with rules that alter the definition of evolution, has to do with why creationism is a viable option to teach in classrooms.



So you have no answer?

Do you realise that your 'system' only really punishes and catches a very very small percentage of the people who commit these acts.

Its all fine to believe that we have evolved enough not to want to kill each other but - we havent, and until you can prove that we have you have no explanation for my questions but utter hypothesis.
The questions have no point in regards to evolution anyways. Who punishes a mantis for killing it's mate? And what does that have to do with evolution?


more stuff about eugenics and evolution




And yet more stuff about eugenics



Which is why if we pump childrenâ??s mind with theories which lack morality (being that you say we must be at a highly evolved conscious state to avoid murder, rape etc which we are not) it would be stupid to carry on teaching children theories which lack morality being as we have not reached this amazingly high evolved conscious level yet.So because evolution lacks morality, we shouldn't teach it to children? Morality should be as much of a concern with regards to evolution as morality does with math.

[imitator]

This is like me asking an evolutionist to "please show me the lack of existence of creationism PLEASE!"

Are you serious about this?

Are you being purposely ignorant to annoy me?

To be fair, he asked you a question, and you are dodging it entirely here. Answer the question, please.



Creationism itself can always contain the stereotype of the teachings of the Judea Christian God, yet what you fail to realise is that creationism and the teaching of it will only lead to a religious influx of doctrines and beliefs if we are still to pertain to the thinking that we must have a centralized theory of belief which is also founded upon no evidence as the spearhead of learning.

There is no need to being in creationism into schools alongside with Judea Christian teachings.

We donâ??t need to do this, we donâ??t have to, like you have pointed out, as there are many different theories to creationism there is also a number of different teachings for evolution (As has been pointed out earlier on in the thread) but teaching universal evolution does not always mean we must also teach every other theory of evolution, singularly the fact that they are all theories puts them on par in terms of evidence etc, which also puts creationism on par with evolution.

So why I ask, we donâ??t have the same ideas to teach creationism as we do when we teach other theories of evolution.

Because, the theory of creationism goes against some peoples religoius beliefs. It excludes some religions, and includes others, which in turn promotes some religions, while "disproving" others.


Teaching evolution does not mean we must teach other aspects of evolution and all other schools of thought, the same applies with creationism; the universal theories do not change in their concepts from the flying spaghetti monster to God.

So what you are saying is you are want a very basic form of creationism that says, in essence, "something created us, the end"? Because if you go past that at all, you are walking into the realm of a specific religion or religions, and are then promoting those religious beliefs above others.


It is still creationism.

There is a difference between the simple concept of creationism meaning that something created all that we see, and the specific versions of creationism that people want to teach in the schools.


I am no creationist, (you may find this hard to believe) but my arguments are in no way against evolution or in favour of creationism, my arguments are in favour of the fact that each can be classed as viable as the other!

I havent slated you as anything yet, especially not a creationist. Some people on these forums dont understand that you can talk about a subject and not bring in any bias, or even argue for something that you dont believe in.

And I believe that there is some viablity in creationism, but I dont think a basic form of creationism deserves to be taught in class, because to exclude religion from it, leaves you with nothing more then a simple statement and thats it.



Your only argument against this (because your a philosopher which means you should or must consider even your own theories of philosophy you may believe in) is the fact that this will slowly bring the church united with state education.

Can you explain exactly how this will happen?

That is one of my arguements yes. And as I admited, its a bit of a slippery slope fallacy, but this is one of the building blocks towards a government religion. First you have schools teaching a specific religious viewpoint, which gives you the foothold to put more and more religious type things in the schools. Public schools should not promote any religion, ever. Freedom of religion is an important trait of this country, and teaching creationism leads itself to pushing a specific religions viewpoints, as there is no point in teaching creationism if you are going to teach its most basic form. A single statement does not a class make.


Can you proclaim here and now that this WILL happen?

Sir, if I could do that, I would be alot richer at the moment. All I can state is how I feel about the subject, and what I think will happen. No one ever has a way to state for certain how something will happen in the future.


Im sure there are creationists whom believe in their theories without believing in a religion.

That some higher being created everything? Ok, thats fine, but I dont think for a second that that is what will be taught in Louisiana. It will be a christian focused version of creationism. Its a christian group that is getting the funding to do it.


I was once a creationism who was very far from the doctrines of religion, so why on earth, if I learned this (creationism thinking) in school would it bring me closer to indoctrination to the bible??

Has the teachings of evolution dragged you to the doctrine of the origin of species?

I dont believe that evolution has to have anything to do with our origin. I believe that while its possible for evolution to be the key, that there is nothing in the evidence that can prove that without a doubt. However, the true purpose behind the theory of evolution, showing that things do evolve over time, is 100% true in my eyes, and is easily provable.

Too often people combine the theory of evolution with some sort of origin theory. In its basic form, without hyperbole, evolution just says that over time things evolve. Its through other theories that you see things like we evolved from monkeys or single cell organisms and whatnot.




Tell me sir, how can you know that those Gods listed there are not made up?

I am not the one who made a statement of fact. I do not state that any gods are real, or not real, as I can not ever really know. Its why I asked you that question, because obviously to make a statement of fact like that, you must have undeniable proof of such things. The burden of proof is on you in this instance.


I like this statement, you are a philosopher and not im guessing an out right evolutionist which is why I wont brandish you a complete hypocrite lacking universal understanding of the fact that evolution is as dogmatic as creationism, due to the fact it is lacking the same evidence for universal truth as creationism.

No. THe theory of evolution has been proven. Its a fact. The hyperboles and other theories that have come from the theory of evolution are subject to questioning. There is undeniable scientific proof that things evolve as time goes on. That has nothing to do with theories on origin or anything else.

Yes, people are very dogmatic in anything they believe, its in the average persons nature. People dont feel right stating they believe in something but they arent entirely sure if its true.



If you actually believe or look into evolution you will find that this is the actual universal concept of Darwinist evolution, right back to the smallest molecule, it actually (according to evolutionists) came out of a rock.

Sorry, you are confusing theories. The theory of evolution doesnt even begin to try to approach origin. Its been a common public misconception, because of popular soundbytes from people, that make them think that evolution HAS to have anything to do with origins. It can explain it if you want, but it does not do so on its own, nor does it try to.




Which is why I donâ??t expect you to understand the above segment of obvious information, but if you were a good philosopher, I would.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Is this supposed to be an insult towards me? I understand what you are saying, but your entire premise is flawed because you view evolution as something that has to do with origins.




If you see plenty of evidence, then why is evolution still a theory?

I dont know if you have noticed, but everything in science is a theory. We dont hold any "facts", because there is no way to know the future, and you dont know for sure that everything that happened before wasnt just a giant coincidence.

A philosopher might say that everything in science is just a theory, and that there is no way to prove anything as being a fact. The future is always ahead of you, and plenty of people in the past thought they had facts at the time, but as time went on it was proven all they had was ignorance.


Like I said before, evolution is very good for explaining how lower form animals can form into higher form, yet to apply it to our own cause of existence and coming contains as much evidence as believing in the great african tinman.

Evolution doesnt have to explain WHERE humans came from. People using evolution for their own causes caused that idea to exist. Evolution just explains how things work right now, and it doesnt apply to anything in regards to our origin until you start going into subsects of the theory that were made by other people as time went on.



There is just as much chance creationism is correct as evolution, what if evolution is actually wrong?

Will you then read "science and the Quran"?

Two wrongs dont make a right. If something is wrong, that doesnt make it ok to teach more wrong things, because that original thing was wrong.

As far as "science and the Qu'ran", I try to keep up on science, and have taken a small amount of time to read the Qu'ran, although it is translated to english so its not near as accurate as it could be. Like I said before, I think the problem with this nation is people not taking time to see all the other options, it would be incredibly hypocritical of me to say that and not be doing my best to practice what I preach.



I can apply your argument against creationism also to evolution without contradiction, because I have been right all along, they are both theories which lack substantial evidence for you to call them truths and believe that one can be placed above the other in terms of validity.

You cannot contradict this, philosophise all you wish and create theories but you cannot contradict my original statement, I still stand by it and stick to the subject.

The actually theory of evolution is very provable. People never discuss the actual theory though, they always talk about the theory of evolution in regards to origin. And in that respect, yes, both creationism and evolution are on equal grounds. Both are unable to prove much more then the other that that is how everything started.


Even if creationism is true, then it would not discredit evolution, like I said its a good method for survival to evolve around your surroundings, we have formed this method in business as we evolve around consumers and market trends.

That does not mean to say that a centralized force did not create these markets.

Nope, one doesnt exclude the other at all. Thats what I am getting at. Creationism has jack shit to do with evolution.


There is no need to interlink creationism so constantly as you do with religion.

Creationism does not stand apart from the bible and fall without it.

Aliens could have created us.

God could be a particular race of alien.

Allah could be another.

The great spaghetti monster could have come here to earth millions of years ago and engineered us to evolve at this rate.

Are you with me now?

So what are you wanting to be taught? I dont get it... you are saying its not tied to a religion, but how do you plan on teaching it. The most basic form of creationism with all religion removed from it simply says "something created us". Thats not a class, thats not even a decent seminar.

The popular views of creationism are tied directly into religion. In the case of the Louisianna situation, its tied directly into religion especially, since the money is going to a religious group to promote teaching creationism in public schools.


Am I using the wrong word here? Is intelligent design a better word that does not stereotype the Judea Christian biblical indoctrination?


Well, Imitator, I have been saying this all along, but why are people disagreeing with me?

I dont know about other people, I cant easily speak for them. But I can say that you are promoting the teaching of something that is only worthwhile to teach when tied to religion, but saying religion has nothign to do with it.

Creationism is pointless to teach in schools if its in its most basic form. Its a one day discussion if that. The only way there is any substance to discuss is when its a religious verison of creationism. And let us not forget that even the most basic form of creationism still goes against some religions.

You are confusing two seperate theories, and claiming they are the same, and attacking the theory thusly. THe problem is, origin based on evolution is not the same as the theory of evolution. And I think thats where the problem here, at least with what we were talking about, is at.

[Delta9 UK]

All the more reason for you to understand the mistakes you have made throughout this "debate".

I have an accountancy and finance degree at LSE but that does not by any means make me a figurehead on financial theory, someone with no degree or qualification could wind up with a theory which could stagger the world of financial theorists.


We are talking Biology here though - I think? Last time I checked? My degree is relevant, yours isn't.



So again, your wrong, you cant apply your CV to a cannabis forum and demand respect lol.


No - you have a weird inability to understand when you are well out of your depth. My degree is directly related to the subject at hand - you are now just being offensive.

You want to talk about this properly and discuss your "evidence" then lets do it. I know you don't know what you are even debating so this should be hilarous, if not short lived.

Again - this time in bold

YOU ARE NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTION

Better?

You are talking about Abiogenesis - totally different, but that's about the 3rd time I've said it now so I'm giving up.



There is in fact no debate, I or nobody else is trying to prove or disprove evolution, I am just saying that due to the lack of evidence on both parties of evolution and creationism both are just as viable in terms of an option in education.


Still waiting for this lack of evidence? You mean transitional fossils? or maybe Vestigal organs? Or maybe - you don't know what the fuck you are talking about?

They are NOT both viable - you just don't understand enough about evolution to know why.



Prove evolution to be an absolute truth and then you can teach it with removing entire elements of creationism in your teachings.


LOL like everything else taught in school is absolute truth.



DR Zakir Naik is a creationist whom im sure is as qualified as the likes of you, you cannot call him less of a scientist because he is a creationist lol.


Well he quit science in 1991 to study and promote Islam - I didn't, who wins? Try picking someone who hasn't since then dedicated their life to something other than science and you might have a fair chance.

I could call him "less of a scientist" actually - if he ignores the Mountain of evidence then no, he's not a proper scientist - that's how science works.



You should never give people the opportunity to make a fool of yourself in a debate by saying sensless things which do not have any applicible reason for existence within the structure of the debate.


Take your own advice. This is the most hilarous oxymoronic statement I've read all week. I'm beginning to wonder if this is just trolling on your part.

If you want to debate WHY creationism doesn't have any evidence (let's throw in ID as well because that's bollocks too) then let's do it. If you just want to apply circular logic to everything without facing the actual meat of the debate then you bore me.

Creationist are relying on the average joe not understanding the facts - people just like YOU.

[Fallen_Icarus]

Look familiar? You keep saying that you're not trying to use eugenics to show flaws in evolution, yet you do keeps saying that you're trying to show the link between them to show the "negative aspects" of evolution, which seems like a case of poe-tay-toe/poe-tah-toe to me.

No, how on earth can by displaying negative aspects to a theory be an attempt to debunk and flaw the entire concept of evolution?

Does that fact of me thinking the great african tin man as a silly idea debunk the whole concept of intelligent design?

No it doesnt, if I wish to show negative aspects to the theory of a subject then that by no means I am attempting to FLAW the whole idea and concept of it.

This I would have thought is obvious.




My original reasons for bringing up astrology was based around the fact that astronomy and star positions which have been around a long time gave birth to silly and absurd ideologies SUCH AS astrology.

These points in turn are not communicated effectively in the schooling system, the negative sides to astronomy must be addressed.

No, your original reasons for making the analogy (it was an analogy) of star positions and astrology was to try and emphasize the fact that although evolution cannot be proven to be correct it is still happening...

Which leads perfectly on to the reason why you made that analogy because you said, believing in astronomy does not invalidate the positions of the stars.

Here is your original quote:


Astrology is based upon the positions of the stars. Just because there is something wrong with astrology, that doesn't invalidate the position of the stars, only the assumptions or interpretations derived from them.

And you assume that just because there is something wrong with evolution (eugenics) does not invalidate the theory.

This is what you meant originally, do not alter your meanings.

I have a good memory.

You spent a very long time away from the last post I directed at you "newbie" - why was that?


These points in turn are not communicated effectively in the schooling system, the negative sides to astronomy must be addressed.

And what is wrong with this? Besides the fact you are using it on an idiotic example. There is nothing wrong with communicating the negative aspects and other viable options to theories, this is not done in schools which is my only point!


Look familiar?

Kind of. - lmfao


poe-tay-toe/poe-tah-toe to me.

What?


How do you figure? I used a silly analogy to show that the link between eugenics and evolution is about the same as the link between astrology and astronomy

No you used an analogy which related a flaw in a theory (Astrology) to the actual factual position of certain stars.

You believed that this flaw which related to eugenics in evolution does not disprove the evolution concept which in turn is true IF EVOLUTION COULD BE PROVEN TO BE TRUE. Your analogy assumes evolution to be as true as the position of the stars. When in fact it is not.


If you disagree with my reasoning, point out why it isn't a valid reasoning instead of just resorting to calling it stupid.

Read the last paragraph.


You need to make a link to eugenics, it seems, to have an argument that there are "negative aspects" to evolution. Claiming you've made the link by showing that the founders of each are related and that eugenics has a false interpretation of evolution is the best you can do?

Eugenics is evolutionary thinking, selective breeding etc that is all remnants of the Darwinist evolutionist school of thought.

And yes, the founder of modern day eugenics was actually related to the founder of the theory of evolution.

What more do you want?

This by no means makes evolution to be an icorrect theory.


So because evolution lacks morality, we shouldn't teach it to children? Morality should be as much of a concern with regards to evolution as morality does with math.

No that is entirely NOT WHAT I AM SAYING.

*sigh*







To be fair, he asked you a question, and you are dodging it entirely here. Answer the question, please.

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.


Because, the theory of creationism goes against some peoples religoius beliefs. It excludes some religions, and includes others, which in turn promotes some religions, while "disproving" others.

Intelligent design does not have to include religious belief, it does not have to incorporate religion whatsoever or even the theory of God.


So what you are saying is you are want a very basic form of creationism that says, in essence, "something created us, the end"?

No I want respect for the theory of intelligent design as much as the theory for evolution, due to the fact they both lack evidence does not entail that one supports one over the other (other than mere self opinions).


There is a difference between the simple concept of creationism meaning that something created all that we see, and the specific versions of creationism that people want to teach in the schools.

I not once recommended that they teach a specific concept of creationism in schools, I simply think creationism/intelligent design are just as viable as evolution.


That is one of my arguements yes. And as I admited, its a bit of a slippery slope fallacy, but this is one of the building blocks towards a government religion. First you have schools teaching a specific religious viewpoint, which gives you the foothold to put more and more religious type things in the schools. Public schools should not promote any religion, ever. Freedom of religion is an important trait of this country, and teaching creationism leads itself to pushing a specific religions viewpoints, as there is no point in teaching creationism if you are going to teach its most basic form. A single statement does not a class make.


So what are you wanting to be taught? I dont get it... you are saying its not tied to a religion, but how do you plan on teaching it. The most basic form of creationism with all religion removed from it simply says "something created us". Thats not a class, thats not even a decent seminar.

The popular views of creationism are tied directly into religion. In the case of the Louisianna situation, its tied directly into religion especially, since the money is going to a religious group to promote teaching creationism in public schools.

Imitator, you do not need to talk to me as if I am some kind of Indoctrinated christian who wants to also indoctrinate the youth and shove creationism down their throats by the use of political tools to bring creationism into the educational system.

I think it was Ken Miller who broke the ground and took creationsism out of the schooling system of America, he showed how creationism has no weight behind it therefore - nothing to teach!.

However Imitator what you fail to realise is the concepts and implications of what you are saying, you assume with your above quotes that evolution should be taken out of the educational system and replaced with creationism.

I do not agree with this, and this is not what I am saying, there is nothing with examining signs of nature with the view that these were specifically intelligently designed and created.

I think also the fact that no scientific FACT contradicts the Quran, theories may contradict the Quran, but no Fact has actually contradicted the Quran to date.


And I believe that there is some viablity in creationism, but I dont think a basic form of creationism deserves to be taught in class,

By no means do I wish to teach utter creationism in schools as you have said "God did it" doesnt leave much for the rest of the semester of education, I was just making the statement that evolution is as valid as creationism (you may think) but this does not mean creationism is not as viable as evolution because it is!


We are talking Biology here though - I think? Last time I checked? My degree is relevant, yours isn't.

There is no need to show aggression because you have a clear lack of understanding about exactly what this whole thread is about, but reading the title may help you on your way.

The fact remains that creationism is just as viable as evolution.

What if after everything you are actually wrong about evolution? This is what I hate about both evolutionists (you) and creationists (not me) they both do not have the slightest understanding of the fact that due to the lack of evidence upon both schools of thought that each could be just as valid as the other.

So why should we dictate one doctrine above the other in schools?

We should give the option and show how creationism could and is just as viable as evolution.


We are talking Biology here though - I think? Last time I checked? My degree is relevant, yours isn't

My degree does not mean I am excluded from any debates around evolution, and it does not by any means make you the figurehead of the theory and thus excel you in any way above anyone else.

Your being offensive.

You believe by showing me the fact you have a degree makes you more knowledgeable about the subject than me? I know people who would run rings around me discussing financial theory who have little or no qualifications in the subject.

Like I said, your CV is your own business.

Like I said, me having a degree in accountancy does not make me a figurehead in the subject just like you having a science related degree does not make YOU a figurehead in the subject of science or evolution.

So (in bold I ask you).

Why did you feel the need to bring up your degree?


Still waiting for this lack of evidence?

I think ive mentioned about 10 if you read up.


If you want to debate WHY creationism doesn't have any evidence (let's throw in ID as well because that's bollocks too) then let's do it. If you just want to apply circular logic to everything without facing the actual meat of the debate then you bore me.

Creationist are relying on the average joe not understanding the facts - people just like YOU.

You can attempt to signpost me as a creationist all you like, there is no basis for attack until I actually tell you that I am a creationist.

When infact im not.


LOL like everything else taught in school is absolute truth.

LOL you have just contradicted yourself, firstly you want evolution in schools and creationism out, for the reasons that it is on a "search for the truth".

And now your saying well actually not everything in schools are true so why worry about evolution not being true?

Then what is your big gripe with creationism even being CONSIDERED as a viable option in schools?

You should never give people the opportunity to make a fool of yourself in a debate by saying sensless things which do not have any applicible reason for existence within the structure of the debate.

Im not even saying creatioism shoulw be "taught in schools" when the hell did I say this?

I dont even agree with the actual teaching of creationism because all your left with is understanding how things work and discovery - but "god did it". But that does not stop science, even if someone was to believe that God just did all of it, that would not stop that scientist from learning more about how things work and how the world was created.

He could be wrong (and I hope he accepts this fact).

Archaeology is another subject which has unveiled some amazing theories about the history of the people and civilizations who lived thousands of years ago, some archaeologists subjectively go as far as saying these civilizations had advanced technology and an incredibly high degree of knowledge about the origins of our existence.

Who are we to say that in terms of knowledge, that we are at the pinnacle?

Evolutionary thinking was a rebellious act against the creationist church yes, I agree.

It was a revolution.

But what is revolution? - RE-EVOLUTION.

In 200 years time we could all be back to following intelligent design.

Who are you to say that we are on some kind of advancement of knowledge and intelligent design is history, dead and buried, never another sign of that being true will be show again?

This is all im saying, im being rational about your evolutionary thinking.


You are talking about Abiogenesis - totally different, but that's about the 3rd time I've said it now so I'm giving up

I understand that Abogenesis must not be confused with evolution entirely but it is not invalid to link the two, biological evolution and molecular evolution (the basis of naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis) do have some relation and overlap in the sense that molecular change (in genes) is what drives biological evolution. So it is not necessarily invalid to join the two â?? especially when you consider that it is hard to draw a definitive line between life and non-life.

I also understand that evolution is a theory which describes how life has developed, a premise to this story is to understand that life must have already existed.

Again which points me to what was earlier said,that evolution does not by any means discredit the existence of an inteligent creator.

However here is the mystery..

It could have been created intelligently by a designer.

Or it could have come about with the theory of ABOGENESIS.

Whatever the explanation, evolutionary explanations begin to apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.

So, why on earth should I not be allowed to even make a statement about ATLEAST considering the fact that intelligent design could have actually happened.

Lets not rule it out, thats all im saying!

Im not saying evolution or creationism are wrong!

[imitator]

You are talking about Abiogenesis - totally different, but that's about the 3rd time I've said it now so I'm giving up.

Thats what its called, the damn name was escaping me.

I really dont think that Fallen Icarus understands the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. And without being able to understand that difference, we cant really have much of a discussion.

That being said, just because there is a lack of scientific evidence, doesnt mean that it shouldnt still be taught in some manner. Knowledge covers everything, both things proven, and things unproven, and it does a person a great injustice to hide from them anything that isnt "proven", as even if its completely off base, they should still learn about it, in a subjective manner with proper teachers(which is the key problem with alot of teaching in the US these days it seems)... a person needs a well rounded mind, and it only hurts them to hide and refuse to teach them about things.

IF creationism wasnt so deeply seated into religions, and if it wasnt the case that the only viable way to teach it is via a specific religions viewpoint on creationism, then I wouldnt have a problem with the government funding teaching it. THe problem is that it is tied into a few select religions, in regards to what would be taught, and we have a thing called seperation of church and state, and freedom of religion, which makes things things wrong to do. If there was any sort of viable way to teach the concept behind creationism without involving a "religion of choice" in it, then I would really think it should be taught in schools, properly. But you cant really teach people about a theory which consists of "a god(s) created everything. the end". It just doesnt work, and if you cant make it work without promoting the beliefs of a specific religion, then it cant be taught in public schools.

[imitator]

I also understand that evolution is a theory which describes how life has developed, a premise to this story is to understand that life must have already existed.


Thats fine, but schools arent neccessarily teaching abiogenesis.

You constantly try to make it seem like evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing, but they arent. They are two completely different theories, and one does not imply the other explicitly.

The theory of evolution has been proven beyond almost any doubt. We have countless experiments which have shown that it does happen. Abiogenesis is another story.


Imitator, you do not need to talk to me as if I am some kind of Indoctrinated christian who wants to also indoctrinate the youth and shove creationism down their throats by the use of political tools to bring creationism into the educational system.

I think it was Ken Miller who broke the ground and took creationsism out of the schooling system of America, he showed how creationism has no weight behind it therefore - nothing to teach!.

However Imitator what you fail to realise is the concepts and implications of what you are saying, you assume with your above quotes that evolution should be taken out of the educational system and replaced with creationism.

No, I do not assume that, you are incorrect in your assumptions.

I have not once inferred that we would be replacing anything. Replacing one thing with another is infact irrelevant to my point.

The point is, that you cant teach about creationism without involving religion. There is nothing to teach without involving religion. You claim otherwise, but please, prove it. I am curious how you figure its possible.

I am telling you right now, I do not see how you could have more then a simple statement if you remove religions from creationism. Religions provide specific stories behind their version of creationism, whereas creationism itself only states that something created all of this. You cant teach a basic form of creationism, as there is nothing to teach. And if we are talking about a non-religious form of creationism, then in fact there is almost no evidence for it, much less then evolution, or hell even abiogenesis.


I think also the fact that no scientific FACT contradicts the Quran, theories may contradict the Quran, but no Fact has actually contradicted the Quran to date.

Considering we dont hold any actual scientific facts as of yet, I could say the same of almost anything. All science holds is theories and the like, actual FACTS are not known to us at this time.


Intelligent design does not have to include religious belief, it does not have to incorporate religion whatsoever or even the theory of God.


Give me an example of where ID doesnt involve religion or a theory of God.


I not once recommended that they teach a specific concept of creationism in schools, I simply think creationism/intelligent design are just as viable as evolution.

What do you recommend they teach in regards to it then? I dont see any point dancing around any of the other issues, since the problem I have deals directly with this.

How do you propose we teach this in schools if we are removing all religion from it. You want this taught to people alongside evolution, provide your method of doing so, please. I am curious how you envision this, and it might make things a bit easier for everyone involved to see exactly how you stand on this.

[cadmiumblimp]

Give me an example of where ID doesnt involve religion or a theory of God.
I'll just poke in here real quick and say aliens, but there's as much proof of aliens interfering in man's development as there is that God made everything or that there even IS a god.

[Fallen_Icarus]

I really dont think that Fallen Icarus understands the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. And without being able to understand that difference, we cant really have much of a discussion.

I do understand the difference between the two, you clearly did not read the last passage of my last post, read it and then come back to me.


You constantly try to make it seem like evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing,

No I do not "constantly" do this, and the reason is - is because I understand that there is a difference between the two such as the entire fact that abogenesis describes how life came about in its theory and evolution describes the happenings of this particular "life" yet it would not be invalid to link the two.

You can link them.


The theory of evolution has been proven beyond almost any doubt.

What - so we really did evolve from apes? (lol)

So why are they still calling evolution a theory?


No, I do not assume that, you are incorrect in your assumptions.

I am glad you do not assume that yet your posts clearly point in the opposite direction.


The point is, that you cant teach about creationism without involving religion. There is nothing to teach without involving religion.

I dont know about you but I doubt many religions actually talk about aliens creating us.

Engineering us - this would in no way invalidate evolution, it only offers a different prespective which is all I ask.


I am telling you right now, I do not see how you could have more then a simple statement if you remove religions from creationism. Religions provide specific stories behind their version of creationism, whereas creationism itself only states that something created all of this.

Why do you continuously relate Intelligent design to religion? Isnt it a simple fact to you as to anyone else that someone can actually believe in intelligent design WITHOUT religion?

I know dozens of people who could back the statement I have made.

It is a silly idea, a stereotypical igornance of you to presume that creationism or intelligent design must always bring in religion.

What on earth does jesus and the apostles have to do with us being made from one infinite source of energy at a quantum physical level?

Science has a huge amount of intelligent design based theorem which could be classed as just as valid, if you look into quantum physics you will find theory and experiments which reveal that matter actually has intelligence.

You love science, but the video im about to paste here is full of nothing but religion so just ignore it.

YouTube - Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc)

.


And if we are talking about a non-religious form of creationism, then in fact there is almost no evidence for it, much less then evolution, or hell even abiogenesis.

I agree! However - how you measure the amount of evidence is up to you, yet 100 years ago people may have presumed intelligent design to be a more formidable theory as opposed to evolution because there was little or nothing to support evolution.

Your statement only presumes that the future holds no hope for creationism and proving intelligent design in terms of evidence.

But the fact that there is no evidence or little evidence to prove ID does not invalidate it and throw forward evolution as an incredible theory which we must presume to be true simply because we cannot yet prove intelligent design.

I am just saying that the two are just as valid and the two should be given equal credit and intelligent design should be given as an optional viable option as to how we arrived on this planet.

And your a philosopher, apparently so why on earth must you follow a belief in which you do not agree with the belief of questioning EVERY belief?

Why do you (a philosopher not an evolutionist or a creationist) disagree with me?

I dont understand your motives here imitator.


Give me an example of where ID doesnt involve religion or a theory of God.

...


I'll just poke in here real quick and say aliens, but there's as much proof of aliens interfering in man's development as there is that God made everything or that there even IS a god.

And please do not reply saying how I wish to teach the children that we were created by aliens, you asked for an example of which ID would not involve religion and I didnt even need to give you one, someone else did, showing that its ignorant and stereotypical to continuously relate intelligent design to a Judea Christian perspective.

Like I said, you can perceive the creator to be a 5 million foot bean monster for all I care, the fact is is that we are integrating the possibility of intelligent design as a viable option.

Because it is as viable as evolution.


Considering we dont hold any actual scientific facts as of yet, I could say the same of almost anything. All science holds is theories and the like, actual FACTS are not known to us at this time.

So your saying there is always a way to dispute fact?

I say if you jump off a 100 story building, when you hit the ground your heart will stop.

Theres always a way to dispute fact?

Dispute that one.

[Hardcore Newbie]

No, how on earth can by displaying negative aspects to a theory be an attempt to debunk and flaw the entire concept of evolution?

Does that fact of me thinking the great african tin man as a silly idea debunk the whole concept of intelligent design?

No it doesnt, if I wish to show negative aspects to the theory of a subject then that by no means I am attempting to FLAW the whole idea and concept of it.

This I would have thought is obvious.
But you're not showing "negative aspects" of evolution, you're showing flaws with eugenics.

I agree with you here, that the flaws with any religious systems don't shouldn't reflect on the idea that we were created. Let me bold something... That's not the problem with Intelligent Design. Evolution does have proof. You keep saying that there's no proof but there's tonnes.

How we know what happened when (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_12)

You can learn lots more here too!


No, your original reasons for making the analogy (it was an analogy) of star positions and astrology was to try and emphasize the fact that although evolution cannot be proven to be correct it is still happening...No, you've misinterpreted. Let's make a chart.

In the analogy...

Evolution = Astronomy, both have proof. No where did I emphasis that evolution didn't have proof in the analogy. in fact, the opposite was implied. Astronomy has scientific proof. If I was trying to make an analogy, it'd be a poor analogy to me if I thought that evolution didn't have some sort of proof.

Eugenics = Astrology, derived from their respective fields, applying morality and meaning to where there is none.


And you assume that just because there is something wrong with evolution (eugenics) does not invalidate the theory.

This is what you meant originally, do not alter your meanings.

I have a good memory.
you may have a good memory but your memory had misinterpreted my meanings.

please please please stop bringing up eugenics as a problem with, or "negative aspect" with evolution. You've already shown you didn't even understand the point of the analogy.


You spent a very long time away from the last post I directed at you "newbie" - why was that?My girlfriend was over this weekend, and I saw your post, but I didn't have the time to reply, as I didn't want to be on the computer typing responses to in depth subjects. I mean... I was afraid of your post and it took me a really long time to answer, invoking the help of all my friends as we mustered up the best responses we could think of to defeat that bad creationist!

Is that what you were looking for?


And what is wrong with this? Besides the fact you are using it on an idiotic example. There is nothing wrong with communicating the negative aspects and other viable options to theories, this is not done in schools which is my only point!They aren't communicated because the alternatives have no proof. If you take a course on Fluid mechanics, they'll tell you what's wrong with the initial equation that they give you in the beginning of the semester. It's a big equation, and parts of it aren't measurable because we don't currently have the equipment to do so. it does work mathematically, and the predictions made with the applied math work.

So they are assumed to be true because that's how science works. if someone has an alternate theory, it has to debunk the current method with new observations. If someone wanted to make a theory about current fairies, then they would have to observe it.

There's no "absolute proof" on fluid mechanics, but that doesn't stop us from teaching it or using it in plumbing systems, and there's no need to teach an alternate theory.




What?
the word was potato, and two different pronunciations.


No you used an analogy which related a flaw in a theory (Astrology) to the actual factual position of certain stars.

You believed that this flaw which related to eugenics in evolution does not disprove the evolution concept which in turn is true IF EVOLUTION COULD BE PROVEN TO BE TRUE. Your analogy assumes evolution to be as true as the position of the stars. When in fact it is not.
How do you know the position of the stars, have you been there? It's just as an absurd question as
Have you ever seen a man evolving from an ape?
So please, why can we accept that our scientists and astronomers know the positions of the stars, even without getting a giant tape measure and travelling there? lots of correlating evidence (parallax, stellar motions, Inverse Square law, etc) Just as with evolution, pointed out on the evolution 101 page that I linked to above.


Eugenics is evolutionary thinking, selective breeding etc that is all remnants of the Darwinist evolutionist school of thought.
you sigh, i sigh. *sigh*


And yes, the founder of modern day eugenics was actually related to the founder of the theory of evolution.

What more do you want?

This by no means makes evolution to be an icorrect theory.
So what? My grandmother is a born again Xian. I am not. My dad is an athiest, and I am not. If all three of us made observations of the world and we had similar observations, they may be similar or different. Our philosophies on morality will also be similar in some places and different than others. In the places that they are similar, that doesn't mean we're in cahoots with theories and such. You keep pushing a point that means nothing.



No that is entirely NOT WHAT I AM SAYING.

*sigh*Let me rephrase that.... in response to
Which is why if we pump childrenâ??s mind with theories which lack morality (being that you say we must be at a highly evolved conscious state to avoid murder, rape etc which we are not) it would be stupid to carry on teaching children theories which lack morality being as we have not reached this amazingly high evolved conscious level yet.

So because evolution lacks morality, we should be teaching alternative theories to children? Morality should be as much of a concern with regards to evolution as morality does with math.

And I also didn't state that we must be at a highly evolved consious. My exact quote was

In case you hadn't noticed, we've taken it upon ourselves to punish people who kill. To put it in simple terms, maybe humans have "evolved" to think that killing each other is bad.MAYBE. I don't know where our morality came from (hence the maybe), but that, yet again, has nothing to do with evolution.

[Hardcore Newbie]

So why are they still calling evolution a theory?

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof)



I dont know about you but I doubt many religions actually talk about aliens creating us.
Scientology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology)


I agree! However - how you measure the amount of evidence is up to you, yet 100 years ago people may have presumed intelligent design to be a more formidable theory as opposed to evolution because there was little or nothing to support evolution.

Your statement only presumes that the future holds no hope for creationism and proving intelligent design in terms of evidence.Did anyone teach evolution before there was proof of it?


So your saying there is always a way to dispute fact?

I say if you jump off a 100 story building, when you hit the ground your heart will stop.

Theres always a way to dispute fact?

Dispute that one.Free-fall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall#Surviving_falls)

[quaz808]

Here is the answer to all of your questions

The Official God FAQ (http://www.400monkeys.com/God/)

[quaz808]

:wtf:

[quaz808]

:stoned:

[imitator]

So your saying there is always a way to dispute fact?

I say if you jump off a 100 story building, when you hit the ground your heart will stop.

Theres always a way to dispute fact?

Dispute that one.

Quantum Mechanics state that that is not always true. Its only incredibly probable, and nigh impossible to not happen, but still possible.


Why do you continuously relate Intelligent design to religion? Isnt it a simple fact to you as to anyone else that someone can actually believe in intelligent design WITHOUT religion?

Fine, a giant bean monster created us and the world around us, but what created the bean monster? Did it evolve, or did something create it? What created that something... so on and so forth. ID has to rely on abiogenesis and evolution to explain itself if it excludes a dietistic being creating things.


What - so we really did evolve from apes? (lol)

Come on now, are you even going to make an attempt here to be serious. Evolution does not state that we evolved from apes in its base form, and you know it. Its another hyperbole used to try to immediately discredit it by making it sound as rediculous as possible, just like the we evolved from rocks statement earlier.


And your a philosopher, apparently so why on earth must you follow a belief in which you do not agree with the belief of questioning EVERY belief?

Why do you (a philosopher not an evolutionist or a creationist) disagree with me?

I dont understand your motives here imitator.

I do not, not believe in evolution, or creationism. I feel they are both viable in their own rights, although I do believe that evolution has been proven much more then creationism has, in all its time as a theory.

My motives is to see how you plan on teaching creationism without involving religion. Ive decided im not going to address any of your other points until you answer that, as thats really all I care about. I could spend all day with people here debating symantics with you as we have been, but when you get down to the brass tacks of it, we can solve all of this with that answer.

How do you feel is best to teach creationism/ID in schools without involving any religion? Thanks.

[GraziLovesMary]

Sounds just like politics, eh?

hehe spot on. Another thing I avoid like leprosy.

[Mr. Clandestine]

Instead of endlessly bickering over which theory is correct, why not just consider teaching neither theory in public schools? I don't want the children of an atheist (or agnostic, or Buddhist, or Taoist, or worshipers of the ten-thousand foot tinman/Jelly-Bean monster - or whatever) being taught that life came about by intelligent design, because that would be offensive and contradictory to what the parent has most likely already taught the child. And I don't want evolution being taught to my children, because it contradicts what I have been teaching them since they've learned to talk. Since it's such a touchy subject for so many people, why has nobody ever just considered to wipe that it from the classroom agenda and discuss other (and more important/relevant) areas of science? Matters of such importance to the parents might just happen to be better taught by *gasp* the parents...and not some biased science teacher! Now, there's a thought! I understand the sheer joy of carrying on a thread for the sole purpose of trying to belittle & discredit the opponent, but usually it ends the second time the original argument gets brought up again...and in the exact same context. Beyond that, it's just monotonous bickering, as I mentioned before. It was certainly a fun thread to read in the beginning, but now I'm beginning to wonder who will have the prescience of knowing how this will all end up. (i.e. - everyone frustrated with everyone else because absolutely no points are getting across to the other party.)

With all due respect to the primary contributors of this thread, you guys (and gals?) are getting nowhere with your arguments, and are just touting how well each other can quote, well...each other! This isn't a debate...it's just a battle of witty comebacks! You seem so educated, but can't seem to grasp the fact that in 10,000 posts from now...this is just going to end up a stalemate. Which, actually, already happened during each of your first responses. You each need to smoke a bowl, or drink a glass of wine, or do whatever it is you do to "zone out", then come back and really put some thought into what you're trying to prove. By that time, you'll be quasi-inebriated and may just finally see the humor in all this incessant jabbering!

Peace, love & mutual understanding to all of you wily debunker'ers! :hippy:

-Mr. C

[Hardcore Newbie]

And I don't want evolution being taught to my children, because it contradicts what I have been teaching them since they've learned to talk.
Funny (and true) story, a friend's friend's father (we'll call Roy) taught his kids that all different types of birds we just different coloured ducks. Seagulls were white ducks, cardinals were red ducks, blue jays were blue ducks... etc. Are you suggesting that the schools shouldn't teach children the real classification of birds because it might contradict a parent's teachings?

His kids, now adults, still refer to all birds as ducks only in a joking manner.


Matters of such importance to the parents might just happen to be better taught by *gasp* the parents...and not some biased science teacher!
You're right, science is much better left out of the hands of biased scientists.



By that time, you'll be quasi-inebriated and may just finally see the humor in all this incessant jabbering!

I assure you that I always find it funny. Yet for some reason I always engage. probably for the humour.

[Fallen_Icarus]

I was afraid of your post and it took me a really long time to answer, invoking the help of all my friends as we mustered up the best responses we could think of to defeat that bad creationist!

So your calling me a creationist?

This is laughable, all along I have been saying people do nothing but categorize people as creationists or evolutionists - this is the basis for your "attack".


So thank you for backing my original statement.

And I think you should listen to something which was put forward by Imitator earlier on:


I havent slated you as anything yet, especially not a creationist. Some people on these forums dont understand that you can talk about a subject and not bring in any bias, or even argue for something that you dont believe in.

:thumbsup:


They aren't communicated because the alternatives have no proof.

So what do you do in turn? Dictate another theory which is also not proven to be true?

You cannot make these statements, you cannot downgrade one theory due to the fact that it is based upon no proof (something which I am aware of) and replace it with another theory which also is not based upon any proof and expect not to reside in a paradox!

Didnt I say this earlier on?

This is the one thing I hate the most about evolutionists and the hypocritical nature of the way they look at religious doctrines and the way creationists ALSO do not consider the other options WHICH ARE JUST AS VIABLE.

You are living in the assumption that evolution will and is being proven to be truth!

You say that it does not need to be proven? Well then you will never silence the fact that it is just as viable as intelligent design!

You cannot argue against this point until you actually turn the theory of evolution into a scientific LAW.

SCIENCE DOES NOT EXIST ON THE PREMISE THAT EVERY ONE OF ITS THEORIES IS INCORRECT

SCIENCE LIVES ON THE PREMISE THAT AMPLE EVIDENCE, FACTS AND PROOF BE FOUND FOR "PROPOSED THEORIES" TO BE CALLED LAWS OF SCIENCE

SCIENCE IS THE STUDY AND ABILITY TO PRODUCE SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS - PROBLEMS SUCH AS EVOLUTION AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN!


No, you've misinterpreted. Let's make a chart.

In the analogy...

Evolution = Astronomy, both have proof. No where did I emphasis that evolution didn't have proof in the analogy. in fact, the opposite was implied. Astronomy has scientific proof. If I was trying to make an analogy, it'd be a poor analogy to me if I thought that evolution didn't have some sort of proof.

Eugenics = Astrology, derived from their respective fields, applying morality and meaning to where there is none.

Just to clarify my interpretation was correct, it was you who made the error by admitting that just because evolution has no proof does not invalidate it.

You did not use the word astronomy in the very first analogy you made, you simply said that because people used to believe in stupid things such as astrology and the signs of the zodiac etc does not invalidate the position of the stars.

This is perfect analogy for you saying just because we believe in a stupid theory such as evolution (i personally do not think it is stupid) it does not invalidate the fact it is happening.

Which in turn, is a senseless as saying just because I cannot prove the existence of a 9 million footed alien monster bringing apples to earth does not invalidate the fact that apples do exist. Which perfectly debunks the idiotic analogy you made, you realised this and now you wish to change the interpretation of it and accuse me of interpreting it incorrectly.

Well you cant, because I even have a quote of you admitting and solidfying MY origional interpretation WHICH WAS CORRECT

Here it is:


How do you figure? I used a silly analogy to show that the link between eugenics and evolution is about the same as the link between astrology and astronomy. You even said, before replying with your own silly analogy, that my scenario was correct. But if the scenario is correct, how does it not apply to evolution and eugenics?

If you disagree with my reasoning, point out why it isn't a valid reasoning instead of just resorting to calling it stupid.

You need to make a link to eugenics, it seems, to have an argument that there are "negative aspects" to evolution. Claiming you've made the link by showing that the founders of each are related and that eugenics has a false interpretation of evolution is the best you can do?

But I still agree that your scenario is correct, silly beliefs about astrology (if you can call them that) does not invalidate the position of the stars, same as silly beliefs such as eugenics does not invalidate evolution, it doesnt, yet evolution in our story is not as obvious as the position of the stars.

Like I said, and ill put this in bold I have a good memory - dont try and change the meanings of your analogies, the reason you made that analogy which was based around evidence and evolution was because I asked you to show me evidence for evolution and you in turn, provided that analogy.

Here is your original quote:


Astrology is based upon the positions of the stars. Just because there is something wrong with astrology, that doesn't invalidate the position of the stars, only the assumptions or interpretations derived from them.


How do you know the position of the stars, have you been there? It's just as an absurd question as

There is a clear contradiction here, obviously I have not measured the position of the stars, that does not invalidate the fact that they are positioned in a certain position, (as you said yourself).

Now your asking me "How do I know the actual position of the stars"... But you just said believing in astrology does not invalidate the position of the stars!


But you're not showing "negative aspects" of evolution, you're showing flaws with eugenics.

I agree with you here, that the flaws with any religious systems don't shouldn't reflect on the idea that we were created. Let me bold something...

That's not the problem with Intelligent Design. Evolution does have proof. You keep saying that there's no proof but there's tonnes.


Evolution = Astronomy, both have proof.


The theory of evolution has been proven beyond almost any doubt. We have countless experiments which have shown that it does happen. Abiogenesis is another story.

This is an interesting quote I have gathered from your previous post.

Clearly you state something very obvious which I have not once disagreed with in this thread, that being that evolugion is 'happening'.


You are only to understand the meaning of the word evolution which is a development: a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage.


Yes, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that evolution is 'happening'. I have stated this before when I said evolution is good at explaining how lower form animals can evolve into higher more adaptive animals, I do not dispute that evolution is happening.



The theory of evolution has been proven beyond almost any doubt.


The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law was wrong, the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one.



So they are assumed to be true because that's how science works.


No, hardcore Newbie, this is not how science works, science does not work on the basis that anything is found upon the presumption to be true, it may be the best theory or explanation or equation as of yet but my above paragraph describes to you exactly how science works.


The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors.

This is why it is called a theory instead of a law.

Im sure you would agree with me that natural selection does interlink only slightly (lol) with darwins theory of evolution yet the process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process.

If natural selection were true Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't.

They are just as hairless and everyone else. If natural selection were true humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't.

They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes should have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except for the Eskimos.

Many evolutionist argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark skinned people who live near the Equator.

They simply ignore the fact that dark skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.

By no means do I wish to 'prove that evolution is wrong' or show that creationism is a better option (that would be hypocritical after everything I have said) yet I only ask that we hold intelligent design as viable an option as evolution because evolution is by no means free of flaws to its THEORY.

The reasons people believe the theory of evolution originate in the school education system. Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support.

They are taught that a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and would type President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address if given enough time. This is nonsense. These government educated kids actually believe this nonsense, just ask one of them. Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26 letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odd that a simple single cell organism could evolve with the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity. Time does not make impossible things possible.


The theory of evolution has been proven beyond almost any doubt.

You talked before of the dogmatic nature of religion yet I find no difference in the theory of evolution and the way it is taught in class.

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures.

Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

We only find individual species. Evolutionists try to form these individual species into a link according to similar major features, such as wings or four legs, but this simply proves the Theory of Evolution to be a fraud. Darwin was hopeful that future fossils would prove his theory correct; but instead, the lack of transitional links has proven his theory to be wrong.

Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution." However, these transitional links have never been found.

So how on earth can you assume that the theory of evolution is an actual fact?


The theory of evolution has been proven beyond almost any doubt.

The presence of individual species actually proves they were not developed by an evolutionary process.

If evolution were true all plants, animals and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical because there would not be separate species

There would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species

Everything would be changing and every animal, insect and plant would be different. The cheetah proves evolution does not exist. All species are locked solid within their DNA code.

the cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical within each animal that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.



The theory of evolution has been proven beyond almost any doubt.

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms.

This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.

The theory of evolution claims that organic life was created from inorganic matter. That is impossible. The top scientists in the world with unlimited laboratory resources cannot change inorganic matter into a single organic living cell.


please please please stop bringing up eugenics as a problem with, or "negative aspect" with evolution.

I brought this up once and clearly it is a negative aspect to evolution, what can you say in defence of the theory of eugenics which promotes selective breeding amongst humans, superior races and breeding humans in terms of their physical and intellectual strengths.

This is a moral issue, it is a negative aspect to evolution, it is a corruption of morality and misuse of intellect.


There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey.


Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.

When your dog is going to have a litter, don't worry that she will have a litter of monkeys instead of a litter of puppies. That she will have puppies was determined when her chromosomes joined with her mate's chromosomes at conception.

You see, a dog has only 22 chromosomes, whereas a monkey has 54. Half the total number of chromosomes are contained in the female reproductive cells and half are contained in the male. So the exact total number is brought together in the offspring.

Man has 46 chromosomes. This chromosome count is a steady factor. This determines what is called the "fixity of species" because the chromosome count doesn't vary. People always give birth to people. Dogs always give birth to dogs, etc.


The genes produce variety within the species. Genes allow for people to be short, tall, fat, thin, blond, brunette, etc., but still all people. The chromosomes make crossing of the species an un-crossable barrier. This certainly would hinder any evolution. It would stop it dead in its tracks.

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem

The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.

As you can see there are and exist many flaws with the theory of evolution.

To sit there and think that evolution is true and proven would make me question the reason of why you are still calling evolution a theory!

Creationism is just as viable as evolution, until evolutionists cover the complete number of misconceptions about the theory can one be put above the other.

I am no creationist neither do I believe in entirely evolution as the cause of our comming to existence!


So they are assumed to be true because that's how science works. if someone has an alternate theory, it has to debunk the current method with new observations. If someone wanted to make a theory about current fairies, then they would have to observe it.

Why and how do you explain evolution as a means to debunk intelligent design when it too is founded upon no proof or evidence?


How do you know the position of the stars, have you been there? It's just as an absurd question as

No, do not take my words out of context, when I say position of the stars what on earth warrents you to assume I mean the exact symetrical measurable position of each star (this is a joke!).

The fact remains that the stars exist! Which was the basis of your analogy



Modern biology as taught in high schools and universities is nothing more than made up conjecture and nonsense. None of it is scientifically true. Biologists keep revising science that was supposed to be scientifically fact. Engineers don't do that. Engineering is a science. Some people call engineering a pure science, meaning it is not made up nonsense like biology. Engineers do not suddenly announce that the deflection in a beam under a given load has been discovered to be 100 times greater than previously thought. LOL (laughing out loud).

Engineers often use the formula F=ma (force equals mass times acceleration).

No engineer will publish a paper claiming it has been discovered that the acceleration is 100 times that previously thought. All engineers calculate the same level of stress in the shell of a pressure vessel given a fixed internal pressure. Engineering does not change because it is based on scientific facts verified by accurate scientific experiments.

Biology will always be changing because it is based on evolutionary nonsense.

Biology evolved, not humans. Biology is not a science. It is a joke. Students are encouraged to avoid a career in biology because it is base of false conjecture. Students are encouraged to avoid taking a biology class if high school and college if at all possible because it is simply brainwashing.

Now, we can expect to see a revision in all of the new biology science text books to state that the human genetic code can vary by 10 percent between individuals? No! This is the trouble with biology.

The teachers, professors and text books will continue to claim that all humans are genetically identical within 99.9 percent. One day after the above study results were published news reporters were lying and distorting the study results by stating the difference to be 10 times, not 10 percent which is actually 100 times. The lies will go on and on and on.


So what? My grandmother is a born again Xian. I am not. My dad is an athiest, and I am not. If all three of us made observations of the world and we had similar observations, they may be similar or different. Our philosophies on morality will also be similar in some places and different than others. In the places that they are similar, that doesn't mean we're in cahoots with theories and such. You keep pushing a point that means nothing.


[QUOTE]Charles Darwin's theories provided the basis for the eugenics movement, which 100 years ago saw the passage of the world's first forced sterilization law, a conservative policy expert said Monday.

"By 1960, more than 60,000 people had been sterilized against their will in the United States in the name of a scientific movement known as eugenics," John West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, told an event at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.

He described eugenics as "a movement that sought to improve society by applying Darwinian biology to human breeding."

Apart from forced sterilization, marriage laws, immigration quotas, racism, and "dehumanizing the poor" were "core parts of the eugenics movement," West added.

"Eugenics is a corollary of organic evolution," he said. "Eugenicists argued that we were sinning against the law of natural selection.

"These people thought that the reason we needed eugenics was because we had so counteracted the law of natural selection that we were letting the defective breed, contrary to the biological law reached by Darwin," West argued.

"Instead of letting people just die in the gutter ... they thought that eugenics was a rational and kinder way back to Darwinian evolution."

The world's first eugenic sterilization law was introduced in Indiana in 1907. Fourteen years later, the state's Supreme Court found the legislation "to prevent procreation of confirmed criminals, idiots, imbeciles and rapists" unconstitutional.

In 1927, however, a revised bill was enacted applying to "inmates of state institutions, who are insane, idiotic, imbecile, feebleminded, and epileptic, and who by the laws of heredity are the probable potential parents of socially inadequate offspring likewise afflicted." Indiana's General Assembly only repealed it in 1974.

Historians record that some 2,500 Indiana citizens in state custody were involuntarily sterilized over that period. Similar laws were enacted in 29 other states, and an estimated 65,000 people were involuntarily sterilized.

Fred Edwords, director of communications for the American Humanists Association, disputed West's assertions, calling them "an attempt to tarnish the legitimate science of evolution with the pseudo-science of eugenics."

"This is the rhetoric creationists have been using since the late 1970s," Edwords told Cybercast News Service. "It doesn't mean that evolution supported that view. People just used it to give a sort of false credibility to whatever their agenda was - eugenics was one of those cases.

"Eugenics never was good science, and it was a misapplication of a little bit of genetics," he added. "We all know you can breed animals and do selective breeding with them ... but you can't do that with people. It doesn't work.



I honestly do not care about whom you are related to and their personal beliefs on existence and reality, the fact remains that a link can be made from eugenics to Darwinist evolutionary thinking, this does not by any means invalidate evolution by any means, I do not once say that evolution is not true!

I was just giving an example of negatives of theories, to not agree with me would be to say that evolution has no negative side.

Which brings me back to my analogy of the positives of a piece of "Shit".

Do you seriously think there is not one negative to a piece of shit?

The same can be applied to every theory, how negative in terms of scale the aspect of the theory is is regardless, fact remains that negative sides should be addressed!


The neo-Darwinist model, which we shall take as the mainstream theory of evolution today, argues that life has evolved through two natural mechanisms: natural selection and mutation. The theory basically asserts that natural selection and mutation are two complementary mechanisms. The origin of evolutionary modifications lies in random mutations that take place in the genetic structures of living things. The traits brought about by mutations are selected by the mechanism of natural selection, and by this means living things evolve. However, when we look further into this theory, we find that there is no such evolutionary mechanism. Neither natural selection nor mutations can cause different species to evolve into one another, and the claim that they can is completely unfounded.

The above statements which I have made by no means whatsoever prove evolution to be false and invalid, I am just saying there is a very large question to be asked when you place above intelligent design a theory which also lacks as much evidence.

Imitator, thanks for your response to my previous post.


Quantum Mechanics state that that is not always true. Its only incredibly probable, and nigh impossible to not happen, but still possible.

Yes, but you missed out a word here, the THEORY of quantum mechanics, yout assumption is based upon a theory but the fact remains.

If what your saying is true, then yes there is a possibility to say that we could have been created by an intelligent designer, refuting or denial of this would lead you to a contradiction. Based on your theory of quantum physics.


Fine, a giant bean monster created us and the world around us, but what created the bean monster? Did it evolve, or did something create it? What created that something... so on and so forth. ID has to rely on abiogenesis and evolution to explain itself if it excludes a dietistic being creating things.

Like I said before, I have not ruled out evolution as a viable reason, clearly evolution explains the happenings of the existence of life and abogenesis explains how that life arrived.

Earlier on you said:


The theory of evolution has been proven beyond almost any doubt. We have countless experiments which have shown that it does happen. Abiogenesis is another story.

I have said that evolution has not been proved in our own story, we cannot apply the theory of evolution to our own story and expect it to be a law of science because it is still a theory

Yet the fact that animals etc do adapt and "evolve" around their surroundings is true, you can see this on a smaller scale (which has been said by me over and over and over again) yet you cannot simply apply this theory or evidence to our comming of existence and call it proof of how we arrived here - thats not evidence!

Thats all fine to say the two are different theories yet they can be linked, but how does evolution explain the comming of life?

The (sorry to put it this way) but the creation of life itself?

Earlier on you also said..


That being said, just because there is a lack of scientific evidence, doesnt mean that it shouldnt still be taught in some manner.

The hypocrisy is excruciating.

And it continues:


and things unproven, and it does a person a great injustice to hide from them anything that isnt "proven", as even if its completely off base, they should still learn about it, in a subjective manner with proper teachers

Yet clearly your logic is true, but why on earth that forbids us even considering the option of intelligent design I do not know.


ID has to rely on abiogenesis and evolution to explain itself if it excludes a dietistic being creating things.

Sorry -what?

Dietistic? Are you making up words or have you not a grasp on the english language as of yet.

Dietistic? Is that a being with some kind of diet atkins health plan?

So your saying an intelligent designer must not be on a diet plan for the two theories of abogenisis and evolution to be excluded?

Shall we teach this in schools as oppose to simply considering that an intelligent designer could be behind the entire force of evolution?


IF creationism wasnt so deeply seated into religions, and if it wasnt the case that the only viable way to teach it is via a specific religions viewpoint on creationism, then I wouldnt have a problem with the government funding teaching it.

Yeah because aliens is seriously a fundamentalist christian belief.


So what you are saying is you are want a very basic form of creationism that says, in essence, "something created us, the end"?

No, it wouldnt be "the end", I have not even said that creationism should be swapped with evolution in schools, you even said that.

Nobody is saying that proclaiming even to the most indctrinated sense that we were simply "created" would wipe out any theory of evolution or any possibility of the process of evolution.

Remember I not once said that creationism or intelligent design should be literally "taught" in class, I only said that it should be considered as a viable option which does not entail students to draw away from evolution OR abogenesis which are a couple of many theories of how we have come about.


Instead of endlessly bickering over which theory is correct, why not just consider teaching neither theory in public schools?

No, how about considering every single theory and at the same time questioning every single theory and even questioning laws of science.


I don't want the children of an atheist (or agnostic, or Buddhist, or Taoist, or worshipers of the ten-thousand foot tinman/Jelly-Bean monster - or whatever) being taught that life came about by intelligent design, because that would be offensive and contradictory to what the parent has most likely already taught the child.

I understand that the parent has rights over his children, yet the children have the right to believe whatever they plase.

Even so, what if the theory in science contradicts the theory their parents teach them? How do you measure which is the correct theory to teach them? Through your humble indoctrinated opinion of Christianity?

Do you really think you are enforcing the right for children to have their OWN beliefs?


Funny (and true) story, a friend's friend's father (we'll call Roy) taught his kids that all different types of birds we just different coloured ducks. Seagulls were white ducks, cardinals were red ducks, blue jays were blue ducks... etc. Are you suggesting that the schools shouldn't teach children the real classification of birds because it might contradict a parent's teachings?

His kids, now adults, still refer to all birds as ducks only in a joking manner.

Which explains why people (in this case the parent) should question their own beliefs.

And be responsible enough to realise that chidlren have a right to believe what they please.

The parent does not always know what is best, this by no means - means that chidlren should run rampant free to do as they please yet they are free to have a belief in whatever they please.

Not evolution or creationism - either the latter or the former or none at all, or maybe the 5 million foot bean monster, its a good mind job when you ask them to prove it and create that theory as a scientific law however.


I dont have a problem with any specific theory being discussed here. My fundamental problem with the entire ordeal is that we are taking government money and providing it to spread the beliefs of a SPECIFIC religious belief.

I and others have explained that intelligent design does not always have to include the doctrines of religion, we have covered this, so exactly what is your purpose in this debate now?

[imitator]

I and others have explained that intelligent design does not always have to include the doctrines of religion, we have covered this, so exactly what is your purpose in this debate now?

No, you havent, not once. You bring up aliens, but be serious here, what created the aliens if aliens created us and this world?

You arent taking this serious, you are inserting words into my mouth as well. Not once have I implied that I thought ID was going to replace anything, ever. I havent mentioned removing evolution from the schools, or any of the other rediculous claims that you state I have said. In fact, unless you can prove that I said anything like that with DIRECT quotes from me, I ask you knock it off, unless you arent trying to an honest conversation.

How do you teach ID in schools without involving a religion?

If aliens are the answer, what created the aliens?

What is the FINAL answer for the existance of everything us?

Finally, I had to address this because its so outrageous I couldnt believe you were actually attempting it.


Dietistic? Are you making up words or have you not a grasp on the english language as of yet.

Dietistic? Is that a being with some kind of diet atkins health plan?

So your saying an intelligent designer must not be on a diet plan for the two theories of abogenisis and evolution to be excluded?

Shall we teach this in schools as oppose to simply considering that an intelligent designer could be behind the entire force of evolution?

I mispelled a word, get over yourself. You knew what I meant, deitistic, you know, from teh base word deity? The fact that you would latch onto a mispelling via transposition of an I and an E really calls into question how "strong" your arguement is. There must be better things to make a fool of yourself over then trying to base an arguement on the mispelling of a word that just happened to make it look like another word. But go ahead, keep building up those strawmen, its fun knocking you down before you get a chance to really knock them down.

And as I said before, ID could be a part of Evolution, who knows, that isnt the subject at hand, remember. Its how do you teach ID, how would YOU teach ID, which you still havent answered at all, just picked little thigns to nitpick about while avoiding the topic and question asked of you. Your closest response is this... which is slightly funny:


Remember I not once said that creationism or intelligent design should be literally "taught" in class, I only said that it should be considered as a viable option which does not entail students to draw away from evolution OR abogenesis which are a couple of many theories of how we have come about.

SO... you think that its not right that they only teach evolution in schools, and you want ID to be a viable option, but you have no desire for it to be taught from schools? What is the point of this entire discussion if you feel no need for it to be taught in schools?

Or is it that you honestly cant think of a way to full explain all life that exists in this universe without the use of a god(s) or abiogenesis?

Because I find this remarkable if you spent all this time arguing how much of a viable option ID is, and how its not right that schools dont teach both, and then have you say that you dont really want it taught in schools, just .. you know... subconciously transmitted to these students so that they know its a viable option without ever mentioning it in the classes in any way. Because if you arent teaching them about it, you are either"

A) Not teaching it at all

or

B) Giving them a few one liners during class with about the same affect as saying "well, what if it wasnt... ? huh.. how do you like that, what if that isnt how it is" every 30 minutes in a class. Which should already be happening in some form in classes as it is. Any science teacher not teaching their kids about how these things arent facts but theories and all the other things that are entailed in that statement... well they arent teachers in my book then...

[imitator]

Instead of endlessly bickering over which theory is correct, why not just consider teaching neither theory in public schools? I don't want the children of an atheist (or agnostic, or Buddhist, or Taoist, or worshipers of the ten-thousand foot tinman/Jelly-Bean monster - or whatever) being taught that life came about by intelligent design, because that would be offensive and contradictory to what the parent has most likely already taught the child. And I don't want evolution being taught to my children, because it contradicts what I have been teaching them since they've learned to talk. Since it's such a touchy subject for so many people, why has nobody ever just considered to wipe that it from the classroom agenda and discuss other (and more important/relevant) areas of science? Matters of such importance to the parents might just happen to be better taught by *gasp* the parents...and not some biased science teacher! Now, there's a thought! I understand the sheer joy of carrying on a thread for the sole purpose of trying to belittle & discredit the opponent, but usually it ends the second time the original argument gets brought up again...and in the exact same context. Beyond that, it's just monotonous bickering, as I mentioned before. It was certainly a fun thread to read in the beginning, but now I'm beginning to wonder who will have the prescience of knowing how this will all end up. (i.e. - everyone frustrated with everyone else because absolutely no points are getting across to the other party.)

With all due respect to the primary contributors of this thread, you guys (and gals?) are getting nowhere with your arguments, and are just touting how well each other can quote, well...each other! This isn't a debate...it's just a battle of witty comebacks! You seem so educated, but can't seem to grasp the fact that in 10,000 posts from now...this is just going to end up a stalemate. Which, actually, already happened during each of your first responses. You each need to smoke a bowl, or drink a glass of wine, or do whatever it is you do to "zone out", then come back and really put some thought into what you're trying to prove. By that time, you'll be quasi-inebriated and may just finally see the humor in all this incessant jabbering!

Peace, love & mutual understanding to all of you wily debunker'ers! :hippy:

-Mr. C

I know this is going to sound contradictory to what I have stated before, and I am willing to accept that ... but...

Do you really feel its a viable option to remove the teaching of all knowledge on a subject, be any specific part true or false, for a bit of peace of mind?

In the end, someone is always wrong, not implying that that someone is ID or Evolution, but there is always someone who is wrong, someone who is right. If we go about life worrying about offending those who are wrong, we will get no where as a civilization.

The problem you run into is, most high schools dont have a "creation of the universe" class. They have some rather basic science courses, which can only cover this topic so much, because of limited space in a book, and the limited scope of knowledge of the average high school student, which they must play up/down to.

So how do you explain something as complex as this, properly, in a high school text book? You dont really. The most feasible option is to pick the easiest to explain, and the one the author feels is most proven, and go from there. A proper teacher from that point can bring up other options that arent mentioned in the book, but then again we are relying on teachers to teach properly, which not all do.

I personally have no doubt that anything I say will not affect anyone here. I dont think that highly of myself that my digital words would have any amount of sway or hold over others typing theirs. Hell, Id be happy and honored if half the people responding to me would actually read what I wrote before responding, not to imply any of the people in this conversation at the moment are doing that, because you arent, but you get what I am getting at.

I enjoy these kinds of things though because it is a little bit of a battle of wits, intelligence, and sometimes The Google. But I also enjoy learning about other viewpoints, even if they may not affect mine in any way, because its more knowledge that I have gained. Id hope that everyone looks at it that way in some way or another, because there isnt much of a point to any of this otherwise, because you are right, none of us are going to change the other persons mind.

As Chris Rock said in Dogma..


I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.

I have to head into work, alreayd a few minutes late responding this morning. Ill be back during lunch, have fun guys. :thumbsup:

[mfqr]

The reason I have to repeat myself so much is people just dont listen, they cant read or they have difficulty understanding what I am actually trying to say.


Or it's because you have a severely limited amount of arguments; which could lead to you repeating yourself, because you think that we just "don't get it." You really don't have many good arguments in your arsenal. Sorry, but I think just about everyone who posted on this thread can agree that you don't really know what you're talking about. However, I do give you credit for trying so hard.



For about 20 posts now ive been saying that. ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT CHILDREN SHOULD BE GIVEN CREATIONISM AS A VIABLE REASON AS TO WHY WE ARE HERE.


Who says they aren't given creationism as a viable option... if not the only "viable" option (take a look at the Bible belt in the US, and how Evangelical christians brainwash these kids in Christian camps. See the movie Jesus Camp). Many parents bring up their children into a Christian (or whatever religion you want to fill in) lifestyle, and doctrine. A lot of them go to private christian or catholic schools. I wonder, do they teach evolution there? Just curious.

I think everyone, while growing up, has the option to decide between creationism, evolution, or whatever theory they can imagine about how we came to be. Sometimes it seems like some religious people don't even know what the most basic concepts of evolution are. Creationism is pretty simple... God created the universe, and the world. Wow, I definitely don't see any missing links there. Evolution must be more flawed, because it has so many missing links. :S2:



Due to the lack of evidence of evolution, this makes creationism just as viable, I know this is very hard to accept for the atheists but your in the same boat as creationists in terms of proof of YOUR THEORY


I'd say there's much more evidence for evolution than creationism, thus evolution is more viable. Have you even looked at any evidence at all? I'm curious, because last time I checked, there was no evidence on creationism. I see a pretty big gap there... so what makes creationism just as viable now?



Didnt you look at it this way?


Sure, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with it. You think I haven't contemplated it? I'm sure most people have sometime in their lifetime. Maybe creationism has a bigger impact than you think?



Dont you ever question your own beliefs?


If I was religious I wouldn't. After all, it's blind faith.



Do you even study your own beliefs or do you simply presume that there IS evidence out there and that evolution IS true?


Maybe evolution isn't 100% spot-on. But that isn't the point, really. The point is, there's a lot more evidence for evolution than creationism. Yeah, creationism does not have any evidence, so I guess it would make more sense to teach something that has a lot of evidence. Oh, but then we're not being fair to all the children who could possibly end up as a blind believer in creationism. (psst... maybe it's more fair to give them something with evidence, rather than bullsh... err, sorry. I don't want to be offensive towards religious people (actually, I don't really care, to be honest).



Im getting really sick of this annoying phrase, I really dont get how you relate a troll to someone who comes on the internet and debates about bringing creationism into the classroom.


Well, when you end up typing very hostile, and kind of insulting people... it tends to look like you're trying to rally some attention, to stir things up. It has nothing to do with you coming here to debate - just how you debate it.



And dont point fingers because I just hit you with the fact that your beliefs in evolution hold as much weight as your "enemy" creationism in terms of evidence and the lack of it, there is no difference between the two lol.


Yes, there is a difference in terms of evidence between the two lol. (on evolution's side)



I mean look at this stupid attempt to debunk me:



Of course this is correct, me believing that apples came from mars by a 5 million footed alien beast also does not invalidate the fact that apples exist.

:thumbsup:


You've been using some pretty stupid arguments to try and debunk us (the evolution supporting team), such as that we "evolved from rocks," which is nothing more than a very poorly crafted stawman argument, which radiates of ignorance in the subject.



So how are the murderers punished?


By the justice system. :wtf:



How is a rapist, crimminal punished?


By the justice system. :wtf:



How are the fact that you kill these living beings punished?


:wtf:


Please answer me these questions in regards to darwinistic evolutioin without backtracking to a form of karmic punishment, because...


YOU WILL BE IN CONTRADICTION:D

:thumbsup:

What are you talking about? Those are the most ridiculous false-rhetorical questions in defense of creationism that I've ever seen...

[Hardcore Newbie]

So your calling me a creationist?

This is laughable, all along I have been saying people do nothing but categorize people as creationists or evolutionists - this is the basis for your "attack".
No, I'm not calling you a creationist. Everything in bold was extreme sarcasm, which i thought was apparent.


You say that it does not need to be proven? Well then you will never silence the fact that it is just as viable as intelligent design!
Since when does something not need proof?


You cannot argue against this point until you actually turn the theory of evolution into a scientific LAW.
Just like the law of gravity.... wait, that's a theory, yet scientists use it many ways, like putting up satellites in the earth's orbit.


Just to clarify my interpretation was correct, it was you who made the error by admitting that just because evolution has no proof does not invalidate it.

You did not use the word astronomy in the very first analogy you made, you simply said that because people used to believe in stupid things such as astrology and the signs of the zodiac etc does not invalidate the position of the stars.

This is perfect analogy for you saying just because we believe in a stupid theory such as evolution (i personally do not think it is stupid) it does not invalidate the fact it is happening.
Come again? Where did I say evolution was stupid?


Which in turn, is a senseless as saying just because I cannot prove the existence of a 9 million footed alien monster bringing apples to earth does not invalidate the fact that apples do exist. Which perfectly debunks the idiotic analogy you made, you realised this and now you wish to change the interpretation of it and accuse me of interpreting it incorrectly.No it doesn't debunk what I was saying, it's exactly what I was saying. let's expand the chart.

Evolution = Astronomy = Apples

Eugenics = Astrology = Alien Apples monster

The fakes in these instances have no bearing on the things with facts and proof. No where am I asking you to prove the apple monster exists.




Well you cant, because I even have a quote of you admitting and solidfying MY origional interpretation WHICH WAS CORRECT

Here it is:
Oddly enough, there's a "BUT" directly after that statement, which directly puts into question your understanding of the analogy. Agreeing that the analogy is correct, is not analogous to understanding it.


But I still agree that your scenario is correct, silly beliefs about astrology (if you can call them that) does not invalidate the position of the stars, same as silly beliefs such as eugenics does not invalidate evolution, it doesnt, yet evolution in our story is not as obvious as the position of the stars.
The positions of the stars is only obvious because of the related science we use to deduce them, the same as evolution is obvious because of the related science we use to deduce it


Like I said, and ill put this in bold I have a good memory - dont try and change the meanings of your analogies, the reason you made that analogy which was based around evidence and evolution was because I asked you to show me evidence for evolution and you in turn, provided that analogy.
I assure you that's the furthest of my intentions. I'm using the same analogy.


There is a clear contradiction here, obviously I have not measured the position of the stars, that does not invalidate the fact that they are positioned in a certain position, (as you said yourself).
The "how do you know the position..." question was juxtaposed with your question of "ever see a man evolve from an ape". I was just using your line of questioning to show you that it's silly to use it. And also, directly after the question, I say it's an absurd question. I know it's a contradiction, which is why it's juxtaposed with your question of the same absurdity.


Now your asking me "How do I know the actual position of the stars"... But you just said believing in astrology does not invalidate the position of the stars!I'm not asking you to use astrology, I'm asking you show me the proof that we know the positions of the stars. I'm asking you because you're claiming that astronomy, or "the positions of the stars" has more proof than evolution, so I want to see it. Remember, I'm the one who is claiming that they have about the same amount, both using science to infer "the positions of the stars" and evolution.



This is an interesting quote I have gathered from your previous post.

Clearly you state something very obvious which I have not once disagreed with in this thread, that being that evolugion is 'happening'.
The third quote isn't mine, fyi. I've never used the word abiogenesis, besides now. You're quoting two different people.


No, hardcore Newbie, this is not how science works, science does not work on the basis that anything is found upon the presumption to be true, it may be the best theory or explanation or equation as of yet but my above paragraph describes to you exactly how science works.
So why are scientists in fluid mechanics using "unproven" formulas that are presumed to be sound and their predictions using the math are true. They can't measure with 100% certainty that what they think is happening is actually happening, but they use it anyway. Should people who learn fluid mechanics be taught of alternate theories as to how liquid moves? Of course not.


Im sure you would agree with me that natural selection does interlink only slightly (lol) with darwins theory of evolution yet the process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process.
That's the theory part of evolution, on the hows and whys of the fact that evolution happens.


If natural selection were true Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't.
We're a species of comfort. We wore animal furs for a long time to keep us comfortable. Why would we magically acquire fur if we keep wearing other animal's skins? 10 degree weather is very survivable, yet we wear a shirt or sweater to keep us more comfortable. We have no need for fur.


They are just as hairless and everyone else. If natural selection were true humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't.
So we'd just bounce away the light that helps us with vitamin D.


Many evolutionist argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark skinned people who live near the Equator.

They simply ignore the fact that dark skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.
Snow reflects a lot more sunlight than soil.


They are taught that a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and would type President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address if given enough time. This is nonsense. These government educated kids actually believe this nonsense, just ask one of them. Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26 letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odd that a simple single cell organism could evolve with the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity. Time does not make impossible things possible.
The random nature of the experiment assumed that if a certain string was helpful, but wasn't complete, that it was thrown away, which isn't how evolution works at all.

it also assumes a final goal (the alphabet) when evolution doesn't seem to have a final goal.


If evolution were true all plants, animals and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical because there would not be separate species

There would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species
Evolution doesn't happen over a single generation.

Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Artificial_speciation)

This is about speciation, but I've only used it because it clearly demonstrates that it takes more than one generation for a species to change.

And oddly, you keep stating that you're not trying to disprove evolution yet you state here that if it were true, it would do X, and then provide examples of how it doesn't do X.


The theory of evolution claims that organic life was created from inorganic matter. That is impossible. The top scientists in the world with unlimited laboratory resources cannot change inorganic matter into a single organic living cell.
The second time I've used the word abiogenesis. And their resources aren't unlimited.


I brought this up once and clearly it is a negative aspect to evolution, what can you say in defence of the theory of eugenics which promotes selective breeding amongst humans, superior races and breeding humans in terms of their physical and intellectual strengths.
No one is defending eugenics.

And you've brought it up many more times than 'once'. I thought you had a good memory.



When your dog is going to have a litter, don't worry that she will have a litter of monkeys instead of a litter of puppies. That she will have puppies was determined when her chromosomes joined with her mate's chromosomes at conception.
Who's claiming that evolution says that a dog can have monkeys?


The genes produce variety within the species. Genes allow for people to be short, tall, fat, thin, blond, brunette, etc., but still all people. The chromosomes make crossing of the species an un-crossable barrier. This certainly would hinder any evolution. It would stop it dead in its tracks.Evolution is NOT the process of interspecies breeding.


Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem

The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.

As you can see there are and exist many flaws with the theory of evolution.These are all not evolution questions.



To sit there and think that evolution is true and proven would make me question the reason of why you are still calling evolution a theory!Again, why is there still a theory of gravity? Of course it exists.


No, do not take my words out of context, when I say position of the stars what on earth warrents you to assume I mean the exact symetrical measurable position of each star (this is a joke!).
You've already quoted this... in the thread.


Biology evolved, not humans. Biology is not a science. It is a joke. Students are encouraged to avoid a career in biology because it is base of false conjecture. Students are encouraged to avoid taking a biology class if high school and college if at all possible because it is simply brainwashing.
By who, you?



I honestly do not care about whom you are related to and their personal beliefs on existence and reality, the fact remains that a link can be made from eugenics to Darwinist evolutionary thinking, this does not by any means invalidate evolution by any means, I do not once say that evolution is not true!
So why do you keep bringing it up? Evolution isn't the problem, eugenics is.


Which brings me back to my analogy of the positives of a piece of "Shit".

Do you seriously think there is not one negative to a piece of shit?
Negatives? It smells bad and it's unsanitary. Moral negatives? None.


Which explains why people (in this case the parent) should question their own beliefs.
The parent didn't do it because He thought he was correct, he did it because he thought it was funny and cute to have his children refer to every bird as a duck.


And be responsible enough to realise that chidlren have a right to believe what they please.
that doens't mean they are correct in their beliefs.


I and others have explained that intelligent design does not always have to include the doctrines of religion, we have covered this, so exactly what is your purpose in this debate now? you mentioned aliens and monsters, but you never explained how you would teach it in class without making things up. imitator is right.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Sorry for the double post, I couldn't edit again after I wanted to add to one of my points....

And oddly, you keep stating that you're not trying to disprove evolution yet you state here that if it were true, it would do X, and then provide examples of how it doesn't do X.

Wouldn't it be silly of you to believe something that, in your mind, has been proven not to exist?



This is all im saying, I by no means intend to say evolution is entirely not true.Why are you showing so many examples of things that you think prove that evolution isn't real, at the same time as saying you're not trying to disprove evolution?

[imitator]

I tried to give you greenies Hardcore, but it said I couldnt anymore.

So... here's a cookie.

[Hardcore Newbie]

I tried to give you greenies Hardcore, but it said I couldnt anymore.

So... here's a cookie.Actually cookies are my biggest weakness, the only thing I'm truly addicted to. I need more.

[cadmiumblimp]

I'm not sure if this whole education thing is worth arguing over since any creationist christian teacher (at least the ones I've had) will only touch on evolution enough to satisfy higher ups. It would be nice to have teachers that didn't let their own bias get in the way. Of course, I'm sure none of you would teach something you didn't believe was true.

[Hardcore Newbie]

I'm not sure if this whole education thing is worth arguing over since any creationist christian teacher (at least the ones I've had) will only touch on evolution enough to satisfy higher ups. It would be nice to have teachers that didn't let their own bias get in the way. Of course, I'm sure none of you would teach something you didn't believe was true.If I were a mythology teacher, I'd have no problem with it. if I were a science teacher, then only things with scientific proof would be allowed.

[cadmiumblimp]

Good point. That still doesn't change the fact that a lot of science teachers (at least where I went to school) are also Christian creationists and often skip over or just lightly touch on evolution.

[imitator]

Good point. That still doesn't change the fact that a lot of science teachers (at least where I went to school) are also Christian creationists and often skip over or just lightly touch on evolution.

It is something that will depend person to person. Some people just shouldnt be teachers, its that simple.

I am planning on becoming a teacher after I finish my masters, and I have every intent of trying to teach my students about everything, even things I dont believe in or dont like, but then again its teaching philosophy, so its a bit more suited for that kind of thing.

Granted I am sure bias will naturally try to get in the way with such things, but part of the challenge there is making sure to overcome it. Thankfully I have a love for knowledge of all kinds, so it makes it a bit easier, but it doesnt completely stop it.

[Delta9 UK]

Fallen Icarus :: I can't be bothered to quote the whole post - you don't listen anyway.

You are still falling back on Abiogenesis - bad tactic.

You used "Transitional Fossils" to attack Evolution (suggesting there are none).

Do your research more thoroughly as this is a typical error that creationists might make -

here is a list of them (Transitional Fossils) :

Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays:
o Cladoselachians (e.g., Cladoselache).
o Hybodonts (e.g. Hybodus)
o Heterodonts (e.g. Heterodontus)
o Hexanchids (e.g. Chlamydoselache)
Transition from primitive bony fish to holostean fish:
o Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis); living chondrosteans such as Polypterus and Calamoichthys, and also the living acipenseroid chondrosteans such as sturgeons and paddlefishes.
o Primitive holosteans such as Semionotus.
Transition from holostean fish to advanced teleost fish:
o Leptolepidomorphs, esp. Leptolepis, an excellent holostean-teleost intermediate
o Elopomorphs, both fossil and living (tarpons, eels)
o Clupeomorphs (e.g. Diplomystus)
o Osteoglossomorphs (e.g. Portheus)
o Protacanthopterygians
Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians:
o Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis)
o Osteolepis -- one of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other group of lobe-finned fish). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of bones, and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
o Eusthenopteron (and other rhipidistian crossopterygian fish) -- intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian-like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet.
o Icthyostegids (such as Icthyostega and Icthyostegopsis) -- Terrestrial amphibians with many of Eusthenopteron's fish features (e.g., the fin rays of the tail were retained). Some debate about whether Icthyostega should be considered a fish or an amphibian; it is an excellent transitional fossil.
o Labyrinthodonts (e.g., Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) -- still have some icthyostegid features, but have lost many of the fish features (e.g., the fin rays are gone, vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined.)
Transition from amphibians to reptiles:
o Seymouriamorph labyrinthodonts (e.g. Seymouria) -- classic labyrinthodont skull and teeth, with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits; amphibian ankle.
o Cotylosaurs (e.g. Hylonomus, Limnoscelis) -- slightly amphibian skull (e.g. with amphibian-type pineal opening), with rest of skeleton classically reptilian.
o The cotylosaurs gave rise to many reptile groups of tremendous variety. I won't go into the transitions from cotylosaurs to the advanced anapsid reptiles (turtles and possibly mesosaurs), to the euryapsid reptiles (icthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and others), or to the lepidosaurs (eosuchians, lizards, snakes, and the tuatara), or to most of the dinosaurs, since I don't have infinite time. Instead I'll concentrate on the synapsid reptiles (which gave rise to mammals) and the archosaur reptiles (which gave rise to birds).
Transition from reptiles to mammals:
o Pelycosaur synapsids -- classic reptilian skeleton, intermediate between the cotylosaurs (the earliest reptiles) and the therapsids (see next)
o Therapsids (e.g. Dimetrodon) -- the numerous therapsid fossils show gradual transitions from reptilian features to mammalian features. For example: the hard palate forms, the teeth differentiate, the occipital condyle on the base of the skull doubles, the ribs become restricted to the chest instead of extending down the whole body, the legs become "pulled in" instead of sprawled out, the ilium (major bone of the hip) expands forward.
o Cynodont theriodonts (e.g. Cynognathus) -- very mammal-like reptiles. Or is that reptile-like mammals? Highly differentiated teeth (a classic mammalian feature), with accessory cusps on cheek teeth; strongly differentiated vertebral column (with distinct types of vertebrae for the neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and tail -- very mammalian), mammalian scapula, mammalian limbs, mammalian digits (e.g. reduction of number of bones in the first digit). But, still has unmistakably reptilian jaw joint.
o Tritilodont theriodonts (e.g. Tritylodon, Bienotherium) -- skull even more mammalian (e.g. advanced zygomatic arches). Still has reptilian jaw joint.
o Ictidosaur theriodonts (e.g. Diarthrognathus) -- has all the mammalian features of the tritilodonts, and has a double jaw joint; both the reptilian jaw joint and the mammalian jaw joint were present, side-by-side, in Diarthrognathus's skull. A really stunning transitional fossil.
o Morganucodonts (e.g. Morganucodon) -- early mammals. Double jaw joint, but now the mammalian joint is dominant (the reptilian joint bones are beginning to move inward; in modern mammals these are the bones of the middle ear).
o Eupantotheres (e.g. Amphitherium) -- these mammals begin to show the complex molar cusp patterns characteristic of modern marsupials and eutherians (placental mammals). Mammalian jaw joint.
o Proteutherians (e.g. Zalambdalestes) -- small, early insectivores with molars intermediate between eupantothere molars and modern eutherian molars.
o Those wondering how egg-laying reptiles could make the transition to placental mammals may wish to study the reproductive biology of the monotremes (egg-laying mammals) and the marsupials. The monotremes in particular could almost be considered "living transitional fossils". [see Peter Lamb's suggested marsupial references at end]
Transition from reptiles to birds:
o Lisboasaurus estesi and other "troodontid dinosaur-birds" -- a bird-like reptile with very bird-like teeth (that is, teeth very like those of early toothed birds [modern birds have no teeth]). May not have been a direct ancestor; may have been a "cousin" of the birds instead.
o Protoavis -- this is a highly controversial fossil that may or may not be an extremely early bird. Not enough of the fossil was recovered to determine if it is definitely related to the birds, or not. I mention it in case people have heard about it recently.
o Archeopteryx -- reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, tail, skull, teeth, digits, claws, sternum. Avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles), forelimbs, and lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably fly from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone (for attachment of large flight muscles) and had a weak shoulder (relative to modern birds).
o "Chinese bird" -- A fossil dating from 10-15 million years after Archeopteryx. Bird-like claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, fair-sized sternal keel (modern birds usually have large sternal keel); also has reptilian stomach ribs, reptilian unfused hand bones, & reptilian pelvis. This bird has a fused tail ("pygostyle"), but I don't know how long it was, or if it was all fused or just part of it was fused.
o "Las Hoyas bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] -- This fossil dates from 20-30 m.y. after Archeopteryx. It still has reptilian pelvis & legs, with bird-like shoulder. Tail is medium-length with a fused tip (Archeopteryx had long, unfused tail; modern birds have short, fused tail). Fossil down feather was found with the Las Hoyas bird.
o Toothed Cretaceous birds, e.g. Hesperornis and Ichthyornis. Skeleton further modified for flight (fusion of pelvis bones, fusion of hand bones, short & fused tail). Still had true socketed teeth, which are missing in modern birds.
o [note: a classic study of chicken embryos showed that chicken bills can be induced to develop teeth, indicating that chickens (and perhaps other modern birds) still retain the genes for making teeth.]

Now, on to some of the classes of mammals.

Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to primates:
o Early primates -- paromomyids, carpolestids, plesiadapids. Lemur-like clawed primates with generalized nails.
o Notharctus, an early Eocene lemur
o Parapithecus, a small Old World monkey (Oligocene)
o Propliopithecus, a small primate intermediate between Parapithecus and the more recent O.W. monkeys. Has several ape-like characters.
o Aegyptopithecus, an early ape.
o Limnopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the modern gibbons.
o Dryopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the non-gibbon apes.
o Ramapithecus, a dryopithecine-like ape showing similarities to the hominids but now thought to be an orang ancestor.
o Australopithecus spp., early hominids. Bipedal.
o Homo habilis.
o Homo erectus. Numerous fossils across the Old World.
o Homo sapiens sapiens. This is us. (NB: "Cro-magnon man" belongs here too. Cro-magnons were a specific population of modern humans.)
o Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (not on the direct line to H. sapiens sapiens, but worth mentioning).
o [I haven't described these fossils in detail because they're fairly well covered in any intro biology text, or in any of several good general- interest books on human evolution.]
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to rodents:
o Paramyids, e.g. Paramys -- early "primitive" rodent
o Paleocastor -- transitional from paramyids to beavers
o [yick. I was going to summarize rodent fossils but Paramys and its friends gave rise to 5 enormous and very diverse groups of rodents, with about ten zillion fossils. Never mind.]
Transitional fossils among the cetaceans (whales & dolphins):
o Pakicetus -- the oldest fossil whale known. Only the skull was found. It is a distinct whale skull, but with nostrils in the position of a land animal (tip of snout). The ears were partially modified for hearing under water. This fossil was found in association with fossils of land mammals, suggesting this early whale maybe could walk on land.
o Basilosaurus isis -- a recently discovered "legged" whale from the Eocene (after Pakicetus). Had hind feet with 3 toes and a tiny remnant of the 2nd toe (the big toe is totally missing). The legs were small and must have been useless for locomotion, but were specialized for swinging forward into a locked straddle position -- probably an aid to copulation for this long-bodied, serpentine whale.
o Archaeocetes (e.g. Protocetus, Eocetus) -- have lost hind legs entirely, but retain "primitive whale" skull and teeth, with forward nostrils.
o Squalodonts (e.g. Prosqualodon) -- whale-like skull with dorsal nostrils (blowhole), still with un-whale-like teeth.
o Kentriodon, an early toothed whale with whale-like teeth.
o Mesocetus, an early whalebone whale
o [note: very rarely a modern whale is found with tiny hind legs, showing that some whales still retain the genes for making hind legs.]
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to the carnivores:
o Miacids (e.g. Viverravus and Miacis) -- small weasel-like animals with very carnivore-like teeth, esp. the carnassial teeth.
o Arctoids (e.g. Cynodictis, Hesperocyon) -- intermediate between miacids and dogs. Limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger.
o Cynodesmus, Tomarctus -- transitional fossils between arctoids and the modern dog genus Canis.
o Hemicyon, Ursavus -- heavy doglike fossils between the arctoids and the bears.
o Indarctos -- early bear. Carnassial teeth have no shearing action, molars are square, short tail, heavy limbs. Transitional to the modern genus Ursus.
o Phlaocyon -- a climbing carnivore with non-shearing carnassials, transitional from the arctoids to the procyonids (raccoons et al.)
Meanwhile back at the ranch,
o Plesictis, transitional between miacids (see above) and mustelids (weasels et al.)
o Stenoplesictis and Palaeoprionodon, early civets related to the miacids (see above)
o Tunguricits, transitional between early civets and modern civets
o Ictitherium, transitional between early civets to hyenas
o Proailurus, transitional from early civets to early cats
o Dinictis, transitional from early cats to modern "feline" cats
o Hoplophoneus, transitional from early cats to "saber-tooth" cats
Transitional fossils from early eutherians to hoofed animals:
o Arctocyonid condylarths -- insectivore-like small mammals with classic mammalian teeth and clawed feet.
o Mesonychid condylarths -- similar to the arctocyonids, but with blunt crushing-type cheek teeth, and flattened nails instead of claws.
o Late condylarths, e.g. Phenocodus -- a fair-sized animal with hoofs on each toe (all toes were present), a continuous series of crushing-type cheek teeth with herbivore-type cusps, and no collarbone (like modern hoofed animals).
o Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to perissodactyls:
o [Perissodactyls are animals with an odd number of toes; most of the weight is borne by the central 3rd toe. Horses, rhinos, tapirs.]
o Tetraclaeonodon -- a Paleocene condylarth showing perissodactyl-like teeth
o Hyracotherium -- the famous "dawn horse", an early perissodactyl, with more elongated digits and interlocking ankle bones, and slightly different tooth cusps, compared to to Tetraclaeonodon. A small, doggish animal with an arched back, short neck, and short snout; had 4 toes in front and 3 behind. Omnivore teeth.
o Orohippus -- small, 4/3 toed, developing browser tooth crests
o Epihippus -- small, 4/3 toed, good tooth crests, browser
o Epihippus (Duchesnehippus) -- a subgenus with Mesohippus-like teeth
o Mesohippus -- 3 toed on all feet, browser, slightly larger
o Miohippus -- 3 toed browser, slightly larger [gave rise to lots of successful three-toed browsers]
o Parahippus -- 3 toed browser/grazer, developing "spring foot"
o 'Parahippus' leonensis -- a Merychippus-like species of Parahippus
o 'Merychippus' gunteri -- a Parahippus-like species of Merychippus
o 'Merychippus' primus -- a more typical Merychippus, but still very like Parahippus.
o Merychippus -- 3 toed grazer, spring-footed, size of small pony (gave rise to tons of successful three-toed grazers)
o Merychippus (Protohippus) -- a subgenus of Merychippus developing Pliohippus-like teeth.
o Pliohippus & Dinohippus -- one-toed grazers, spring-footed
o Equus (Plesippus) -- like modern equines but teeth slightly simpler.
o Equus (Hippotigris), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing zebras.
o Equus (Equus), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing horses & donkeys. [note: very rarely a horse is born with small visible side toes, indicating that some horses retain the genes for side toes.]
o Hyrachyids -- transitional from perissodactyl-like condylarths to tapirs
o Heptodonts, e.g. Lophiodont -- a small horse-like tapir, transitional to modern tapirs
o Protapirus -- a probable descendent of Lophiodont, much like modern tapirs but without the flexible snout.
o Miotapirus -- an almost-modern tapir with a flexible snout, transitional between Protapirus and the modern Tapirus.
o Hyracodonts -- early "running rhinoceroses", transitional to modern rhinos
o Caenopus, a large, hornless, generalized rhino transitional between the hyracodonts and the various later groups of modern & extinct rhinos.
o Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to some of the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals):
o Dichobunoids, e.g. Diacodexis, transitional between condylarths and all the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals). Very condylarth-like but with a notably artiodactyl-like ankle.
o Propalaeochoerus, an early pig, transitional between Diacodexis and modern pigs.
o Protylopus, a small, short-necked, four-toed animal, transitional between dichobunoids and early camels. From here the camel lineage goes through Protomeryx, Procamelus, Pleauchenia, Lama (which are still alive; these are the llamas) and finally Camelus, the modern camels.
o Archeomeryx, a rabbit-sized, four-toed animal, transitional between the dichobunoids and the early deer. From here the deer lineage goes through Eumeryx, Paleomeryx and Blastomeryx, Dicrocerus (with antlers) and then a shmoo of successful groups that survive today as modern deer -- muntjacs, cervines, white-tail relatives, moose, reindeer, etc., etc.
o Palaeotragus, transitional between early artiodactyls and the okapi & giraffe. Actually the okapi hasn't changed much since Palaeotragus and is essentially a living Miocene giraffe. After Palaeotragus came Giraffa, with elongated legs & neck, and Sivatherium, large ox-like giraffes that almost survived to the present.

So, there's a partial list of transitional fossils.

Some websites with more info if you want to learn something
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils)
Resource of the American Scientific Affiliation: Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record by Keith B. Miller (http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Miller.html)
On Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils" (http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html)



There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey.

Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.


OK my 'College Education' says "how about Downs Syndrome?" ;) for a start.

Trisomy 21: The Origin of Down Syndrome (http://www.ds-health.com/trisomy.htm)

The rest of your comments and attacks on Biology are pretty idiotic imho. Let's not forget this is the [I]same biology that brought you antibiotics (saved my bacon before!) and as for no evidence of speciation - there are loads:

Observed Instances of Speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)
The Process of Speciation (http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/speciation/speciation.html)
Species, Speciation, and the Environment by Niles Eldredge, Ph.D. (http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/eldredge.html)
FOCUS | September 1, 2006 | GENETICS: Gene Linked to Beak Length in Darwin Finch (http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2006/090106/genetics.shtml)

So that's Transitional fossils and Speciation debunked - NEXT!

[Mr. Clandestine]

Are you suggesting that the schools shouldn't teach children the real classification of birds because it might contradict a parent's teachings?

That certainly is a cute story, but no, that's not what I'm suggesting at all. I simply meant that the distinct topic of determining a factual origin of species is still up for plenty of debate. I don't want to tell my children that Darwin was wrong, because who can be 100% sure? But I'd really rather not be directly contradicted in this matter, because it would be more confusing for the child...not because it would affect my peace of mind in any way.


You're right, science is much better left out of the hands of biased scientists.

No, sir. Theology should be left out of the hands of biased scientists. Everything else that needs to be taught can stay! :)


I assure you that I always find it funny. Yet for some reason I always engage. probably for the humour.

I can certainly relate to the way you feel...I used to love getting online and spending hours participating in debates. I guess I'm just getting old now, because I'm usually too tired to get online and argue my point of view anymore...even when it's about a topic that really means something to me. I call it "internet indifference", others might call it "laziness"!

---


I understand that the parent has rights over his children, yet the children have the right to believe whatever they please.

Even so, what if the theory in science contradicts the theory their parents teach them? How do you measure which is the correct theory to teach them? Through your humble indoctrinated opinion of Christianity?

Maybe it's just me, but I feel that it's in most parents nature to try and instill common aspects of their own belief system into their child. I already know that my children will grow up to be independent thinkers, because that's exactly how I am raising them...not to be afraid to think for themselves. My humble and indoctrinated opinion of Christianity is also just that...mine, and mine alone. I'm not forcing my children to be Christian, they already want to be a Christian on their own volition. I also wasn't indoctrinated by my parents...I discovered the religion all on my own. I considered myself an agnostic for much of my life, up until I graduated from college, which is when I made my decision. Now I attend church, and subsequently, my children do too. But I'm not forcing my beliefs on them as some overbearing Christian parents might do. Quite the opposite actually...my children enjoy what they're being taught in their Sunday school. So why stop going? Because it's impossible to know for certain whether or not there even is a God? Even though I don't have any factual evidence on the matter, I still can have faith. And I still do.


Do you really think you are enforcing the right for children to have their OWN beliefs?

Of course I am! I'm not holding a gun to their head and making them attend church! They already look forward to going. Call it indoctrination, call it ritualistic, call it a hobby...the point is, it's what they want to do. And it would actually be selfish of me to try and stop them from going...not the other way around.


Which explains why people (in this case the parent) should question their own beliefs.

I've questioned my beliefs for much of my life, as I mentioned before. Christianity is what eventually made the most sense to me, and is also what I find to be the most comfortable system of beliefs. I understand that there are inconsistencies in the religion, though. There are inconsistencies in every religion, and I would know, because I've studied many of them in great depth. But, as the meat of this entire thread will also point out, there are plenty of inconsistencies in alternative belief systems (evolution, abiogenesis, etc.), as well. I try to remain altruistic when discussing why I chose my religion over others. In fact, I once considered myself a devout Mahayana Buddhist before I let myself become indoctrinated into the Christian religion. I still retain many Buddhist values to this day...pretty much the only difference being that I'll no longer bow before any images/statues of Buddha. Besides that, I think it's a wonderful philosophy & way of living.

---


Do you really feel its a viable option to remove the teaching of all knowledge on a subject, be any specific part true or false, for a bit of peace of mind?

Regarding this particular topic and the relevancy of the issues at hand for biased parents, I don't see how it could do any harm to just move on to another topic. If it's purely theoretical on both sides of the spectrum anyway, I don't see the need for it to be taught in our schools...especially when it could be misconstrued for fact by a biased science teacher. And I'm not just referring to evolutionary leaning teachers/professors here, either. It works both ways. The zealous parents (on both sides) would be able to sleep easier at night, and the children would be free to focus on more important areas of science while in class.


In the end, someone is always wrong, not implying that that someone is ID or Evolution, but there is always someone who is wrong, someone who is right. If we go about life worrying about offending those who are wrong, we will get nowhere as a civilization.

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. Another reason why I think we could do without having to even discuss this topic, unless by random coincidence, someone were to bring it up. Then it can be discussed/debated upon with an open mind.


I personally have no doubt that anything I say will not affect anyone here. I dont think that highly of myself that my digital words would have any amount of sway or hold over others typing theirs. Hell, Id be happy and honored if half the people responding to me would actually read what I wrote before responding, not to imply any of the people in this conversation at the moment are doing that, because you arent, but you get what I am getting at.

I enjoy these kinds of things though because it is a little bit of a battle of wits, intelligence, and sometimes The Google. But I also enjoy learning about other viewpoints, even if they may not affect mine in any way, because its more knowledge that I have gained. Id hope that everyone looks at it that way in some way or another, because there isn't much of a point to any of this otherwise, because you are right, none of us are going to change the other persons mind.

I've read every single post, word for word, that you and everyone else here has made since the topic was introduced. Even after it started becoming slightly monotonous. Mainly because I, like you, enjoy learning what other people think about the matter...but also because my interest has been piqued with all of the references getting thrown around. I find everyones viewpoint intriguing on this matter, which is why I'm still hanging around!


As Chris Rock said in Dogma..

Great movie, by the way! :thumbsup:

---

Ok, so I apologize if it seems that I'm trying to hijack this thread. It honestly wasn't my intention to get involved, and I'll graciously go about my business again & let everyone have fun with the rest of the debate! Just remember to keep open minds about all of the possibilities, not just the ones that you deem most factually relevant/coherent.

Peace. :hippy:

-Mr. C

[cadmiumblimp]

It is something that will depend person to person. Some people just shouldnt be teachers, its that simple.
Yeah. With the teacher I was thinking of most, she was more a math teacher anyway. I like how there really isn't, to my knowledge, any way that ideologies can conflict with mathematics -- the numbers can't lie.

I am planning on becoming a teacher after I finish my masters, and I have every intent of trying to teach my students about everything, even things I dont believe in or dont like, but then again its teaching philosophy, so its a bit more suited for that kind of thing.
I like this. If more educators had that philosophy, maybe we would have a better education system. Wait, no, maybe if it wasn't so "uncool" to be smart in America we would have a better education system. It really isn't the school's responsibility to teach, it's the student's responsibility to learn. The smartest students aren't the ones that are taught the best, they're the ones that go out and learn shit on their own.

Of course I am! I'm not holding a gun to their head and making them attend church! They already look forward to going. Call it indoctrination, call it ritualistic, call it a hobby...the point is, it's what they want to do. And it would actually be selfish of me to try and stop them from going...not the other way around.
If I might ask, how old are your children?



Regarding this particular topic and the relevancy of the issues at hand for biased parents, I don't see how it could do any harm to just move on to another topic. If it's purely theoretical on both sides of the spectrum anyway, I don't see the need for it to be taught in our schools...especially when it could be misconstrued for fact by a biased science teacher. And I'm not just referring to evolutionary leaning teachers/professors here, either. It works both ways. The zealous parents (on both sides) would be able to sleep easier at night, and the children would be free to focus on more important areas of science while in class.
Why should things that are purely theoretical not be taught in school? Just because some things are just theoretical doesn't mean the knowledge of them is a lesser form of knowledge.

I find everyones viewpoint intriguing on this matter, which is why I'm still hanging around!
I like being around people, one of the reasons being that it exposes me to other viewpoints, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't. This thread has started to go in a different direction and I like that -- the old direction was getting a bit stale.

[dragonrider]

Intelligent design cannot be taught as science because it is not based on the scientific method. Science is a systematic methodolgy for explaining how the universe works. The theory of evolution is based on that methodology and intelligent design is not.

I think that actually when teaching science, intelligent design could be used as a great example of a method for describing phenomena that is NOT based on the scientific method. Many people may find intelligent design or the literal creation story to be very compelling, and they are certainly free to believe what they want and teach to their own children what they want, but it is not appropriate to teach it as science.

Science procedes by systematically making measurements and observations. Objective measurements and observations are called "facts" --- they do not include any explanation of why or how something occurs, they are only measurements of what did occur.

Once facts are gathered, the scientific method provides that some educated guess about why or how the observed facts occur can be made. The proposed explanation is called a "hypothesis" --- it's an uproved explanation for the facts. The hypothesis is not a fact, and it is not a theory. A hypothesis should be consistent with all known facts. It should also be able to make predictions about other facts that have not yet been discovered. Using the hypothesis, experimenters should be able to propose new experiments to test the hypothesis. They should run those experiemtns and make new observations and measure new facts. The resulting facts might be consistent with the hypothesis or might contradict it. If they reinforce the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is given more weight. If they contradict it, then the hypothesis is proven false, and a new hypothesis must be proposed that is consistent with the new facts, or the phenomenon may remain unexplained.

Once a hypothesis has been tested through rigorous experimentation and observation, it can have enough weight to be considered a theory. A theory is an explanation that has been tested adequately to be generally accepted as true and consistent with all known facts. But the theory is never a fact. And science always holds open the possibility that new facts might be discovered that overturn the theory and require a new hypothesis.

Evolution is a theory that is consitent with all known facts regarding the change of species over time. New measuremtns and obeservations are made all the time that reinforce the weight of the theory of evolution. However the current theory of evolution cannot fully explain all observed facts regarding the change of species over time. It is consistent with all known facts, but it is not sufficient to explain them all. There are unexplained facts that do not contradict the theory, but are not explained by the theory.

This gap is where people who believe in intelligent design step in and say those facts that are not fully explained by evolution can be explained by an intelligent designer. But intelligent design is not a scientific hypothesis or theory. It does not propose new tests or experiments that could reinforce or refute it. It is not rooted in any other well accepted theory.

Scieince does not provide for explanations that invoke a supernatural power or any other unobservable or unmeasurable force. If every unexplained phenomenon were explained by simply saying, "God made it that way, " or "it was intelligently designed by a force we cannot measure," then science would never procede. Those kinds of explanations can never be proven or disproven. They also tend to discourage further scientific investigation by suggesting that the phenomenon has already been explained. The history of science has been a long march away from explanations based on mysterious forces we do not understand toward explanation based on measurable facts, hypotheses and rigorously tested theories.

The scientific way for dealing with the gap in current evolutionary theory is to honestly say that we have a theory that is consistent with observed facts but not complete enough to fully explain all facts. And to say that the theory needs to be refined through further hypotheses and observation.

In recent years there have been various efforts to teach evolution as a "theory not a fact." The phrase implies that there is still some doubt about evolution. Actually, if you understand the scientific method and know what these terms mean, it is true that evolution is a theory not a fact. It will always be a theory, not a fact. This is because it is an explanation for a phenomenon, not a measurable phenomenon itself. But it is not true that there is much scientific doubt about evolution. It is a very well supported theory. It might be incomplete, but it is consistent with observation.

[Mr. Clandestine]

If I might ask, how old are your children?

Two daughters who are six and nine, and a son who's almost three.


Why should things that are purely theoretical not be taught in school? Just because some things are just theoretical doesn't mean the knowledge of them is a lesser form of knowledge.

I never said that all theoretical subjects shouldn't be discussed. Merely that this particular subject might be a little touchy for some people, and for obvious reasons. At the least, I agree with Fallen_Icarus that if it is going to be discussed, all theories should be presented to the students. And not just evolution/Christian ideologies...but all theories regarding the matter, from all religions to aliens. This would obviously consume far more time than is usually allotted in an average lecture, and again is why I think the topic should only be discussed if a student (not a professor) should happen to bring it up. There are plenty other areas of science, hypothetical and factual, that would be much more appropriate for intelligent discussion in class.

I like being around people, one of the reasons being that it exposes me to other viewpoints, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't. This thread has started to go in a different direction and I like that -- the old direction was getting a bit stale.

Well...in respect to those who have been the primary participants, it was a good debate. I just decided to chime in to try and make light of a subject that, by indoctrination to my religion, I'm expected to up-in-arms about. Not that I'm being frivolous, but I just don't see how some people can actually become so angry (to the point of name calling & incessant bickering) over another persons singular viewpoint! It's my opinion that a debate should remain progressive at all times, and by all parties. Otherwise, like you mentioned, they have the tendency to become stale.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Not that I'm being frivolous, but I just don't see how some people can actually become so angry (to the point of name calling & incessant bickering) over another persons singular viewpoint! It's my opinion that a debate should remain progressive at all times, and by all parties. Otherwise, like you mentioned, they have the tendency to become stale.
It's nice when debate moves forward, agreed, but sometimes that doesn't happen. But, when someone has a viewpoint that you feel is flawed, it's your duty to point it out. But the idea behind pointing out someone's flawed viewpoint and argument isn't to "win" and "be right", it's so that they can be correct as well, learning their mistakes and applying critical thinking to realize why that way of thinking is wrong.

Of course, certain things have more than one right answer, and in those cases the debate is usually about which idea is the best for which situation. I'm babbling now.

[NLX2007]

Evolution and Creation huh? I Agree with whoever said that if Evotlution is to be taught in schools, they need to remind the students that it is in fact a theory, and that that's what they base everything upon, and that they adapt the theory to the actual facts that they find all the time. Personally, I find the "Intelligent design" side of the argument much more plausible. Because we are finite beings, and so small in the scheme of things, we have no ultimate meaning or difference in this universe. So for me, there must be a higher power to explain why and how we're here. Otherwise I see life as pointless and may as well have not been born. I'm not a Christian or religious at all, I just try and keep an open mind. And I'm not saying that I think Evolution is impossible, I just think a Creator is more probable, because could we really just stumble upon how we came to be, when we are so small and worthless? Just my point of view.

[Delta9 UK]

Evolution and Creation huh? I Agree with whoever said that if Evotlution is to be taught in schools, they need to remind the students that it is in fact a theory, and that that's what they base everything upon, and that they adapt the theory to the actual facts that they find all the time. Personally, I find the "Intelligent design" side of the argument much more plausible. Because we are finite beings, and so small in the scheme of things, we have no ultimate meaning or difference in this universe. So for me, there must be a higher power to explain why and how we're here. Otherwise I see life as pointless and may as well have not been born. I'm not a Christian or religious at all, I just try and keep an open mind. And I'm not saying that I think Evolution is impossible, I just think a Creator is more probable, because could we really just stumble upon how we came to be, when we are so small and worthless? Just my point of view.

Did you even read this thread? I'm guessing not, but I don't blame you to be fair :thumbsup: it did get a bit silly and long winded in places - yeah that was my fault too.

Besides, why can't we have a creator AND evolution - I don't really see them in complete opposition at all. OK it's not my personal conviction but what the hell.

In all honesty I imagine we are the product of a universe learning about itself - from Hydrogen to self-awareness in 20 billion years - but that has NOTHING to do with evolution.

Evolution is just part of that amazing process of nature. It is real natural and completely normal - no magic, faith or "belief" required - nature is amazing enough without bringing an imaginary designer into it.

Now that is just my opinion ;)

[Canadian_Cron]

:angelsmiley:im just gonna toss my 2 cents out there for what its worth... i dont think theres a war on god but the has been in the past few years a large social movement away from organized religion which could b for many reasons. i went to sunday school as a child but my reasons to move away from organized religion was simply:




1) it didnt expaln anything... y wud i belive something so blindly cause thats what im told 2 do?? i dont wan to be narrow minded, want to make up my own mind!

2) i disagree with many things that organized religion tries to tell people. (not till ur married and no birth controll... common catholic chruch ahah!) not just that but other aspects as well other than sexual.

3) no reason why 1 cannot belive in both god and evolution (if you dont take the bible literally):thumbsup:

4) religion has and is being used as a political tool and used to justify horrible things being done right now and that have been done throughout history and i just dont want to be a part of that. also the bible for example has been "edited" over the years for specific purposes...:(

5) havent u noticed that all religious texts have the exact same meanings... but different stories... could this be because they were never intended to be taken literally...?:wtf:

6) also i find religion to be very unaccepting of particular groups (gay/lesbian, people of different faiths, women, ect.)

7) i think its funny how religion seems to have life figured out perfectly...:postexcuseme: when youd never know that its all true untill you die, but its preached my people who have not experience a full life (life + death).

...mabye its similar 4 others as well???




im not atheiest but i just dont believe in organized religion.. and mabye not even a supreme being, i think theres more to it than you just die, but thats my opinon neways and i think if u believe in god or not you should just go ahead make your own decision. my beliefs are no better than anyone elses.:hippy: i just dont like it when others try an force their own beliefs on some1 else...:(


also as far as evolution in school.. evolution is a theory not a faith. i agree with religion being removed from schools. religion is a personal thing and a choice that should not be made for you by some1 else.

[Mr. Clandestine]

also as far as evolution in school.. evolution is a theory not a faith. i agree with religion being removed from schools. religion is a personal thing and a choice that should not be made for you by some1 else.


Religion, in all respects, is also a theory...a theory that many logical minded people have faith in, just like evolution. If this is a supposed reason for allowing evolution to be discussed in the classroom, then religion should also be allowed the same courtesy. Neither are infallible, and each are supported by people with strong views on the subject matter at hand...regardless of the fact that it's all hypothetical anyway. For this reason, either both should be discussed with unbiased neutrality, or neither should be discussed at all. You can't simply choose one over the other because a theory seems more logical, while in fact, the theory is unsupported by any real 'scientific' conclusions. This was the basis of the original argument, yet many of those who've responded did so to attempt to support their own personal conclusions. Even though none of said conclusions were backed up by any scientific fact whatsoever. You can't support an idea by conjecture alone...that's biased. You can only present your views, then have the courtesy to let others do the same...and eventually agree that none of the conclusions are any more relevant than the other in the eyes of the person you're debating with.

[NLX2007]

Besides, why can't we have a creator AND evolution - I don't really see them in complete opposition at all. OK it's not my personal conviction but what the hell.


True, that would make everything easier, and the arguments would stop. But I guess most people rule it out because they have the idea that if there was a creator he/she/it would skip the whole evlolutionary process... But I personally think it could be possible.
p.s. I read like the first 2 pages, then every single post had a long ass quote and it was impossible to follow haha.

[BeforeYourTime]

Icarus, you are full of sh*t.

Theres no point debating with dummies like you. Its religion thats held humanity back for centuries.

[Fallen_Icarus]

Or it's because you have a severely limited amount of arguments; which could lead to you repeating yourself, because you think that we just "don't get it." You really don't have many good arguments in your arsenal. Sorry, but I think just about everyone who posted on this thread can agree that you don't really know what you're talking about. However, I do give you credit for trying so hard.

Again this is wrong and very offensive, what part of im neither a creationist or an evolutionist dont you understand?

What part of, I dont wish to debate the validity of the two dont you understand?

What exactly do you believe I have a lack of understanding about?

The fact that the theory of evolution is just as valid as intelligent design when applying it to how we got here? How is this a lack of understanding?

You are one of the many ignorant evolutionists whom ignore the possibility of their own theory being wrong, it could be that intelligent design is true.

What you fail to understand is the theory of evolution you always take into context as being so obvious is basic "change", thats it, just change, since when does intelligent design say things do not "change">?

How on earth can you proclaim change (your perception of evolution) as a figuehead belief over intelligent design.

Evolution explains how life changes, it does not explain how this life got here, of course you can live your life believing things "just happend".

So I suggest you put your thinking cap on and show respect to the people who actually question religion and the oppsing theories to religion and creationism, do not always intelink creationism and religion.


People have castigated me for interlinking abogenisis with evolution (even though they can be interlinked), peopel on this forum have also castigated me for interlinking eugenics with
darwinist evolution, when they are linked.


So why on earth do you have the right to continuously link religion with creationism?


The two can exist apart.


Having evolution does not by any means rule out any intelligent designer, an intelligent designer could have intervened during the process of evolution and/or have begun the whole process of evolution, just because you do not have facts about this, does not mean you can blindly rule it out.


I'd say there's much more evidence for evolution than creationism, thus evolution is more viable. Have you even looked at any evidence at all?

What? Firstly, why on earth should evolution rule out creationism?

This is the body of the debate, why should you who believes the 'evidence' of human evolution or macroevolution overwhelms the evidence for creationism should therefore create a rule by which we rule out the presence of some kind of creator.

Why should it create an attitude by which we 'laugh' at people who believe in intelligent design, like I said before, and I wont get offensive and stoop to your level, but you dont understand the simple fact that evolution just is not powerful enough a theory to explain exactly how life arrived here, it is not even intended to answer this question.

Your perception of evolution being filled with such obvious truth is simple "change", nobody here is denying this, certainly not me, things do change over time, animals adapt to their environment, businesses adapt to changing consumer and market trends etc.

We do evolve, we do change but you cannot apply this aspect of change to the theory that we evolved from apes (human evolution).


I'm curious, because last time I checked, there was no evidence on creationism.

Well its funny you should make this assumption, you honestly sound like a 40 year old man still living by Carl Sagans: The Cosmos.

I hate to shoot you to death with a dose of MODERN scientific thinking which actually does support the theory of intelligent design, even with evidence of evolution.

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWHATTTT?????

Did you just hear me? I said evidence of evolution (transitional fossils actually does not rebuke intelligent design and actually could go to lengths at supporting intelligent design).

There is fossil evidence found in east africa if I am correct which is challenging the entire theory of evolution, infact this fossil evidence claims an overlap of about 500,000 years of which the two homo habilis and homo erectus co existed in that area.

Infact when you look at the evidence of human evolution, what you see is evidence, not for evolution but for co existence.

Infact this brings me back to aliens and intelligent design, there are some evolutionists who have the theory that evolution went on between homo habilis and homo erectus and then there was some kind of "alien intervention" and some kind of genetic engineering which enabled humans to virtually accelorate toward such an incredible being.

Okay, I understand its difficult to incorporate this stuff into the classroom of science, but wasnt at some point it difficult to incorporate the theories we teach so profusely today difficult to incorporate into classrooms?

Manipulation of genes to produce modern humans, I personally do not favour this theory and neither do I personally favour the orthodox theory of evolution which is taught in schools.

But this is not about opinions.


I'm curious, because last time I checked, there was no evidence on creationism.

I think if you look at the theory of evolution and the actual evidence it provides then you would realise that if looking at ALL of the evidence that all of the species right up until the final human being all existed at the same time - a new theory of co existence occurs, - ever thought of this theory?

Did you ever open your mind to it?

It could be true.

Personally I believe that people simplify the subject of the answer of the origins of species to simply being either the cartoon like evolutionary process from something small turning into a rat then into a monkey and then into a human.

And also the opposing theory of just POOF everything arrived, I actually think it must be a mix of these things, the actual answer is much more complex than simply either one or the other.

This is why I still stand by my original statement that intelligent design should not be ruled out and still offered as a viable option as to our coming to existence.

Intelligent design is another toolkit which should be available in science, it does not result in stalling the process of science, you can still study your evolution knowing that possibly an intelligence created the life which we are studying lol.

Did this not occur to you?

That evolution does not refute intelligent design, only the Judea Christian perspective on coming to existence, but... When on earth, and how many times have I said that this is not the perspective I am talking about.

You are all clearly wrong!


Maybe evolution isn't 100% spot-on. But that isn't the point, really. The point is, there's a lot more evidence for evolution than creationism. Yeah, creationism does not have any evidence, so I guess it would make more sense to teach something that has a lot of evidence.

In looking at the creation, and thinking about evolution vs intelligent design (ID)-- since the time of Charles Darwin's Evolution of the Species, many philosophically naturalist scientists assumed that the smallest living things were structurally very simple.

But they were wrong.

it is unfortunate that news of some educational and litigation argumentations concerning ID has given a false notion of its basic import, implying that is basically "biblical creationism" in disguise --which it is not!

Rather, Intelligent Design should be seen as a scientific method of analysis which can be applied to various lines of information from mathematical concepts, to writing, to DNA-- and any attempts at naming the source(s) of that information, goes beyond and outside the pure science of Intelligent Design theory and into a secondary area of suppositional/philosophical implications or historical information and testimony.

I addition ID has virtually nothing to say about things such as the age of the earth, or "flood geology," or the biblical "days" of creation.

At any rate, testing for Intelligent Design depends first on the existence of significant "information," which must be strictly defined.

Questions in proteins

In living cells, proteins are the "machines of life," which build the structures and facilitate (catalyze) the chemical reactions used by all life.

Proteins are called "informational" molecules, because they each perform a "function" in living things (such as oxygen-transport by hemoglobin), and they are non-repetitively complex, and the sequential order of the building blocks (amino acids) of protein are highly specified so that if the proper sequence is changed much at all, function is lost.

Going further in our proof: There are no known laws (or properties) of physics or chemistry in nature, which would have been sufficient, by themselves, to originally dictate the sequential order of the amino acids in functional classes of proteins adequate to sustain life (so far as anyone has been able to reasonably conceive life).

Similarly, there are no known laws (or properties) of physics of chemistry which could have originally dictated the sequential order of the nucleotides in the DNA required for the first life (and to build those first proteins of life)

although, again, as scientists we must always remain open to the possibility that it may be demonstrated that there is a series of natural events in nature (unaided by intelligent design) which would accomplish the origination of all 20 required amino acids along with the sequential ordering of them to construct the proteins (&/or the DNA) required for life. Any scientific approach must be able to be negated, and this is the way that this "proof" is able to be negated.

Thus, in our proof, we move on to the possibility of the random assembly of proteins: To look most simply at the probability of the random assembly of a protein, note that proteins are made of 20 amino acids, which are linked together into strings or "chains" (polymers).

Therefore, if we grant that the supposed "primordial soup" on the early earth had plenty of all 20 amino acids (in equal amounts) available for protein-building, then the chance that the first five amino acids required to build a specific functional protein might randomly bond together in the correct order, would be one chance out of 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20, which equals one chance out of 3,200,000.

Now, of course, this chance is still not that hard to overcome when you suppose that there were many trillions of each of the amino acids present in the primordial soup, along with trillions of trials taking place at the same time, as well as billions of years for trial and error to get the correct five together.

The problem is: proteins (from any known functional class) are made of 50 to 1000 amino acids, with the average protein being about 300 amino acids long, so we need to assemble at least 50 amino acids.

As we continue adding each new amino acid to the chain by random selection, we must continue to multiply one chance out of 20 for each one.

Finally, the chance to have assembled 50 amino acids randomly into the correct sequence to build a specific functional ("folded") protein, would be: one chance out of 10 (to the power of) 65 (which is a 1 with 65 zeros) ...and 10 (to the power of) 65 is about the number of atoms in a galaxy. So, mark one of those with an "x" and find it by chance.

At this point, we should recall the discussion of randomly choosing letters for words ...that there is (for example) a 14% chance of drawing the letters to make any of the 96 two-letter words. --However, in talking about proteins, the analogy is much closer to the following:

What is the chance of randomly drawing Scrabble letters (from the swimming pool mentioned above) so that they spell the following word:

Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis

The chance of randomly drawing out the letters of this 45-letter word in the correct order, is about one chance out of 10 (to the power of) 65. (This is supposedly the longest word in the English language).

As a result, any other string of 45 letters is not a word, and does not function as a word. --It is non-information. It is garbage.

This 45-letter word is a good illustration of the protein situation in living things, because the chances of the random assembly of functional (or properly "folding") proteins are far out-numbered by the possible "garbage" sequences of amino acids that could be randomly assembled

gotten from the analysis of actual proteins, have confirmed that "the odds of finding a folded protein are about one in 1065 . . .Thats 65 Zero's.

all proteins that have been examined to date, either experimentally or by comparison of analogous sequences from different species, have been seen to be surrounded by an almost infinitely wide chasm of unfolded, nonfunctional, useless protein sequences."

This would mean, for example, that even if an ocean of primordial soup (having the volume of a trillion earths) were densely filled with all 20 of the protein-building amino acids (in equal amounts) and in that ocean there randomly assembled one small functional protein at random, then all the rest of that immense ocean of such chemicals would most probably be totally bound up in "junk" sequences of amino acids, which would be useless for building "folded" (functional) proteins.

The conclusion that a reasonable person draws from this is that the laws of nature are insufficient to produce functional proteins and, therefore, functional proteins have not been produced through a non-directed search.

This research confirms, then, that the random processes of nature appear inadequate to assemble even one functional protein of life as we know it, without the work of an intelligence to assemble the amino acids into the complex specified informational sequences required by living things.

in reality-- only about one specific sequence of amino acids out of 1060 possible sequences is adequate to produce a properly folding protein which could be used by actual life. The rest are junk, and useless to life.

Therefore --to more accurately represent the life-chemistry situation-- the card-illustration should actually be restricted to say that there are only a few specific orderings of the cards which are the acceptable outcomes of the random shuffles of cards.

That is, only about 24 out of the 10 (to the power of) 68 possible outcomes will do. --For example, the only good outcomes in cards would be: a well-shuffled deck must randomly end up with all four suits in proper numerical order starting with the Ace, then the 2, then the 3, etc., on up through to the King. All four suits must be so ordered. --Specificity is required.

It is the same with the "functional complex specified information" (FCSI) of life.

Such a critic's smoke-screen may sound good on the surface, but it misses the mark.

Even though the chance of the random assembly of a single type of functional (folding) protein is more remote than the limit set by Borel's Law of Chance (with a threshold set at one chance in 10 (to the power of) 50), still, if we use all the time and matter in the universe, the random assembly of one such protein might possibly be within reach.

However, the problem for neo-darwinian naturalists is: There is much more to the simplest conceivable life-form than just one protein.

Even the smallest bacteriophage codes for about nine proteins --but a bacteriophage is not capable of independent life.

Evidence indicates there is no independently self-sustaining, metabolizing, reproducing life-form which would require any less than 100 proteins.

Biochemist Harold Morowitz estimated that the "minimum" self-replicating cell would include:


Five proteins required for making of cell-membrane fats and structures;
Eight proteins for a very simplified and basic form of energy metabolism
Ten proteins required for the production of the nucleotides (building-blocks for making DNA) and for the actual production of DNA; and then, finally,
About eighty proteins as part of an apparatus for the production of all the cell's proteins.


So, the minimal cell would require at least 100 proteins (of moderate length).

This is the smallest hypothetical cell that we can envisage within the context of current biochemical thinking.

It is almost certainly a lower limit." Morowitz is basically saying, that this simplest proto-cell could not stand to lose even two or three of the 100 proteins described, and still continue to stay alive and reproduce otherwise, by definition, it would not consist of the "minimum" of proteins required.

The above situation, is essentially one called "irreducible complexity," which has been described in living biochemical systems, by Siegfried Scherer (1983), and also by Michael Behe ("Darwin's Black Box", 1996).

In a nutshell a system is irreducibly complex if it is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning

irreducibly complexity by using a common mouse-trap, which is basically made of a wooden base, a wire hammer, a spring with extended ends that press against the base and hammer, a holding bar to hold the hammer back when the trap is set, and a pressure-sensitive catch which, when slight pressure is applied to it, releases the holding bar to spring the trap.

This trap system is irreducibly complex, because if any of the five basic parts is missing, the trap will not function. If this trap were to "evolve" it would all have to evolve all at once in order to function. You could not evolve the spring and trap a few mice; and evolve the catch and trap a few more; etc. By definition, the minimum number of parts must be present all at once, or there is no function for evolution to work with.

even six proteins would not be enough to carry on metabolism to keep the minimal cell alive ---and yet, experimental evidence (from actual proteins analyzed) confirms that the chance of one functional protein assembling by random processes, is one chance out of 10 (to the power of) 65, ...and, thus, the chance of two functional proteins occurring together at the same time and in the same place would be one chance out of 10 (to the power of) 130 (the product of 1065 times itself).

one chance out of 10 (to the power of) 125 is our "Cosmic Limit of Chance" which we calculated. Therefore, even with all the time and matter in the universe since the Big Bang, there is a zero probability that even two properly functional proteins could assemble beside each other in the same place by random processes of chance in nature ...and this is only two proteins of the minimum 100 proteins required for the most basic life-form conceivable.

Not even the smallest bacteriophage codes for only two proteins ...but still, even it could not assemble by random processes.

other information-rich structures in microbiology, which are "irreducibly complex." These could not have (as Darwin said) "been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications", because all of the parts of the system must necessarily be present to have any function for evolutionary selective advantage to take place.

such microbiological structures as the cilium and the flagellum. With regard to our proof of the high improbability of the random assembly of proteins, consider that a cilium is made of more than 200 different kinds of proteins, and if only 5% of those proteins have evolved, the cilium is non-functional (and, thus, not selected for by evolutionary natural selection). How did the first 5 or 10 of those 200 necessary proteins develop correctly in the direction of cilium construction, if even the first two proteins have a zero chance of random assembly in all the time and matter in the universe?

As another example, a "minimal" flagellum, requiring about 6 different proteins for it's construction, would be (by definition) irreducibly complex ---and if even one of those 6 proteins were missing, there would be no function. How did the complex specified information in the DNA initially arise in order to specify the building of the very first cilium or flagellum?


Therefore, in light of overwhelming evidence, random "trial and error" searching would fail to originate any significant amount of complex specified biological information ...and if random processes did not accomplish it, then the only other logical possibility, is non-random activity. In the same way, if un-guided assembly fails to initially originate information, then the only other logical possibility, is guided assembly.


Obviously, if we are looking at "non-random" and "guided" assembly, then this would be the intentional and willfully directed action of an intelligence. Complex specified biological information must be the result of intelligent design. This is a logical scientific conclusion ...even though empirical science does not (so far as we know) help us to determine the identity of the designer(s) in nature.


Michael Denton (an evolutionist at the time) wrote: "If complex computer programs cannot be changed by random mechanisms, then surely the same must apply to the genetic programmes of living organisms. The fact that systems in every way analogous to living organisms cannot undergo evolution by pure trial and error and that their functional distribution invariably conforms to an improbable discontinuum comes, in my opinion, very close to a formal disproof of the whole Darwinian paradigm of nature. By what strange capacity do living organisms defy the laws of chance which are apparently obeyed by all analogous complex systems?"



You've been using some pretty stupid arguments to try and debunk us (the evolution supporting team), such as that we "evolved from rocks," which is nothing more than a very poorly crafted stawman argument, which radiates of ignorance in the subject.


Yes - arguements, not 100% irrefutable facts which I can attest to the above analysis of proteins to, yet, I see no difference with the defence of your belief of human evolution, which is as much an indoctrination as.. Christianity.


Before I say this, I was going to warn you at the start of the debate not to muddle intelligent design with a judea christian creationist perspective, I said this and you didnt listen.


Its your mistake, your going to have to deal with it and learn for the next time you face a debate with a crea-evolutionist (yes I know, I made that word up).


Okay, say for arguements sake I am a complete non believer of evolution, yes thats right, I believe that the tigers we see today are the same tigers you would find millions of years ago, and the same with all other animals, I also do not believe we can change, my son will be exactly the same as me, and so on throughout the next million years nothing genetically will change whatsoever.


Say I believe this...

Now I want you to disprove intelligent design with evolution, considering that the forumula of evolution could not possibly rule out an intelligent designer as the creater of this matter "which evolves".


Do it, because you think im such a profound evolutionist, disprove my "creationist views".


What you fail to understand is that science teachers are very old, often they are screwed up with the stereotype of creationism VS evolution, which was basically two doctrines (The Bible VS The origin of species).


But thats the context your mind is in, your not thinking about evolution VS intelligent design because you wouldnt keep muddling up religion in here so much (like Imitator does), but I dont blame you or him/her?, its a social stereotype for evolutionists to literally "hate" the idea of the existence of a "creator", but evolution does nothing but abogenisis to explain other than ID how life arrived here, let alone the possibility of a creator... (BANG!!!! I BET YOUR MIND THOUGHT OF RELIGION WHEN I SAID THAT LAST WORD)


Creator. because yes, if we are to believe in an intelligent designer he has to be a caucasian man with a white beard holding some kind of book saying Bible.


:thumbsup:



By the justice system

And what about the countries that dont have a "justice system"?

:wtf:

Or are they not evolved enough?

:wtf:

Didnt you read the part when I said that the "justice system" only deals with a very very small percentage of crimes?

:wtf:

Because im sure EVERY girl/women or man/boy who is abused/raped sexually will ALWAYS go to the "Justice system" and the criminal will ALWAYS BE CAUGHT.

If this is so...

Then why does America have the highest rate of rape on earth?

They are the ones with a justice system, the most probably the advanced on earth.

Why do Islamic countries have a significantly lower rate of rape as opposed to America?

:wtf:

mfqr, you keep replying back to this post and making a complete idiot of yourself, do you enjoy it?


Negatives? It smells bad and it's unsanitary. Moral negatives? None.

Yes it does have negatives, it does not have to be exactly related to the example of evolution, but I could use another analogy which would suit your oh so accurate requirements.

Because if my memory serves correct you are clearly a master on analogies, ones you yourself cant even understand lol.

Okay, lets use, totalitarianism:D, there are positives of this system being it would create a more secure state and increase the speed of decision making etc.. But there are a few lol moral negatives lol, I hope this is good enough of an example.

Because do you think if we actually taught this in our schools and not looked at the negatives, would you recommend that?

Would you?

Donâ??t try and refute my previous example of SHIT, your attempts are just parallel to the content of the example, clearly if I held you down and suffocated you in shit there would be moral issues which must be addressed in the classroom lol.

:thumbsup:

Some websites with more info if you want to learn something

Your giving me links to creation science and how to disprove it, im talking about intelligent design here.

How on earth can you, with your vast degree of evidence behind evolution even think of ruling out intelligent design?

An intelligent designer could have intervened at certain stages of evolution, an intelligent designer could have created the force of evolution.

Why do we have the belief in schools that this is not so?

Because orthodox evolution has a stereotypical nature about it that it feels anything to do with intelligent design would prove correct the long arduoous battle and debate over 100 years between evolution and Judea christian creationism.

Do not mix the two, im no christian, jew or muslim and I could believe in intelligent design.

My beliefs in intelligent design would attract the amazing nature and open thinking of evolution, and many other theories, the ability to disprove intelligent design will in itself bring answers and create other posibilities. A staggeringly profound theory to develop and imploy ALONGSIDE intelligent design and evolution.

This is all I ask.


So that's Transitional fossils and Speciation debunked - NEXT!

How about intelligent design? :thumbsup:

Good luck.


The rest of your comments and attacks on Biology are pretty idiotic imho. Let's not forget this is the same biology that brought you antibiotics (saved my bacon before!) and as for no evidence of speciation - there are loads:

I find this very interesting, the fact that "intelligent scietific" people are always quick to look down on religious people and say.

"Why do you always come to the hospital when you are ill? Why not the Church?"

Which is a fair point, but dont forget, what doctors say when they cannot save a patient lol.

And also, "in the Quran" *sigh* (I hate doing this), it actually says, literally, if you are ill, then go to a hospital!!!!

Go to a specialist!!!





I think everyone, while growing up, has the option to decide between creationism, evolution, or whatever theory they can imagine about how we came to be.

So why on earth are you here discussing this with me? Your actually agreeing with the initial comments I made and the whole purpose of this debate and at the same time, your trying to debate soemthing - a reason or cause that simply does not exist.

Yes they should be given the other viable options, the educational system is known to completley dismiss any claims of intelligent design, a monkey knows this, everyone knows this why are you still questioning my motives here?

If you stood up in a classroom and proposed that "God" or an intelligent designer put us here you would be brandished a 'fundamentalist christian' - pertaining perfectly to the ignorance you yourself are in.

You are one of the many people who would brandish that person a fundamentalist chrsitian.

But firstly disporve God, firstly disporve creationism and prove evolution in our story and the comming of existence of life is true in terms of darwinist evolution


No, you havent, not once. You bring up aliens, but be serious here, what created the aliens if aliens created us and this world?

Thats not an invalid question yet my motives for bringing up aliens was to prove that yes there exists a realm of thought of creationism or intelligent design without the earthly view of religion.

We do not know whom could have created these aliens but to think that ID is completely irrelevent and not a viable option which also could be considered is absurd.


You arent taking this serious, you are inserting words into my mouth as well. Not once have I implied that I thought ID was going to replace anything, ever.

I am trying to help you undertstand that creationism or intelligent design can co-exist with the theory of evolution, abogenesis itself does not invalidate ID because who created the rock?

Clearly I am addressing the stereotype schools have fallen into of their thoughts of intelligent design being something to be laughed at, and yes people do stereotypically relate ID to religion which causes their "laughter" being that they "feel" religion is so wrong, that ID is also "AS" wrong.


But its not, it is just as viable, this is all I have been saying throughout the posts, that they should offer evolution as not an absoloute (which they do).

How do you teach ID in schools without involving a religion?

If aliens are the answer, what created the aliens?

This discussion
(I am not debating with you) is an example of how powerful the use of words can be, when you say "teach" ID in schools I have no correlation or parralel opinion with you.

Teaching is different to the consideration element of ID, the fact that ID is completely removed from the system of education is "teaching" that yes what we have here in terms of a viable theory(evolution) is what "is" true and it "will" be proven to be a fact and thus a law of science.

No, clearly science should not live in the premise that something is true and simply assume that it will be proven to be the correct theory.

Evolution by no means as has been said before discredit ID, evolution describes the process of life not the initial creation of it.

I do not disagree with evolution but I disagree with the fact that schools must choose one theory over the other beacuse of the FEAR that creationism will incorporate too much religion.

You cannot assume it will, I know a many of creationists who have no correlation with the teachings and doctrines of any religion.

This is why I am saying your basing your conclusion of the reasons why creationism cannot be "considered" in schools upon a stereotype of the nature of the consideration.

If no religion ever existed, ever, would we never ever have thought of the possibility that an almighty being created us?


SO... you think that its not right that they only teach evolution in schools, and you want ID to be a viable option, but you have no desire for it to be taught from schools? What is the point of this entire discussion if you feel no need for it to be taught in schools?

Well, personally you have agreed with me about this all along, and this is my only point, it has only ever been my point, if you go back to my first post I literally say that creationism should not be "taught" as if it is the truth yet it should be considered a viable option as to how we came about.

There were other people who posted and commented on how evolutionists do not go about questioning their own beliefs which leads me to the emphasis of the paradox they reside in when they laugh at creationism being taught as a "truth".

Which is something I do not and never did agree with.


I mispelled a word, get over yourself. You knew what I meant, deitistic, you know, from teh base word deity? The fact that you would latch onto a mispelling via transposition of an I and an E really

I hate to do this, but the word you originally meant "deitistic" is not actually a word in the english dictionary and thus a word you have made up.

A bit like another guy made up a word "factualize" in another thread.

By all means nobody is perfect, you are free to scroll my posts and find numerous spelling errors, I make them, but I try my hardest not to, especially when it comes to making up words.

I am not trying to "get to you", if I was to do this I would use different methods and in actual fact - you are one of the many people on this post who is actually agreeing with me, there is a very small minority of "evolutionists" who fail to agree with me.

Like I said, you claim to be a philospher. Surely above this school of thought is to question everything, even your own actions, lol even the fact that you are questioning.

This is all im saying, what on earth there is to debate about I do not know.

There can only be a debate if one brandishes me a creationist and argues the actual validity of the theory with their own theory (which happens to be evolution).

This cannot be done, only singular narrow minded paths will colide.


Just like the law of gravity.... wait, that's a theory, yet scientists use it many ways, like putting up satellites in the earth's orbit.

Thank you for giving me an example of a theory which has been taken to the lengths of actual universal law and fact - im not shocked by you telling me gravity is a theory.

I know this, and I also wont be shocked in50 years time when you tell me evolution is actually a theory, everyone else may be, but they are living in ignorance if evolution is still lacking its numeroous vital pieces of evidence.

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is â??universal.â?� Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, â??the moon goes around the earth.â?�

If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.

The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's â??gravityâ?� were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time?


Gravity is only a theory kids, and so is evolution!


Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.


There are numerous other flaws. For example, astronomers, who seem to have a fetish for gravity, tell us that the moon rotates on its axis but at the same time it always presents the same face to the earth.

This is patently absurd.

Moreover, if gravity were working on the early earth, then earth would have been bombarded out of existence by falling asteroids, meteors, comets, and other space junk.


Furthermore, gravity theory suggests that the planets have been moving in orderly orbits for millions and millions of years, which wholly contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Since everything in the Universe tends to disorder according to the 2nd Law, orderly orbits are impossible.

This cannot be resolved by pointing to the huge outpouring of energy from the sun. In fact, it is known that the flux of photons from the sun and the â??solar windâ?� actually tends to push earth away

I think we have grasped the fact that evolution is a theory, and so is intelligent design and so is gravity.

So why are we still teaching gravity in schools?

There are numerous other theories we can teach besides gravity believe it or not.

For example, the observed behavior of the earth revolving around the sun can be perfectly explained if the sun has a net positive charge and the planets have a net negative charge, since opposite charges attract and the force is an inverse-square law, exactly as the increasingly discredited Theory of Gravity.

Physics and chemistry texts emphasize that this is the explanation for electrons going around the nucleus, so if it works for atoms, why not for the solar system? The answer is simple: scientific orthodoxy.

So yes, hardcore thank you for bringing up the issue of the theory of gravity, because it really is another example of the plain ignorance of the educational system by not looking at other theories.

Why do you play into the hands with so much trust the educational system? Do you seriously think that there is no hidden agenda and cencorship of information within the educational system?

Research on a guy called Norman Dodd who exposed the cencorship of education in America. Then come back to me with the same trust you place within the educational system.

The US Patent Office has never issued a patent for anti-gravity. Why is this? According to natural law and homeopathy, everything exists in opposites: good-evil; grace-sin; positive charges-negative charges; north poles-south poles; good vibes-bad vibes; etc. We know there are anti-evolutionists, so why not anti-gravitationalists?

It is clearly a matter of the scientific establishment elite protecting their own. Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peer-reviewed journals, and scientists who propose anti-gravity quickly lose their funding. Universal gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing.

So once again newbie, thanks for bringing up gravity!

:thumbsup:


Just like the law of gravity.... wait, that's a theory, yet scientists use it many ways,

Wow great observation, what this has to do with the fact that intelligent design should be just as viable as evolution I have no idea.

Infact hardcore newbie, I have a few questions for you.

Are you an evolutionist?

Do you completley disagree with the theory that there just might have been an intelligent designer?


Come again? Where did I say evolution was stupid?

You didnt, I dont think you quite got me here so ill elaborate, astrology may be deemed stupid by "some" people because it just isnt based upon proof and evidence.

So some people may make the relation of evolution being just as stupid for the fact that it too is based upon no evidence, the way you percieve the theory is up to you, you may think jumping off a 100 story building and dieing from the collision as an absurd theory.

There is little evidence to prove its absurdity yet there is little evidence to prove that we evolved from apes, I was just making a religion to the two theories evolution and astrology.

so evolution = astrology.

Creationism = Astrology

Questioning everything and considering every angle = common sense


Evolution = Astronomy = Apples

Why? Because the theory is founded upon such a high degree of certainty - by you?

I think you should re-examine your 'evidence' and realise the one thing that modren scientists are also realising, the more fossils that are being found in Africa are actually pointing toward co existence rather the orthadox theory of evolution.

Co existence is another theory which goes against the orthodox theory of evolution.


The positions of the stars is only obvious because of the related science we use to deduce them, the same as evolution is obvious because of the related science we use to deduce it

The meaning of the word deduce is to form an opinion from a solid base of fact.

Do you think the opinion that we evolved from apes is based upon solid fact?

Why do you keep rambling on about the positions of the stars? The fact remains that the two (astrology and evolution) are related due to the fact that neither can be proven to any certainty to call it a universal law of science.


So we'd just bounce away the light that helps us with vitamin D.

No, your talking about devolution.

Evolution would not take away elements we would need to survive, because it then defies the point in evolving, you donâ??t evolve and become a less adaptable being.

Its called natural selection, select the bits we need and throw away the ones we dont.

The sun is also not the only element to provide us with vitamin D food sources of vitamin D are milk and other dairy products fortified with vitamin D. Vitamin D is also found in oily fish (e.g., herring, salmon and sardines) as well as in cod liver oil.


We're a species of comfort. We wore animal furs for a long time to keep us comfortable. Why would we magically acquire fur if we keep wearing other animal's skins?

So why did these people in very cold climates lose their fur to begin with?

Is it because they felt it more efficient and better having to go out, kill animals clean the fur and animal and wear the coat over their natural body hair? Thus natural selection felt this a better option as oppose to simply "growing a permanent coat".

Like I said this kind of talking does envoke the possibility of co existence.

So evolution lost the fur and decided Debenhamsâ??s would be a better option for these 'primitive' beings.


yet we wear a shirt or sweater to keep us more comfortable. We have no need for fur.

Fur would fluctuate in its tenacity according to the outside conditions, it would literally keep you warm as well as cool.


Snow reflects a lot more sunlight than soil.

So when you go skiing you wont get a tan because the snow reflects light (NEVER AT YOU) but always away back into the atmosphere.

You have to be literally in an area covered with soil to have any effect from the sun on your skin? I mean, me putting mylar in a grow room wont help, lets all take newbies advice and cover the walls in soil.

Increase light efficiency.:D

The way you term evolution - and the evolution you are talking about its just "change", why dont you just use this term instead of darwinist evolution and natural selection in our story?


Do your research more thoroughly as this is a typical error that creationists might make

Read this carefully, because sometimes it really does take the use of different fonts, bold and colours to make people understand.

I AM NOT A CREATIONIST


It's nice when debate moves forward, agreed, but sometimes that doesn't happen. But, when someone has a viewpoint that you feel is flawed

In what way can you call the viewpoint that intelligent design should not be ruled out as flawed? Evolution does not even rebuke intelligent design.


SO... you think that its not right that they only teach evolution in schools, and you want ID to be a viable option, but you have no desire for it to be taught from schools? What is the point of this entire discussion if you feel no need for it to be taught in schools?

Terrible point, your statements are so vague and fruitless, what on earth do you not seem to understand about the difference between 'considering' and 'ruling out', against the actual teaching of the theory?

Have I once said that I want intelligent design "taught" in classrooms?

What you fail to reason with is the assumption that the origins of man are very simple, they are not! The origins of man can be a combination of both evolutionary action and intelligent design.

If you actually look into the evidence for evolution on a macro evolutionary scale you will see a picture which supports co existence against the entire theory of orthodox evolution which is commonly taught in schools.

This teaching thus places an impression of the non existence of an intelligent designer, this is not true, we need to make realise that intelligent design could and possibly does stand above evolution or "change".


Or is it that you honestly cant think of a way to full explain all life that exists in this universe without the use of a god(s) or abiogenesis?

I donâ??t think anyone can accurately explain how life actually got here and not delve into theories, I only ask that schools consider one other theory, intelligent design.

:thumbsup:


Because I find this remarkable if you spent all this time arguing how much of a viable option ID is, and how its not right that schools dont teach both

Wrong again, do you ever get tired of being so wrong?

Let me explain, *sigh* the orthodox theory of evolution remains a mystery when concerning our coming to existence, this orthodox theory which is stereotypically known as being the orthodox science class lecture in schools.

This theory I speak of does not in anyway support the possibility of an intelligent designer, it would support other theories such as abogenisis, evolution does not (and you know this is true) support the possibility of a God creating us.

This stereotypical belief comes from the fact that there is such past history of conflict between Judea christian creationists and evolutionists.

Thus the orthodox theory of evolution is commonly known not to support the possibility of an intelligent designer, more that of life from non-life (Abogenisis) technically, evolution explains the actions of this life, and does not explain how life arrived here.

So once we get past this stereotype, we can incorporate the possibility and respect for the theory of intelligent design into our science lectures

Do I sound like a Judea Christian Creationist to you?


and then have you say that you dont really want it taught in schools, just .. you know... subconciously transmitted to these students so that they know its a viable option without ever mentioning it in the classes in any way.

Did I say this? Or are you just making up stories again to support you.

Its always good to create your own enemy, you can create their weaknesses, their strengths and most importantly their comments, its easy to do these kinds of things while you are stoned.

Im thread this debate does not welcome stoned thoughts and actions so try and keep these actions away from here before you spoil the body of the debate.

You lose credibility.


Why are you showing so many examples of things that you think prove that evolution isn't real, at the same time as saying you're not trying to disprove evolution?

What so someone cannot discuss certain questionable factors about the theory without being completely against it?

So if I question gravity that makes me completely against the theory?

Your not making any sense, the reason you yourself moved away from religion was because you questioned it, you didnt have to question it and move away you could have stayed with the theory, but you chose not to, so why question me when I question everything?

Im getting sick of having to deal with ignorance like this.


I'm not sure if this whole education thing is worth arguing over since any creationist christian teacher (at least the ones I've had) will only touch on evolution enough to satisfy higher ups.

What donâ??t you understand about the possibility of both factors being involved with our existence?

I mean, how on earth can you claim a rule by which you ONLY teach evolution OR intelligent design?

We live in a hypocritical world in terms of education, and a stereotypical one which believes that if you teach evolution then there is no chance for you to even have the belief of an intelligent designer, if I created a species the best method would probably be for me to adapt this being arounds its habitat being that it will have to survive on its own.

Have you ever seen a game called "spore"?

Bit like that, if you created a business, you would not create one which is 'product led' you would create one which is 'market led', so it can adapt to its environment and survive.

So how can you believe in the complete teaching of evolution and at the same time say, intelligent design should be ruled out, the real explanation is actually abogenisis, no god, no intelligent designer, this is not how it happened.

But we did evolve from apes lol.


So, there's a partial list of transitional fossils.

Some websites with more info if you want to learn something
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Resource of the American Scientific Affiliation: Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record by Keith B. Miller
On Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils"


Well if you actually look at all of the evidence for evolution, the reason it does not rule out any other theory apart from the possibility of us simply evolving from one mammal to the other is that the stack of evidence SO FAR points more in favour of 'co existence' as oppose to the orthodox theory of evolution.

This takes me all the way back to what I said at the beginning of the post, which is in schools they should at least give children the option of an intelligent designer creating everything, they should not hold such a strong belief in the religion of orthodox evolution as they do.

Because even modern scientists are succumbing to the possibility and the likelihood of co existence THE MORE EVIDENCE THEY FIND.

So, 50 years from now when there is proof without a doubt that it was actually co existence, what are we going to think of our teachers and educational system who showed "one true path of evolution and ruled out everything else?".

This is why the orthodox theory of evolution is good at explaining how low life forms can move into higher life forms more fit for survival yet the great mystery surrounding evolution is in our own peculiar story.

And it remains a mystery, your lists of fossils, and your evidence does not even point to evolution, your own evidence is going against you according to modern scientists.


Intelligent design cannot be taught as science because it is not based on the scientific method.

I never said "teach" it, read again the posts and understand from the beginning before making assumptions.


Science procedes by systematically making measurements and observations. Objective measurements and observations are called "facts" --- they do not include any explanation of why or how something occurs, they are only measurements of what did occur.

What if your scientific evidence and all of your evolution evidence actually in the end supports intelligent design?

What if?

As I have said before, dont rule out intelligent design :D

You could be wrong.


Besides, why can't we have a creator AND evolution - I don't really see them in complete opposition at all. OK it's not my personal conviction but what the hell.

Yeah, why not?


In all honesty I imagine we are the product of a universe learning about itself - from Hydrogen to self-awareness in 20 billion years - but that has NOTHING to do with evolution.

And of course this means that there is NO intelligent designer.


Evolution is just part of that amazing process of nature.

Nobody is denying this, but the creation of nature is a question I say we hold with us.


It is real natural and completely normal - no magic, faith or "belief" required

To not believe the previous theory (ID) is a belief in itself.


Icarus, you are full of sh*t.

Theres no point debating with dummies like you. Its religion thats held humanity back for centuries.

Im guessing you havenâ??t read anything in terms of the content of this post, you simply arrived here and stereotyped the opponents into their categories, and made your opinionated, fruitless, sanctimoniously idiotic offensive remark.

Besides the fact that I believe in no religious movement, I suggest you show a certain deal of respect to those that do, for your belief of "truths" are probably as fruitless as theirs.

Nobody is asking you to debate here, nobody even asked you to come here, you came of your own accord and made a statements based upon no facts or evidence or even common sense, so I wont call it an opinion, because sometimes opinions have common sense.

Ill just call it the product of an opinionated child like creature.

Please, if you ever learn anything from this thread.

Its that you should evolve and stop acting like a monkey.

You fail to understand that it was not literally religion which was MOST to blame for the ignorance of the dark ages, but it was more the act of the ignorance of pertaining to one doctrine of belief as oppose to questioning and thinking openly.

I see no difference in the educational system besides the fact they believe they are following the illusion of questioning everything by implementing nothing but the theory of evolution as an absolute - how can this be so? How can you implement nothing but (what you believe to be) an absolute as the true doctrine of belief and thus at the same time claim you are questioning every angle.

Its the old fact of the person who claims the misery of someone else is due to karmic repercussion, well, that person should apply the rules to themselves also.

I am no believer of religion I see it fit to categorize me all you wish however, you are free to do so.

I am by no means saying evolution is incorrect, I am a profound proponent of evolution yet above this is the belief in questioning everything, this is science in conjunction with philosophy - not mythological teachings such as God, or a cow God.

I will gladly criticize intelligent design theories, but I cant come here and agree with every single one of you evolutionists.

There are a substantial degree of obvious flaws in the theory of intelligent design.


True, that would make everything easier, and the arguments would stop. But I guess most people rule it out because they have the idea that if there was a creator he/she/it would skip the whole evlolutionary process

Well to be honest ill give you my personal views on this, and I seriously think we are breaching too far on stereotype between the two theories and the relationship between them, creationism has a known history of religious relation and is often used almost always by a religious person to offer an appearance that he/she and the theory has a conceptual grasp of science and that creationism and the bible (what Iâ??ve been calling the "Judea Christian Creationist perspective) does not contradict science.

The level of relationship between the thinking of creationism and religion is so intense that people will always refer to intelligent design as some kind of religious belief. But what about when you mention aliens or some other kind of being creating or even intervening in our path of evolution? That does not bring thoughts of religion.

This is why I stress that religion and ID should not be so heavily based upon the stereotype that the both cannot exist apart and that they are 2 from one.

This is possibly the reason why orthodox evolution (in the classroom) dismisses any kind of external intelligent designer, because it is based upon the stereotype that any talk of an intelligent designer brings in christian creationists and the Vatican, "we've been argueing with them for 100 years now and we have found fossils so they were wrong, evolution is right and there is no intelligent designer".

This is the attitude, what is not realised is that evolution by no means dismisses intelligent design, so why on earth dismiss the possibility?

This is so hypocritical even when you think that these followers orthodox evolution have little evidence to say that we did actually evolve from this long line of animal traits.

Its simply one theory against the other, what makes people believe evolution is valid over the other is because they believe there HAS been fossil discovery of other beings such as homo habilis etc, yet this evidence does and still does not prove evolution.

It actually points to other new theories such as co existence.

So this is why I ask that the attitude in school teaching be changed and a more considerate, rational view of intelligent design be taken into account.


Evolution = Astronomy = Apples

Newbie you dropped yourself in it here, I mean, with this silly equation your showing that orthodox human evolution (the one which says we evolved from rats into monkeys into humans etc etc) is as obvious as the existence of apples.

EVOLUTION = APPLES

what?

Do you understand now? After 5 posts of discussing this?

Do you get it?

This is your forumla and I have used it against you, I cant wait to see how you dig yourself out of this one.

Oh and remember, I by no means disagree with the theory of evolution OR intelligent design, I simply wish to look at every angle and every question which can possibly be asked to be asked.

This is all.

I dont see the point in any of you (Imitator, Delta, Newbie and others who clearly have not read the entire thread) actually argueing with me as if I am some creationist christian.

;)

[imitator]

Icarus, it is apparent you have misjudged something here, because I have not once viewed you as anything other then what you are debating right now. You have stated numerous times that you are not a creationist, and I have no reason to not believe you.

Just the same as I think you misjudge my standpoint. I havent once argued that ID shouldnt be something taught to children in schools as a possibility, I just dont see how its viable to do so in any meaningful manner if its going to be non religion based, which it has to be in this country for public schools to teach it.

ID and Evolution do not remove the ability for the other to exist, and I dont know of too many people in these thread who have tried to claim otherwise, most certainly not myself if nothing else.

As a philosopher, as I have said before, I believe above all else that everything should be taught to our youth, to give them the chance to learn to judge for themselves, and develop them in ways that is not possible if they are not exposed to everything.

The problem is, in my mind, that there isnt a viable way to teach creationism in the public school system without involving religion. And I see it as doing no good to state that something should be a viable option shown to children alongside the other theories, if there is no attempt to do something about it, or figure out a way for it to work. I apologize, but it seems like nothing more then idle chatter, which is a shame because its a valid point, at least in my eyes, and something deserving of figuring out a solution.

You speak of wanting to look at every angle and every question, well I think this is a valid one, and one that I would love to engage you in... the question being how is it possible to teach this to children without involving any specific religion? We both agree that they should be shown every angle possible, but the how... thats the important part, thats the part that we should be focusing on, because if we can figure that out, we have figured out a way to do the very thing we are saying should be done.

[Delta9 UK]

Damn you are Stupid at times

I said (and I quote)

Do your research more thoroughly as this is a typical error that creationists might make

Think about that - I said it was an error that a creationist might make - YOU made the error - let that one sink in. I didn't say you were a creationist - I just said you are making the same mistakes.

Think More - Post less.

I'm not arguing with you as a creationist - I'm arguing with you as someone who doesn't understand science. This you have unfortunately made rather clear - hence the responses you get.

Seriously this is getting lame - I don't even think YOU know what you are arguing about anymore.

If you are going to ignore the VAST mountain of evidence then you are a completely impossible to debate with and rather boorish.

[Delta9 UK]

Plus you need better sources than this :: Mathematical Proof of Intelligent Design in Nature (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/mathproofcreat.html)


Quoting from "creationost" literature hardly helps - *lol* added for shits and giggles

[Delta9 UK]

I would address your points in tun but it seems, well, a bit pointless.

You don't actually seem to want to argue the merits (or otherwise) of evolution because either -

A. You lack the technical ability and understanding of the topic
or
B. You have already made up your mind

To be honest if A or B is true then this whole "debate" is utterly pointless.

ID has no evidence - is NOT science and should not be taught in school as science. Sorted!, we can all go home now and roll a joint.

Well, if I had some weed I could - but thats another story ;) I'm not attacking you Fallen_Icarus - understand though that I AM attacking your ideas, and I will continue to do so.

If I see BS I WILL call it.

Now, about my appendix....

[Fallen_Icarus]

Icarus, it is apparent you have misjudged something here, because I have not once viewed you as anything other then what you are debating right now. You have stated numerous times that you are not a creationist, and I have no reason to not believe you.

Wrong, again I ask you to actually read the entire thread with respect to the items I have discussed, I also state how little evidence or any at all ID is based upon.

Just because I question evolution, which is as viable as questioning anything does not make me a creationist, I could believe in co existence or any other theories out there.

Why must I be categorized either a creationist or an evolutionist? Cant you understand that maybe just maybe the entire story of our existence is a mix of both theories?

This is all I am saying, im sorry to reveal to you that you have been looking for a fight, I said this earlier on.


Just the same as I think you misjudge my standpoint. I havent once argued that ID shouldnt be something taught to children in schools as a possibility, I just dont see how its viable to do so in any meaningful manner

I never said, once that ID should be literally "taught" to children.


ID and Evolution do not remove the ability for the other to exist

I have covered this point in my previous point about stereotypes and educational systems of science, please read it.


The problem is, in my mind, that there isnt a viable way to teach creationism in the public school system without involving religion.

I did not say we must teach creationism, I never said this, the missunderstanding has been on your part im afraid to say, but this is also covered in my previous post.

Please read it.


Plus you need better sources than this :: Mathematical Proof of Intelligent Design in Nature

Im not trying to literally "prove" intelligent design with these sources, I am no believer of ID, im just saying... oh forget it, I give up trying to get through to you delta.


Quoting from "creationost" literature hardly helps - *lol* added for shits and giggles

I only presume you are being offensive to me lol.


the question being how is it possible to teach this to children without involving any specific religion?

Incase you did not understand my previous post I was talking mostly about the points you are making here based upon stereotype view of creationism being always a theory which incorporates religion..


thats the important part, thats the part that we should be focusing on, because if we can figure that out, we have figured out a way to do the very thing we are saying should be done.

Im not saying we should "teach" ID lol.


Think about that - I said it was an error that a creationist might make - YOU made the error - let that one sink in. I didn't say you were a creationist - I just said you are making the same mistakes.

Think More - Post less.

My understanding was correct, the reason I said "I am not a creationist" (pardon for being so blunt) was because a CREATIONIST MADE THEM STATEMENTS.

Just because I posted them does not mean that I agree with them 100% or even the slightest bit, this is the core of the "debate" - that there is no debate, I do not agree with creationism, I neither agree with evolution I simply say we should rule NEITHER OUT.


I'm not arguing with you as a creationist - I'm arguing with you as someone who doesn't understand science. This you have unfortunately made rather clear - hence the responses you get.

Seriously this is getting lame - I don't even think YOU know what you are arguing about anymore.

If you are going to ignore the VAST mountain of evidence then you are a completely impossible to debate with and rather boorish.

Okay, so you state that there is a vast degree of evidence for evolution, right, what are you trying to achieve by telling me this? That evolution is true?

When did I say evolution was not true?

And how on earth does this mean we should rule out intelligent design?

Think about that, and also think about, when you say I have no undertsanding of the subject of evolution (that is personal) when you yourself look at the evidence, when YOU look at the evidence you will be suprised to find that scientists EDUCATED scientists are starting to point to CO EXISTENCE as opposed to THE ORTHODOX THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

And yes, it is personal when you assume people have no understanding about subjects, next time you go to your bank and ask for financial advice, and they tell you - you are stupid and have no understanding of finance (which may be true) try telling yourself that they are not launching a personal attack.


You don't actually seem to want to argue the merits (or otherwise) of evolution because either

I said this from the beginning, that I did not want a debate, why would I when i neither agree with either theory?

Or do we HAVE to have a debate about the two theories?


Plus you need better sources than this :: Mathematical Proof of Intelligent Design in Nature


Quoting from "creationost" literature hardly helps - *lol* added for shits and giggles

I actually did say in the previous post that the source I used had a substantial level of flaws to it.

But my reasons for putting it out was that, yes we should question theories such as evolution (like this one does).


I'm not attacking you Fallen_Icarus - understand though that I AM attacking your ideas,

Your not attacking "my ideas", your attacking other peoples ideas lol.

Your attacking creationists and the authors of such material such as "mathematical proof for intelligent design".

Which is clearly NOT TRUE because ID is still not an absolute.

So I think you've got it wrong there, your not attacking my ideas.

If you were to attack my ideas, you would attack the idea that we should be open minded and question every theory even the new co existence theory put forward from significant evidence of evolution, and evolution itself, and even.. GRAVITY!

I also think we should not rule anything out (Intelligent design) until we know for sure it is not true.

So what ideas of MINE are you attacking?



So what am I debating about you ask?

IM NOT, I did not come here for a debate, people suddenly jumped in with ignorant moronic presumptions that I want creationism literally TAUGHT in schools.

Im sorry if you've wasted your time, but I guess you'll learn not to prejudge and presume so much in the future.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Just a request from you bro, can you quote people properly? It's hard to dissect a long long post and make sure to reply to all the point directed at me without clear indicators. Not that it's impossible, it's just difficult, we don't all have super memory like you.



Yes it does have negatives, it does not have to be exactly related to the example of evolution, but I could use another analogy which would suit your oh so accurate requirements.
I already willingly pointed out a few negatives of shit, I was agreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that there are no moral negatives associated with it.


Because if my memory serves correct you are clearly a master on analogies, ones you yourself cant even understand lol.

Okay, lets use, totalitarianism:D, there are positives of this system being it would create a more secure state and increase the speed of decision making etc.. But there are a few lol moral negatives lol, I hope this is good enough of an example.

Because do you think if we actually taught this in our schools and not looked at the negatives, would you recommend that?
There are moral negatives with Totalitarianism. Of course they should be taught.



Donâ??t try and refute my previous example of SHIT, your attempts are just parallel to the content of the example, clearly if I held you down and suffocated you in shit there would be moral issues which must be addressed in the classroom lol.
Correct, moral issues with your behaviour. You could use any instrument of suffocation you'd like, like bubble wrap, eggs and bacon, a grocery bag... whatever you'd like. It reflects badly on you, not the instrument of suffocation.



Your giving me links to creation science and how to disprove it, im talking about intelligent design here.

How on earth can you, with your vast degree of evidence behind evolution even think of ruling out intelligent design?
I am not and cannot rule out ID. I sent you the link because there was simple information on evolution there, not specifically for the creationist parts.


An intelligent designer could have intervened at certain stages of evolution, an intelligent designer could have created the force of evolution.

Why do we have the belief in schools that this is not so?
In philosophy class, this is fine. would have/could haves are common place. In science class, we use evidence. Even in things that aren't proven, they give a laymen theory and they show the evidence pointing toward that theory, and generally point out why it's not an actual scientific theory as of yet.


My beliefs in intelligent design would attract the amazing nature and open thinking of evolution, and many other theories, the ability to disprove intelligent design will in itself bring answers and create other posibilities. A staggeringly profound theory to develop and imploy ALONGSIDE intelligent design and evolution.

This is all I ask.
If we want to teach ID alongside science, we need proof of it, that's all I ask.



First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is â??universal.â?� Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, â??the moon goes around the earth.â?�
This of course, is correct in it's first statement. No one's measured gravity for every atom.

Case in point, Newton vs Einstein. Newton proposed his theory, which was tested, and fit into all measurable instances. Einstein proposed his theory, which put newton's to rest, because of Einstein, which tested in different way, like near light speed.

Gravity is real, the theory on how it works may change if there is conflicting information that can be tested. Infact, Newton was so close that NASA still uses Newton's theory in it's equations because there's no point in using Einstein's theory, as they won't be put in a situation where it deviates more than and insignificant amount.


If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
Really? Only if you ignore distance. Weird how they use the theory of gravity, amongst other things, to keep over 2000 man made satellites in orbit.


The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's â??gravityâ?� were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time?

Gravity is only a theory kids, and so is evolution!

Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.Do you ever actually look into the things you assume are false? Is this how you assume scientists talk?

Sci1: Well, maybe the moon pulls the water using gravity, thus making tides
Sci2: What about the fact that there are two tides for every one revolution of the moon?
Sci1: Fuck it, no one will ever know!

"The tidal force and is responsible for the is a secondary effect of the force of gravitytides. It arises because the gravitational field is not constant across a body's diameter."

Tidal force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force)


There are numerous other flaws. For example, astronomers, who seem to have a fetish for gravity, tell us that the moon rotates on its axis but at the same time it always presents the same face to the earth.

This is patently absurd.
How so? If the moon only revolves once every time it makes a revolution, rotating in the correct direction, then that's what happens.

Do you have any alternate theories that have proof?


Moreover, if gravity were working on the early earth, then earth would have been bombarded out of existence by falling asteroids, meteors, comets, and other space junk.
Care to elaborate on why?


Furthermore, gravity theory suggests that the planets have been moving in orderly orbits for millions and millions of years, which wholly contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Since everything in the Universe tends to disorder according to the 2nd Law, orderly orbits are impossible.
For someone who isn't a creationist, you sure like to use their arguments.

" Disorder and entropy are not the same. The second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy, not disorder (although disorder defined to apply to microscopic states can be relevant to thermodynamics). There are no laws about disorder as people normally use the word."

CF001.1: Disorder by neglect (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_1.html)


I think we have grasped the fact that evolution is a theory, and so is intelligent design and so is gravity.
No, we haven't. Only in your head have we equated them.



For example, the observed behavior of the earth revolving around the sun can be perfectly explained if the sun has a net positive charge and the planets have a net negative charge, since opposite charges attract and the force is an inverse-square law, exactly as the increasingly discredited Theory of Gravity
We already use the inverse-square law to describe how how gravity works, it's just used differently than the theory you're proposing to me.

If these charges are actually measurable, then it'd be worth looking into. But then if this is so, the sun has a positive charge, the planets a negative charge, do satellites such as the moon have a positive charge as well? How about man made satellites? What about man made satellites that have orbited around both the moon and the earth? An accommodating charge with no observable intervention?


Physics and chemistry texts emphasize that this is the explanation for electrons going around the nucleus, so if it works for atoms, why not for the solar system? The answer is simple: scientific orthodoxy.
Because regardless of what your girlfriend tells you, size matters. (...and electric charges too).


So yes, hardcore thank you for bringing up the issue of the theory of gravity, because it really is another example of the plain ignorance of the educational system by not looking at other theories.
No problem. Oh wait...


Why do you play into the hands with so much trust the educational system? Do you seriously think that there is no hidden agenda and cencorship of information within the educational system?
Yeah, I see corruption, they're trying to make ID a scientific study!

They don't teach the bad effects of pot in science class, they teach it in phys ed, at least where I'm from. I trust science a lot more than our schools.


Research on a guy called Norman Dodd who exposed the cencorship of education in America. Then come back to me with the same trust you place within the educational system.
Always willing to research.




The US Patent Office has never issued a patent for anti-gravity. Why is this? According to natural law and homeopathy, everything exists in opposites: good-evil; grace-sin; positive charges-negative charges; north poles-south poles; good vibes-bad vibes; etc. We know there are anti-evolutionists, so why not anti-gravitationalists?
Homeopathy? And which (or whose) definition of natural law are you using?



It is clearly a matter of the scientific establishment elite protecting their own. Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peer-reviewed journals, and scientists who propose anti-gravity quickly lose their funding. Universal gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing.
Probably because they're using flawed science, just as any ID study will lose it's funding, because they're not operating on proof.


Wow great observation, what this has to do with the fact that intelligent design should be just as viable as evolution I have no idea.
Because you keep stating the equivalent of the arguement "since evolution is only a theory" shows that you have no understanding of what theory means in regards to science.



Infact hardcore newbie, I have a few questions for you.

Are you an evolutionist?

Do you completley disagree with the theory that there just might have been an intelligent designer?
By evolutionist, you mean someone who believes that the process of evolution is real and observable? yes.

And of course it's impossible to rule out an intelligent designer. Just because I'm not ruling it out, that doesn't mean I believe it, or that it is 'just as viable' as things with proof.

-------------------------------------------------

Anyways, my friend has just arrived so I'll answer the rest of your post when I get time. I'm telling you this so you don't preempt me with questions in bold asking why I didn't answer the rest of your post.

[Canadian_Cron]

Religion, in all respects, is also a theory...a theory that many logical minded people have faith in, just like evolution. If this is a supposed reason for allowing evolution to be discussed in the classroom, then religion should also be allowed the same courtesy. Neither are infallible, and each are supported by people with strong views on the subject matter at hand...regardless of the fact that it's all hypothetical anyway. For this reason, either both should be discussed with unbiased neutrality, or neither should be discussed at all. You can't simply choose one over the other because a theory seems more logical, while in fact, the theory is unsupported by any real 'scientific' conclusions. This was the basis of the original argument, yet many of those who've responded did so to attempt to support their own personal conclusions. Even though none of said conclusions were backed up by any scientific fact whatsoever. You can't support an idea by conjecture alone...that's biased. You can only present your views, then have the courtesy to let others do the same...and eventually agree that none of the conclusions are any more relevant than the other in the eyes of the person you're debating with.


I disagree... religion is a faith not a theory... a theory and faith are similar but not the same. you follow a faith, its more like a lifestyle, its not a theory. you'll never see people that belive in evolution or gravity for example saying things like dont steal, comit murder, comit adultry, partake in magic tricks, fortune telling, sex before marriage, masturbation etc.

believeing in a theory doesnt have conditions, beliveing in a faith does.

[Hardcore Newbie]

So some people may make the relation of evolution being just as stupid for the fact that it too is based upon no evidence, the way you percieve the theory is up to you, you may think jumping off a 100 story building and dieing from the collision as an absurd theory.
Evolution is built upon evidence. You clearly show that you don't know what evolution is when you refer to lack of interspecies breeding to be a hinder to evolution, nor the need for dogs to have monkeys. Evolution does not claim those things for it to work. If evolution did claim those things, then yes, it'd be a layman's theory, because there's no proof for this.



There is little evidence to prove its absurdity yet there is little evidence to prove that we evolved from apes, I was just making a religion to the two theories evolution and astrology.

so evolution = astrology.
When you learn what evolution means, you won't make these kinds of assumptions.


Creationism = Astrology

Questioning everything and considering every angle = common sense
Why not consider it? There's nothing wrong with considering things but science that is taught in class rooms shouldn't be based on suppositions.


Why? Because the theory is founded upon such a high degree of certainty - by you? You quote this again, later, and actually make points.

Send me the link to the study please, sounds interesting.


The meaning of the word deduce is to form an opinion from a solid base of fact.

Do you think the opinion that we evolved from apes is based upon solid fact?
From what I've read, we have a common ancestor with apes, if that's what you mean. I think this is based on solid fact, yes.


Why do you keep rambling on about the positions of the stars? The fact remains that the two (astrology and evolution) are related due to the fact that neither can be proven to any certainty to call it a universal law of science.
Clearly you're not accepting any proof whatsoever.


No, your talking about devolution.

Evolution would not take away elements we would need to survive, because it then defies the point in evolving, you donâ??t evolve and become a less adaptable being.

Its called natural selection, select the bits we need and throw away the ones we dont.
I mentioned it because you brought up silver reflective skin, a detriment. Adapting silver skin would be devolution.


The sun is also not the only element to provide us with vitamin D food sources of vitamin D are milk and other dairy products fortified with vitamin D. Vitamin D is also found in oily fish (e.g., herring, salmon and sardines) as well as in cod liver oil.
There are plenty of ways we can get Vitamin D, but whatever condition (I don't know what kind of fish were around wherever we evolved) we got the sun to help us with our vitamin D.


So why did these people in very cold climates lose their fur to begin with?
Because our species originated in Africa.


Is it because they felt it more efficient and better having to go out, kill animals clean the fur and animal and wear the coat over their natural body hair? Thus natural selection felt this a better option as oppose to simply "growing a permanent coat".
The easiest explanation (tho I actually haven't looked into how fast and far on the timescale man emigrated from africa, so bear with me) is that man was smart enough to do it, so we did it. If you move a lot further north, are you going not wear fur so that you can hopefully evolve with it some unknown amount of generations? No, you're going to wear fur because you're cold. If man weren't smart enough to get into those regions, man wouldn't be there.



Fur would fluctuate in its tenacity according to the outside conditions, it would literally keep you warm as well as cool.
But too warm for our situation in africa.


So when you go skiing you wont get a tan because the snow reflects light (NEVER AT YOU) but always away back into the atmosphere.
It's also possible that they haven't been there very long.


You have to be literally in an area covered with soil to have any effect from the sun on your skin? I mean, me putting mylar in a grow room wont help, lets all take newbies advice and cover the walls in soil.

Increase light efficiency.:D
The "more" was an understatement. Snow reflects lots. Soil reflects little to none.


The way you term evolution - and the evolution you are talking about its just "change", why dont you just use this term instead of darwinist evolution and natural selection in our story?
Evolve sounds better to us egotistically because we see ourselves as the pinnacle of evolution. "Change" would mean that we're on an equal level with all the other animals and plants and organisms today. Who said scientists can't be egotistical?


Read this carefully, because sometimes it really does take the use of different fonts, bold and colours to make people understand.

I AM NOT A CREATIONIST
No one ever calls you a creationist except people who aren't actually involved the whole way through the discussion.


In what way can you call the viewpoint that intelligent design should not be ruled out as flawed? Evolution does not even rebuke intelligent design.
Nothing ever rules out ID. Just because it can't be ruled out, doesn't mean it should be considered as viable as evolution. One has proof (evolution or "change") and one is just a supposition.



What if your scientific evidence and all of your evolution evidence actually in the end supports intelligent design?

What if?

As I have said before, dont rule out intelligent design :D

You could be wrong.
If there was evidence, then it would no longer be nothing more than a supposition. But there's not.



The level of relationship between the thinking of creationism and religion is so intense that people will always refer to intelligent design as some kind of religious belief. But what about when you mention aliens or some other kind of being creating or even intervening in our path of evolution? That does not bring thoughts of religion.
When you mention aliens, you're just supposing. Coulda been boogy men, coulda been elves, coulda been magic, coulda been ghosts. Why mention the alternatives when they offer no more proof than any religion?



Newbie you dropped yourself in it here, I mean, with this silly equation your showing that orthodox human evolution (the one which says we evolved from rats into monkeys into humans etc etc) is as obvious as the existence of apples.

EVOLUTION = APPLES

what?

Do you understand now? After 5 posts of discussing this?

Do you get it?

This is your forumla and I have used it against you, I cant wait to see how you dig yourself out of this one.
We didn't evolve from monkeys. seriously. they were ape-like ancestors. There's nothing to dig out of because that equation needs to be juxtaposed with it's corresponding derivations.

Evolution is to eugenics as
Apples are to space alien ghost apple monsters

that's what the equal sign means. there's nothing to dig out of.


Oh and remember, I by no means disagree with the theory of evolution OR intelligent design, I simply wish to look at every angle and every question which can possibly be asked to be asked.

This is all.
I listen to any idea, but then I'll ask for the proof.

Questions.

Do you believe in evolution?
Do you believe in ID?
If you do believe in ID, do you make any personal suppositions?
If you were to explain ID as it relates to "how we got here", what would you say?




I dont see the point in any of you (Imitator, Delta, Newbie and others who clearly have not read the entire thread) actually argueing with me as if I am some creationist christian.

;)
Read it a few times now. No one that you mentioned is calling you a creationist, we're just saying that your arguments greatly resemble a creationist arguments. "Like" is not analogous to "equal", like means "Similar but different"

[Hardcore Newbie]

CreationismBothTheories on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/52819048@N00/1460412074/)

let's teach all of the theories!

[Delta9 UK]

Think about that, and also think about, when you say I have no undertsanding of the subject of evolution (that is personal) when you yourself look at the evidence, when YOU look at the evidence you will be suprised to find that scientists EDUCATED scientists are starting to point to CO EXISTENCE as opposed to THE ORTHODOX THEORY OF EVOLUTION.


Are you serious? You mean the "idea" that we co-existed with Dinosaurs? That theory of co-existence?

I mean, really?

You surely don't mean this load of bunk?
Implications of Dino-human coexistence: EVOLUTION OBLITERATED!!! (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-human-coexistence-implications.htm)

I'm sorry if you took offence at my posts but I take offence at your constant goal-post shifting, your hilarious attacks on well grounded scientific theories and your use of bold text in an attempt to somehow hammer home your various and rather dubious points.

Slowly we are (sort of) getting to the bottom of what I think your point is - BUT - you cloud everything by jetting off in different topic directions, only to change direction again when one angle gets shot down in flames.

Also you continually use Creationist source material and copy-paste it into the thread - then complain that you are being called a creationist (which you are NOT) even though you continually cite their pseudoscientific sources.

Sources like this:
Top Ten Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution Is Wrong, False and Impossible. (http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm)

[BeforeYourTime]

Icarus, if you don't believe in evolution then God is making a monkey out of you.
Blind faith only leads to war.

[dragonrider]

It seems like the thread may have gotten a little off track with different poeple debating the relative merits of the theory of evolution and other theories, and having fun poking holes in each other's arguments.

My take on "Some front line views of the war against God," is that the discussion topic started out being about the video trailer in the first post and about how Ben Stein and other intelligent design proponents feel persecuted because they feel questioning Darwinism can damage their careers. Without actually seeing Ben Stein's Expelled movie, I can't be sure, but I think it is probably about whether or not intelligent design should be taught as an alternative to evolutionary theory in science classes in US public schools. This has been an ongoing battle in the US public school system for years, with proponents of creationism and intelligent design attempting to get their alternative explanations added to the public school curriculum, or to have the limitations of Darwinism taught.

My feeling is that this conflict should be more accurately called "The war against Science," rather than "The war against God."

Unless you believe in the literal truth of the creation story in the Bible, science and religion are not in conflict. If you believe that God literally created the universe in 6 days about 6000 years ago, then there is a conflict. But otherwise, the two are not in conflict. Science does not attempt to address the ultimate cause for existence. An intelligent person can accept the scientific theories for cosmology and evolution and still believe in God as the ultimate creator --- many scientists do believe. Likewise, an intelligent person can accept those scientific theories and not believe in God or a creator --- many scientists do not believe. God is outside the realm of science.

Science addresses observable, measureable phenomena and then attempts to explain the physical mechanisms of how those phenomena occur. In the case of evolution, science observes the phenomenon of the diversity of species in different geographical locations and at different times in the fossil record and proposes a physical mechanism for how that diversity occured over time. Science sticks to the physical phenomena and the physical mechanism --- it does not address whether the phenomenon is part of "God's plan" or ultimately driven by a creator or designer that is not part of the physical phenomenon under consideration. That is a matter of faith, not science. If you choose to believe that there is a supernatural force, creator, God, designer or whatever you want to call it, that is your business, but if it cannot be physically observed or measured, science cannot address it one way or another.

It is an assault on science to try to insert any kind of unobservable or unmeasurable force as the mechanism whereby phenomena occur. Most assaults on evolution take the form of finding a phenomenon that is not adequately explained by the theory and then saying it cannot be attributed to a purely physical mechanism, so it must be due to an intelligent designer, a creator, a God, or other unmeasurable force. For example, a critic of evolution might point to a gap in the fossil record and say that because there are not transition species between two species in the fossil record, the proposed mechanism of evolution cannot explain how one turned into the other, then they mght propose that a designer was required to make the transition. Or the critic might point to a complex biological structure and say that it is too complex to have been the result of the proposed mechanism of evolution, so it must have been createed by a designer. Scientifically, that approach does not work. The honest scientific answer to these kinds of criticism is that the theory of evolution is consistent with many observed phenomena, so it is given a lot of scientific weight, but it does not yet provide all explanations for all the observed phenomena. More scientific investigation is required to complete the theory. In the case of the missing transition species and complex structures, maybe more fossil transition species will be found, or maybe the future understanding of how genetics works will show that transition species are not always necessary --- it may be possible that evolution procedes by leaps sometimes, and there is a physical mechanism for such leaps. Science always provides that theory can be modified as new facts come to light. Science always provides that theories are not necessarily complete.

One of the things that I object to in the Ben Stein video trailer is the claim that questioning Darwinism is a career killer. That is not so. Any scientific theory can be questioned, as long as it is questioned in a scientific way. For example, it is scientifically fine to point to the examples I mentioned earlier, the gaps in the fossil record and the complex biological structures, and say, "I question whether Darwinism's natural selection or genetic mutation can account for these phenomena." No one can be criticised for pointing out the shortcomings of the current theory, and no one's career should suffer for doing so. But it is not scientifically OK to say that these phenomena are due to a designer or creator, or God without proposing a scientific way to investigate the designer or creator, or God. To do so is an assualt on science, and if that person's career is in science or involved with teaching science in school, then it is appropriate that their career suffer.

It seems to me that the people who like to frame this debate as a "War on God," like to take the position that they are somehow persecuted victims. I don't buy that at all. I saw a poll recently in which some huge fraction of Americans do not believe in evolution. I don't remember the exact statistics, but to me it was alarming. Creationists and proponents of intelligent design are not victims and do have a large following in this country.

In some ways, I think it is not really all that important to day-to-day life whether a person believes in evolution or not, but evolution is not strictly an academic question. Some of us do need to understand evolution, because evolution does affect our daily lives. There is no way to understand the emergence of new strains of drug-resistant germs or pesticide-resistant insects than by understanding the physical mechanisms of evolution. I do not personally believe that there is an intelligent designer out there who is working to overcome our antibiotics and insecticides.

[Mr. Clandestine]

I disagree... religion is a faith not a theory... a theory and faith are similar but not the same. you follow a faith, its more like a lifestyle, its not a theory. you'll never see people that believe in evolution or gravity for example saying things like don't steal, commit murder, commit adultery, partake in magic tricks, fortune telling, sex before marriage, masturbation etc.

believing in a theory doesn't have conditions, beliving in a faith does.

Here are just a few definitions of 'theory':

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

3. a belief, policy, or procedure proposed as the basis of a specific action:

4. an ideal or hypothetical set of principles, or circumstances - often used in the phrase "in theory..."

Used in this fashion, many atheists would probably consider organized religion a theory, as opposed to a faith. One definition of faith is simply - confidence or trust in a person or thing. So, with that in mind, I'll still stand by my statement.

As for your deductive reasoning about evolutionists, I'm sure there are plenty of them who say 'don't steal, commit murder, commit adultery, partake in magic tricks, fortune telling, sex before marriage, masturbation etc'. This has more to do with standard morals and ethics, than it does with the teaching of a religion alone. Well, except for the sex before marriage/masturbation part. That's predominantly a Christian set of morals, I believe. But, even then, I'm sure there are plenty of folks who abstain from sex before marriage so that they'll savor the experience more when it finally does happen. :wtf:

And there are plenty of conditions necessary for one to believe in a theory. Even though parts of it may not be backed up by actual fact, it still has to be compelling enough for someone to believe that it may be true. I'd say that the concept of eternity and divine salvation are pretty compelling to most people...even though they cannot be properly explained, and are difficult to grasp. You're right that 'theory' and 'faith' have separate definitions, but in this case, they can still coexist in the same sentence!

It may just be that there are more conditions necessary for a person to believe in a faith...however much sense that makes.

[Gundari]

The government runs the schools.
Church and State are seperate.

Nuff' said.

[Mr. Clandestine]

There is no way to understand the emergence of new strains of drug-resistant germs or pesticide-resistant insects than by understanding the physical mechanisms of evolution.

Microevolution isn't debated by most creationists. This is a perfect example of microevolution, where certain changes tend to evolve within a species. I'm a creationist, and I won't deny it...but even I will admit that mutations are possible within a species. But I have a hard time believing in macroevolution when all of the transitional fossils that you speak of are nowhere to be found. Even though they're supposed to be everywhere. Darwin even stated that in order for his theory to be proven scientifically, there would need to be proof in these transitional fossils. So, why are we unable to find any? I find it hard to consider this science when the definition supposedly is the systemic knowledge of a matter, based around what is gained from experimentation & observation.

Nevermind that, why am I ridiculed for believing what I do when there's this huge flaw in the theory that humans evolved from lower primates? It's a nice theory, yes...but, then again, so is the theory that we are created in God's image. It's hard, as a person of faith, to honestly believe that my Lord was an orangutan God before he evolved into a God in human form!

[BeforeYourTime]

It's hard, as a person of faith, to honestly believe that my Lord was an orangutan God before he evolved into a God in human form!

There is no God, its a figment of your imagination, just like the countless other Gods invented by man. Gods invented long before Christianity existed.
The Bible is an adaptation of ancient astrology, surrounded by myth, rewritten several times to fit in with current morals and thought. Written as a system of control to gain power over the people. "Believe in God and do as we say, or you will burn forever" " The bible is true because it says so."
Tell me, how can a God invented by man exist anywhere other than our imaginations?
Anyone who believes in God is weak minded, or simply stupid, and is living wrapped up in an outdated lie.

Can a Christian explain why and how these Gods,to name but a few, are fake? And where is your scientific proof?

The Gods

* Aken Ferryman of the Underworld
* Aker Guardian and Gatekeeper of the Underworld
* Am-Heh - Devourer of Millions
* Ament Greeter of the Dead
* Ammit Devourer of the Wicked
* Amun and Amun-Re The King of the Gods
* Anat Mother of Gods
* Andjety A precursor of Osiris
* Anqet The Embracer, Goddess of Fertility and the Nile at Aswan
* Anubis God of Embalming
* Anuke Goddess of War
* Anuket Goddess of the Nile
* Apep The Great Destroyer
* Arensnuphis Anthropomorphic Nubian Deity
* As Kindly God of the Desert
* Astarte, Warrior Goddess of Canaan
* Aten The Sun Disk and later God
* Atum The All-Father
* Auf (Efu Ra) An aspect of the sun god Ra
* Baal, God of Thunder
* Ba-Pef - The Soul
* Babi - The Dominant Male Baboon God
* Banebdjetet God of Lower Egypt
* Bast Beautiful Cat-Goddess
* Bat - Ancient Cow Goddess
* Benu (Bennu) - The Bird of Creation
* Bes Protector of Childbirth
* Dedwen - Nubian God of Resources
* Denwen - The Fiery Serpent
* The Ennead The Nine Great Osirian Gods
* Fetket - The Sun God's Butler
* Geb God of the Earth
* Gengen Wer - The Great Honker
* Hapi God of the Nile River
* Hathor Goddess of Music and Dance
* Hatmehyt - The Fish Goddess
* Haurun, The Victorious Herdsman
* Heh and Hauhet Deities of Infinity and Eternity
* Heqet Frog Goddess
* Heret-Kau - She who is Above the Spirits
* Heryshef, Ruler of the Riverbanks
* Heset Goddess of Plenty
* Hetepes-Sekhus - An Eye of Re
* Hike God of Magic and Medicine
* Horus King of the Gods on Earth
* Hu God of the Spoken Word
* Iabet, Cleanser of Re, Personification of the East
* Ihy - The Child God
* Imhotep Lord of Science and Thought
* Ipy (Opet), A Mother of Osiris
* Isis Queen of the Gods
* Iusaas - Creator Goddess
* Kabechet Helper of Anubis
* Kek and Kauket, Deities of Darkness, Obscurity and Night
* Khenmu The Great Potter
* Kherty - Ram-headed God
* Kephri The Great Scarab
* Khonsu God of the Moon
* Maat Lady of Truth and Order
* Mafdet Goddess of Scorpions and Snakes
* Mahaf - The Ferryman
* Mahes The Lord of the Massacre
* Male Child Gods of Egypt
* Mandulis - The Lower Nubian Sun God
* Mehen Defender of the Sun Boat
* Mehet-Weret - Cow Goddess of the Sky
* Menhit Lion-headed War Goddess
* Mertseger Guardian of the Valley of the Kings
* Meskhenet - Goddess of Childbrith
* Mihos - Son of Bastet
* Min God of Fertility
* Montu, Warrior and Solar God
* Mut Grandmother of the Gods
* Nefertem Lord of the Sunrise
* Nehebkau, the God who Joined the Ka to the Body
* Nekhbet Goddess of the Power of Kings
* Neith Goddess of War and Funerals
* Nephthys Lady of the Wings
* Nun and Naunet Gods of Chaos and Water
* Nut Goddess of the Firmament
* The Ogdoad The Primordial Creation Gods
* Onuris The War God
* Osiris Lord of the Dead
* Pakhet The Strength of Woman
* Panebtawy - The Child God
* Peteese and Pihor - Brother Gods
* Ptah The Creator
* Qadesh - Goddess of Esctasy and Sexual Pleasure
* Re (Ra) The Sun God
* Renenutet Goddess of the Harvest
* Reshep - The Syrian War God
* Sah and Sopdet (Sothis) The Astral God and Goddess
* Satet Goddess of the Inundation
* Satis Guardian of the Borders
* Sebiumeker - Meroitic God of Procreation
* Sefkhet-Abwy - Goddess of Writing and Temple Libraries
* Seker The Resurrected Osiris
* Sekhmet The Eye of Ra
* Sepa - Centipede God
* Serapis the Composit God
* Serqet (Selkis) Scorpion Goddess
* Seshat Goddess of writing, measurements
* Set God of Evil
* Shay - Personified Destiny
* Shesmetet - Leonine Goddess
* Shesmu Demon god of the Win Press
* Shu God of the Air and Sky
* Sia - The Perceptive Mind
* Sobek Guard of the Gods
* Sons of Horus Gods of the Viscera and the Canopic Jars
* Sopedu - The Border Patrol God
* Ta-Bitjet - A Wife of Horus
* Tasenetnofret - The Good Sister
* Taweret Goddess Demoness of Birth
* Tayet - Goddess of Weaving
* Tefnut Goddess of Moisture
* Tatenen - "Father of Gods" and the God of the Rising Earth
* Thoth God of Wisdom
* Wadj Wer - The Pregnant God
* Wadjet The Serpent Goddess
* Weneg - Ancient Son of Re
* Wepwawet (Upuaut) The Opener of the Ways
* Wosret - Goddess of Thebes
* Yah - Another Moon God
* Yamm - God of the Sea

The truth is that Gods were invented to explain what was the unexplainable (astrology at the time ). The Christian God and Jesus were no different. Infact most Christian beliefs are stolen from ancient myths and astrology. Eg. Virgin Birth, 3 day resurrection, three kings, sun of god. etc.

Zeitgeist - The Movie, 2007 (http://zeitgeistmovie.com/)

[dragonrider]

But I have a hard time believing in macroevolution when all of the transitional fossils that you speak of are nowhere to be found. Even though they're supposed to be everywhere. Darwin even stated that in order for his theory to be proven scientifically, there would need to be proof in these transitional fossils. So, why are we unable to find any?

When Darwin first proposed his theory, he had no understanding of how genetics works. As we learn more about genetics, we begin to understand how a small genetic mutation can result in a huge change in the organism. There are certain genes that regulate the functions of other genes or multiple systems of genes. So it is possible that by having a mutation in one of the controller-type genes you could have what looks like a huge leap in evolution in a single generation. In that case, there would be no transition fossils between the two organisms. In Darwin's time, it was believed that evolution happened gradually, with transition organisms, but as the underlying mechanism is better understood, that is no longer believed to be always the case.

[dragonrider]

It's hard, as a person of faith, to honestly believe that my Lord was an orangutan God before he evolved into a God in human form!


* Babi - The Dominant Male Baboon God

Perhaps your God was a dominaant male baboon instead of an orangutan?

[FlyGuyOU]

yowzas.

[dragonrider]

Perhaps your God was a dominaant male baboon instead of an orangutan?

By the way, on the face of it, what I said was very disrespectful, and I want you to know I was just joking around!

I just kind of thought it was a funny connection...

[mfqr]

Again this is wrong and very offensive, what part of im neither a creationist or an evolutionist dont you understand?


I don't see how it is offensive, I was pointing out a simple thing, and meant no offensive by it. But if you want to take it as an offense, go ahead.



What part of, I dont wish to debate the validity of the two dont you understand?


Well, since you have corrected someone else's spelling mistake, I will tell you that the comma you placed was incorrect. I don't know what you mean by what you say, though. To me it seems that you are arguing that intelligent design is just as valid and viable as evolution. Is that arguing validity? You tell me...



What exactly do you believe I have a lack of understanding about?


Evolution.



The fact that the theory of evolution is just as valid as intelligent design when applying it to how we got here? How is this a lack of understanding?


I thought you weren't arguing the validity of the two? You're right, evolution doesn't explain how we got here. Then again, it doesn't really aim to explain that. It aims to explain how we became what we are, not how the first unicellular organisms appeared on Earth billions of years ago.



You are one of the many ignorant evolutionists whom ignore the possibility of their own theory being wrong, it could be that intelligent design is true.


Am I? I didn't know you knew me or my beliefs. I never said intelligent design is completely wrong, I simply said there's no evidence to back it up. It's possible, sure. If you look at this universe, anything is possible. You're pretty quick to judge, my friend.



What you fail to understand is the theory of evolution you always take into context as being so obvious is basic "change", thats it, just change, since when does intelligent design say things do not "change">?


That "basic change" is called adaptation, I believe.



How on earth can you proclaim change (your perception of evolution) as a figuehead belief over intelligent design.


Because intelligent design doesn't have any evidence to back it up, that's why. I've thought about it - about aliens possibly starting things up here... but is there evidence of this? No, so why would I sit here and claim it to be a viable option, when it's obviously not? It's possible, as anything is, but it's not something that needs to be taught in school.



Evolution explains how life changes, it does not explain how this life got here, of course you can live your life believing things "just happend".


You're right... it doesn't. Things do "just happen," if you didn't know. Believing that something "just happens" doesn't mean that one does not believe that there's a reason behind it.



So I suggest you put your thinking cap on and show respect to the people who actually question religion and the oppsing theories to religion and creationism, do not always intelink creationism and religion.


Then you should practice what you preach, because I do question religion, and opposing theories. But I would not hold it as a viable option over something that actually has evidence.



People have castigated me for interlinking abogenisis with evolution (even though they can be interlinked), peopel on this forum have also castigated me for interlinking eugenics with
darwinist evolution, when they are linked.


Sorry, but maybe you should take your own advice and think about your own beliefs as well. Perhaps it's possible that they are correct and you are wrong?



So why on earth do you have the right to continuously link religion with creationism?


Why do I have the right to link these things? Well, I have the right to say anything I please, as I have a mouth (or hands), and it allows me to say whatever I please. Creationism is used in religion, if you didn't know. You should be mad at religion for spoiling and tainting the "theory" that you are defending.



The two can exist apart.


Good. Then I guess there's no reason to argue about it, huh? Considering this, you're just trying to push your beliefs on others. Don't say you don't subscribe to these beliefs. I think you do believe the things you're saying, but you say you don't so that you can increase your credibility. Too bad you destroyed that possibility with arguments like "we didn't evolve from rocks."



Having evolution does not by any means rule out any intelligent designer, an intelligent designer could have intervened during the process of evolution and/or have begun the whole process of evolution, just because you do not have facts about this, does not mean you can blindly rule it out.


Good, then there's no reason for a debate. I have not blindly ruled out anything. I'm open to all possibilities, even the possibility of there being a God. However, I believe it's pretty improbable that there's a God. Thus, I do not subscribe to the belief. And not to mention that religion is corrupt, and thus I will not subject my mind to such mind-garbage.



What? Firstly, why on earth should evolution rule out creationism?


You're asking this question again? You just love going in circles, don't you? Where is that going to bring this debate, which should not be debated, because supposedly they can coexist, right?



This is the body of the debate, why should you who believes the 'evidence' of human evolution or macroevolution overwhelms the evidence for creationism should therefore create a rule by which we rule out the presence of some kind of creator.


Nope, never ruled out some kind of creator. Though, I see no evidence for it, and thus it's not a viable option. Get some evidence, then we'll talk, not argue.



Why should it create an attitude by which we 'laugh' at people who believe in intelligent design, like I said before, and I wont get offensive and stoop to your level, but you dont understand the simple fact that evolution just is not powerful enough a theory to explain exactly how life arrived here, it is not even intended to answer this question.


Trying to turn the tables around? I've seen you be offensive on here, so don't go telling me that I have been offensive - I have not been. Of course, you can perceive things any way you wish, but then I'm going to question your perception of reality. Do you have to reiterate the same thing over and over again? Of course evolution does not explain how life arrived here... I don't think anybody is arguing you on that matter. However, I believe the basic element of this whole thread is the validity of intelligent design... which you say you're not arguing about (even though I think it's pretty obvious you are).



Your perception of evolution being filled with such obvious truth is simple "change", nobody here is denying this, certainly not me, things do change over time, animals adapt to their environment, businesses adapt to changing consumer and market trends etc.


Animals adapt to their environment... and that is essentially natural selection, which is part of the theory of evolution. I don't think that anybody here claimed that evolution was cold, hard fact. But it is certainly a much more viable option than intelligent design.



We do evolve, we do change but you cannot apply this aspect of change to the theory that we evolved from apes (human evolution).


Says who, Ted Haggard? :eek:



Well its funny you should make this assumption, you honestly sound like a 40 year old man still living by Carl Sagans: The Cosmos.


Well it's funny that you should make that assumption. I've never heard of "Carl Sagans: The Cosmos."



I hate to shoot you to death with a dose of MODERN scientific thinking which actually does support the theory of intelligent design, even with evidence of evolution.


Well, I'm still here, alive and kickin'. Are you going to come up with anything other than criticism to try and make a good argument? Or are you going to sit here and make unsupported claims that have no place in science?



WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWHATTTT?????


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKAAYYYYY!!!!!!



Did you just hear me? I said evidence of evolution (transitional fossils actually does not rebuke intelligent design and actually could go to lengths at supporting intelligent design).


Show us these lengths at which it goes to, to support intelligent design. I'd love to see this.



There is fossil evidence found in east africa if I am correct which is challenging the entire theory of evolution, infact this fossil evidence claims an overlap of about 500,000 years of which the two homo habilis and homo erectus co existed in that area.


Source, please.

I'd love to sit here and spend 3 hours replying to your 3,283,298,139 character post, but you're starting to bore me with saying the same old things over and over again (rephrased, mind you).

[Delta9 UK]

But I have a hard time believing in macroevolution when all of the transitional fossils that you speak of are nowhere to be found. Even though they're supposed to be everywhere.


I posted a large list of these fossils here a few pages back:
http://boards.cannabis.com/spirituality/137156-some-front-line-views-war-against-god-4.html#post1694563

There are loads of them, the list I posted is not exhaustive.



Darwin even stated that in order for his theory to be proven scientifically, there would need to be proof in these transitional fossils. So, why are we unable to find any? I find it hard to consider this science when the definition supposedly is the systemic knowledge of a matter, based around what is gained from experimentation & observation.


The only group pretending that transitional fossils don't exist are creationists I'm afraid.



Nevermind that, why am I ridiculed for believing what I do when there's this huge flaw in the theory that humans evolved from lower primates? It's a nice theory, yes...but, then again, so is the theory that we are created in God's image. It's hard, as a person of faith, to honestly believe that my Lord was an orangutan God before he evolved into a God in human form!

There is no huge flaw, Macroevolution is just as real too - with plenty of evidence (see my other thread on the subject -
http://boards.cannabis.com/spirituality/130013-macroevolution-examples.html for more details) the problem is people - not evidence :( it seems that anything that doesn't work for creationists is attacked. e.g. Microevolution is OK but Macroevolution isn't.

Basically when creationists use "macroevolution" they mean "evolution which we object to on theological grounds", and by "microevolution" they mean "evolution we either cannot deny, or which is acceptable on theological grounds".

I hope no-one is ridiculed simply for believing something - the ridicule normally comes along when creationists use bad "science" to try and attack evolution.

I do hope that these debates somehow make some sense of what is a VERY complex topic (which is also not accessible to the majority of readers). I know I can get a bit hot under the collar myself in these threads so I'm sorry if any of this has gotten beyond simply stating facts.

[Mr. Clandestine]

There is no God, its a figment of your imagination, just like the countless other Gods invented by man.

Well, gee, now that you put it that way... :wtf:

So, that's it? I'm just supposed to take your word for it...and not bother questioning why I believe what I do? Who gave you the authority to disrespect me and countless other Christians by labeling us "stupid/weak minded"? Who made you God?

By the way, I've questioned my faith innumerous times...and still came to the same conclusion each time. It's much more comfortable for me to believe what I do, than it is for me to believe that snide, caustic little punks like you are right. What are you honestly expecting me to say? "You're right, I'm wrong...and it was just plain ignorant of me to stick by my beliefs."? Are you expecting me to feel ashamed, and live in regret for ever believing that I may have actually been right? Sorry, but your personal opinion on this matter means very little to me, as well as anyone else who's not afraid to stand up to arrogant people like yourself. Especially when the opinion is presented in such a rude and insincere fashion. Using your logic, I could just respond with, "There is a God...a Christian God, and He's not just a figment of my imagination, unlike the countless other gods invented by man.", and the justification would be all mine. Not that I would actually just tell you that out of the blue, because I pride myself on not being evangelistic, and pushing my beliefs on unsuspecting people.


Tell me, how can a God invented by man exist anywhere other than our imaginations?

No, you tell me how you know for an irrefutable fact that MY God was invented by man. Then I'll have the courtesy to respond to this pathetic and malicious inquiry.

As for your impressive little list of Egyptian mythological "gods"...I'm willing to bet that I could make an even longer list of mythological Greek gods, many of whom faded into obscurity in the hearts of the populace after a few hundred years, or less. Modern day Greeks and Egyptians view the followers of these gods as more akin to a cult, as opposed to an actual organized religion.

And you're the one who's ignorant of history if you're actually trying to convince me that Jesus Christ never walked on this earth in human form. Regardless of whether or not you believe Him to be the living Son of God. Maybe if you actually took the time to read up on some Roman history, you wouldn't look so foolish right now. You could start by researching right around the time that Roman procurator Pontius Pilate was in power, to...oh, say, around the time that the Romans crucified a man named Jesus in Palestine. This is the same time that (ironically) a man named "Jesus of Nazareth" is specifically mentioned...several times, and in the same context that the Bible speaks of Him. Labeled a blasphemer for claiming to be the Son of God, and eventually crucified for his crime. You also don't have to believe in His miracles, virgin-birth, resurrection, etc. I'm not trying to force you to do such a thing. Also, since much of the authoritative Roman texts aren't widely translated in the English language, you could also look up the works of these historians who lived right around the same time as Jesus: Tacitus (Annals XV.44), Lucian (On the Death of Peregrine), Thallus (as recorded by Julius Africanus, A.D. 221), Suetonius(Life of Claudius 25.4), Josephus(Antiquities XVIII.33; XX.9.1). You're not going to try and tell me that they never existed either, are you?

Now, please, in the future when you're attempting to belittle a Christian...at least have the courtesy to be courteous, and if at all possible, knowledgeable of the subject that you're trying to argue.

[Canadian_Cron]

Here are just a few definitions of 'theory':

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

3. a belief, policy, or procedure proposed as the basis of a specific action:

4. an ideal or hypothetical set of principles, or circumstances - often used in the phrase "in theory..."

Used in this fashion, many atheists would probably consider organized religion a theory, as opposed to a faith. One definition of faith is simply - confidence or trust in a person or thing. So, with that in mind, I'll still stand by my statement.

As for your deductive reasoning about evolutionists, I'm sure there are plenty of them who say 'don't steal, commit murder, commit adultery, partake in magic tricks, fortune telling, sex before marriage, masturbation etc'. This has more to do with standard morals and ethics, than it does with the teaching of a religion alone. Well, except for the sex before marriage/masturbation part. That's predominantly a Christian set of morals, I believe. But, even then, I'm sure there are plenty of folks who abstain from sex before marriage so that they'll savor the experience more when it finally does happen. :wtf:

And there are plenty of conditions necessary for one to believe in a theory. Even though parts of it may not be backed up by actual fact, it still has to be compelling enough for someone to believe that it may be true. I'd say that the concept of eternity and divine salvation are pretty compelling to most people...even though they cannot be properly explained, and are difficult to grasp. You're right that 'theory' and 'faith' have separate definitions, but in this case, they can still coexist in the same sentence!

It may just be that there are more conditions necessary for a person to believe in a faith...however much sense that makes.

no, in a theory u believe it or you dont. theres no other conditions involved you either believe that man evolved from the great apes or they didnt, end of story (no morals or ethics involved).

a faith/religion is much more complex than that. a faith has a bunch of moral values (ethics) attached to it. like the 10 comandments is the basic foundation of the christian faith along with the idea that god created the world and man. if you believe in that religion you will follow most of them (as well as other practises by the church) and also some practises and ethics that people who do not have that faith wouldnt normally follow.

and yes im sure that most people who arent religious dont comit murder and all that as well, but thats not beacuse of the ethics or morals that would be involved in the theory of evolution. they made those choices based on what they think not because the theory of evolution told them to, and thats one difference.

another difference is that a theory is not stated as a fact, and if you listen to any religion they're not like ok we think but were not 100% sure that god created the world... they state it as a fact that god did create man and the world.

theories are not stated as a fact, and they let you set you own morals and ethics, a faith or religion tells you what they are or should be and states their views as facts.

[Mr. Clandestine]

As we learn more about genetics, we begin to understand how a small genetic mutation can result in a huge change in the organism.

But, it still would not be feasible to assume that the species of the organism could ever be changed into an entirely difference species by a mutation, small or large. In this respect, I could also consider myself a scientist. Because until I see definitive proof that a horse managed to evolve into a cow due to a random genetic abnormality, and even then...see it replicated, I still find plenty of reason to doubt the authenticity of the theory.


By the way, on the face of it, what I said was very disrespectful, and I want you to know I was just joking around!

Don't worry about it. :thumbsup:

I knew you weren't trying to deliberately be offensive. In fact, as soon as I posted that little comment, I was just waiting for someone to come back with a similar quote! No harm done.

[Mr. Clandestine]

I posted a large list of these fossils here a few pages back:
http://boards.cannabis.com/spirituality/137156-some-front-line-views-war-against-god-4.html#post1694563
There are loads of them, the list I posted is not exhaustive.

I remember reading those, but I won't lie...I'm familiar with very few of the species in question. Certainly not familiar enough to pose any kind of rebuttal. But, from what I do know about the theory of macro-evolution, transitional fossils that definitively prove that a certain species evolved into a more complex animal are still undocumented. In order for the theory to be proven, there would need to be fossil discoveries that show gradual changes in the structure of the skeleton of the fossils. Hypothetically, scientists can speculate and artists can draw what these fossils should look like, but I'm still under the impression that these specific fossils have yet to be discovered.

Stephen Jay Gould, respected evolutionist and former paleontologist, once stated: "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

[BeforeYourTime]

To know that bacteria do evolve, yet deny evolution is the sign of a small narrow mind.

Evolution: Fact and Theory by Richard E. Lenski, Ph.D. (http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html)
HHMI News: Evolutions Mirror in a Fishs Spines (http://www.hhmi.org/news/kingsley3.html)
The Short Proof of Evolution (http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm)


In the end there can be only one answer.

God does NOT exist, never has , never will.
Carbon Dating has already proved this.
To deny carbon dating is to accept you are ignorant to the point of insanity.

[Delta9 UK]

I remember reading those, but I won't lie...I'm familiar with very few of the species in question.

That's totally understandable but certain ones are pretty famous - Archaeopteryx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx) for example is well known - and creationist even claim it is a hoax - all 11 of them ;)

Really though there are so many examples now that it isn't much of a debate within the mainstream scientific community.

But this is exactly what I mean when I say this topic is not really accessible to the general public - IMHO creationists in the media use this to their advantage.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Really though there are so many examples now that it isn't much of a debate within the mainstream scientific community.

But this is exactly what I mean when I say this topic is not really accessible to the general public - IMHO creationists in the media use this to their advantage.The media would have you believe that there is a huge debate on the validity of evolution, but there are very few scientists who are actually debating it, only people who havent even studied evolution are saying there should be a debate.

[greg23]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKAAYYYYY!!!!!!


He's got you there.

[Mr. Clandestine]

To know that bacteria do evolve, yet deny evolution is the sign of a small narrow mind.

Who here ever denied evolution? I certainly didn't, I only denied that the human species evolved from primates...and I did this because I haven't seen any irrefutable proof to prove otherwise. You obviously didn't read this thread, but just decided to jump in and run your mouth when you saw there was a Christian present. It's obvious you didn't even read my earlier response to your belligerent post to me. Which, in my opinion, is the sign of an arrogant mind and a narrow attention span.


God does NOT exist...Carbon Dating has already proved this.

:S2:

Are you really serious? It's painfully apparent that you didn't read my response now, because I specifically asked that you actually attempt to understand these desperate arguments you're trying to make!

Carbon-14 dating can only be used to provide a date for once living organisms, so...how exactly do you propose that it could manage to disprove the existence of an ethereal (and by your accounts, fictional) God? Carbon-14, or radiocarbon/radioisotope dating isn't even a precisely scientific method of dating living organisms...because in order for the methods to work, you also need to know how long the specimen has been dead. Carbon-14 is unstable and degrades over time, changing back into nitrogen...so, real scientists can only speculate how this would affect the accuracy of any readings. They claim to be able to determine an approximate age by making a hypothesis based around the half-life of the remaining organism. Is that too complex for you to wrap your little mind around? It's hypothetical...not undisputed fact. Nothing more, nothing less.

But wait, there's more! According to Don Batten, Ph.D.:

"The amount of cosmic rays penetrating Earthâ??s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore the dating system. The amount of cosmic rays varies with the sunâ??s activity and passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.

The strength of Earthâ??s magnetic field also affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere (with a stronger magnetic field, more cosmic rays are deflected away from Earth). Overall, the energy of Earthâ??s magnetic field has been decreasing, so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are."

I could go on to disprove this even further, but I'm almost certain that I've already lost your undivided attention. I'm sure you can't be bothered by listening to facts, and all...


To deny carbon dating is to accept you are ignorant to the point of insanity.

To believe that carbon dating is infallible would be to openly admit that you are a bumbling moron. And, sadly, an insanity plea won't excuse you from the fact that you're totally ignorant of the scientific methods you profess to know anything about.

[BeforeYourTime]

You are full of shit. You deny science.

Biblical age of earth 6000-10000 years.

Actual age several million - 100 million years.

Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth)
Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating)

There are 100s of Gods, older than the Christian God.
The bible has stolen most if not all of the events from the myths of these gods.

I asked a question concerning many of these gods earlier in the thread , why cant you answer it? What makes your god different?

God does not exist.

[BeforeYourTime]

Oh and i see where you got that info from .

LMFAO

ChristianAnswers.net.
How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods? - ChristianAnswers.Net (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html)

Using the Genesis Flood (noah) as proof????

Well hows that for a biased opinion. Man, you haven't even half a brain.

Heres another quote from the same page.
"Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood"

WTF so you are changing the bible(again)?????
Creationists are trying to use the same methods they are attacking to try to prove the date of a mythical flood 35000 years ago????????

[Mr. Clandestine]

You are full of shit. You deny science.

You make such a compelling & civil argument...

I never denied science, moron. Actually, I used science to benefit my argument, and discredit yours. But I didn't actually expect you to follow along, and see the point(s) that I made...you're to thick-skulled to do accomplish such a simple task.


Actual age several million - 100 million years.

...and you know this is the "actual age"...how, exactly? Because an evolutionary scientist told you so? Oh, wait...carbon dating, right? Did you know that the older an object is (such as dinosaur bones), the less amount of carbon-14 is still left in the specimen? Meaning, once again, that your carbon dating method would be even less accurate in determining the actual age of the species in question. In other words, the bones that were found that were estimated to be 700 zillion years old, could actually be only a few thousand years old. Otherwise, there'd be no more carbon-14 left in the specimen to analyze...giving it the physical properties of granite. And I'm sure you know that carbon dating only works on organisms that were once living...otherwise, you'd look like more of a fool than you probably are.


I asked a question concerning many of these gods earlier in the thread , why cant you answer it? What makes your god different?

I did answer your asinine question...you didn't listen, or didn't like what you heard.

My God has been worshiped for thousands of years. The gods that you posed were worshiped for hundreds, many were worshiped for even less. The Egyptians made up new gods every time they needed rain, or fertility in marriages, or a cure for an ailment, or more hair on their head, etc. The followers of these false gods are likened more to a cult, which gradually faded into obscurity, and were never considered an organized religion in the first place.

The same could be said about Greek gods, Anglo-Saxton gods, African gods, Mayan gods, and so forth. The difference between their gods, and my God? Mine is still being worshiped by a large population of the entire world, not just a specific region. And has been for thousands of years, not hundreds. There's your answer, highlighted in bolt for added effect (and to make sure I'm actually getting my point across), though I still don't see you fully understanding what I'm saying. Because it totally contradicts the weak point you were trying to make.


God does not exist.

That is a personal opinion. Thanks for sharing it with me. But, no offense, I really don't care at all about your personal opinions. I never asked for it, you simply felt compelled to give it. Now you can have it back, because it has done nothing to convince me that I'm wrong. Quite the opposite actually. Every time a belligerent jerk like yourself gets all bent out of shape because you'll never change my mind, it simply makes me understand why my God considers souls like you to be "lost". And regardless of whether or not it will do any good, I'll still say a small prayer for you.

...furthermore, I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. Otherwise, we'll end up bickering even more...and there's nothing productive in that at all.

[Mr. Clandestine]

Oh and i see where you got that info from .

LMFAO

ChristianAnswers.net.

Man! If you even had a tenth of a brain, you'd open your bloodshot eyes and see that I actually quoted my source! But, I don't expect you to retain information for longer than five minutes, so I'll show you again: Don Batten, Ph.D.

There you go, genius. A physiologist and research scientist, who also happens to be a *gasp* Christian. I know, I know...those don't exist. He's just a really good liar.


Using the Genesis Flood (noah) as proof????

Well hows that for a biased opinion.

Dude, I never even once mentioned Noah's flood in this entire thread! Are you hallucinating? You totally skim over everything I actually tell you, then make all kinds of weird suppositions about things I never even said! What in the world is wrong with you? Open your eyes! I'm responding to everything you have to say...you're just not happy because my responses aren't playing into the outcome you were expecting this conversation to have! Get over it! My feelings weren't hurt over this, yours shouldn't be either...especially to the point of telling flat-out lies about what I did or didn't say!

And every link you've posted to me has either been to an evolutionist website, or Wikipedia. So, your sources aren't exactly the most credible or unbiased, either!

Again, we're not going to reach a common ground here...and that's okay. I don't mind ending this conversation, here and now. But every time you decide you need to run your mouth about me (and what you thought I said), just know that I'll be around to shut it again for you.

[BeforeYourTime]

My God has been worshiped for thousands of years. The gods that you posed were worshiped for hundreds, many were worshiped for even less. The Egyptians made up new gods every time they needed rain, or fertility in marriages, or a cure for an ailment, or more hair on their head, etc. The followers of these false gods are likened more to a cult, which gradually faded into obscurity, and were never considered an organized religion in the first place.

The same could be said about Greek gods, Anglo-Saxton gods, African gods, Mayan gods, and so forth. The difference between their gods, and my God? Mine is still being worshiped by a large population of the entire world, not just a specific region. And has been for thousands of years, not hundreds. There's your answer, highlighted in bolt for added effect (and to make sure I'm actually getting my point across), though I still don't see you fully understanding what I'm saying. Because it totally contradicts the weak point you were trying to make.

Yup your definitely full of shit.
indiayogi.com - Indian Gods and Goddesses - Shiva - The Oldest God known to Mankind - Shiva,Shiv,Chidanandaroopa,Oldest God ,Yahweh,Rudra,Raudra Brahman,Nataraja,Lord Of Yoga, Mahadeva,Skanda,Tamil Nadu,Ayyapan,Kerala,Vedic Shiva ,Fire,Prajapati,Defe (http://www.indiayogi.com/content/indgods/shiva.asp)

Your telling me the ancient Egypt Gods were only worshiped for 100s of years........LOL ... LMFAO.
Gods and Mythology (Religion) of Ancient Egypt - Main Menu (http://www.touregypt.net/godsofegypt/index.htm)

And at the end of the day, the length of time you worship a god does not make a god any more credible. Every argument you make is flawed. These gods were worshiped long before Christianity was invented.

God does not exist.

[BeforeYourTime]

Dude, I never even once mentioned Noah's flood in this entire thread! Are you hallucinating?

Are You?
look on the page you found this biased info. just below where you quoted.
How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods? - ChristianAnswers.Net (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html)

or did YOU not read it all?

And how are Scientific websites and wiki not credible? Your stupidity precedes you.

God does not exist.

[Mr. Clandestine]

Yup your definitely full of shit.

Yup, you're clearly incapable of a coherent argument...especially without resorting to childish remarks!


Your telling me the ancient Egypt Gods were only worshiped for 100s of years........LOL ... LMFAO.

LOL........LMFAO.......that's exactly what I'm telling you, smart guy! Every time the Egyptians needed a new god to fulfill a new desire, other - and less consequential - gods fell by the wayside, and eventually faded into obscurity. I've said this three times now, and somehow I still don't think it's going to sink into your shallow skull! Could it be evolution that's causing me to develop these psychic abilities? L....O....L....

Here are a few quotes from a link you were so gracious to share with me:

"We must be careful when examining the ancient Egyptian religion. Though there was a considerable amount of consistency between various areas of Egypt and over the religion's long existence, there were significant variations and over time, changes in the theology."

"That theological discussions and probably discourse took place is almost certain, because the mythology of the religion evolved, becoming more complete, sophisticated and more complex over time." (By the addition of new gods showing up and old gods being forgotten frequently.)

"A number of attempts have been made to explain Egyptian religion in terms of monotheism, and certainly scholars of the nineteenth century, steeped in Christian tradition, tended to find traces of monotheism in Egyptian beliefs. The main evidence they sited was the anonymous "god" who the Egyptians referred to in literary and wisdom texts. Now, however, the anonymous god found in Egyptian texts is understood to represent a way of invoking any divine power emanating from any gods, or sometimes, a specific, assumed god worshiped by an individual or one in a specific region."

"However, several researchers have applied the concept of henotheism to Egyptian religion. This practice focuses on one god addressed in a particular time of worship. Essentially, henotheism is the belief in one god without denying the existence of others. The believer unites all known divine powers in his favorite god."

"Cults were the official structure used to worship the Egyptian gods. In regards to ancient Egypt, this structure included the priests who carried out rituals associated with the gods, who were frequently manifest in the form of statues, within the cult temples."

Sums up just about everything I said about them completely. Thank you for helping to prove my point. And nowhere in that little article did it state that Egyptians worshiped more than just a handful of gods for any extended period of time. In fact, it explains that most of the gods were only worshiped when circumstances dictated that they should be.

look on the page you found this biased info. just below where you quoted.

For the second, and last, time...this is not where I got my information. I paraphrased from...oh, forget it. Just see for yourself: http://www.answersingenesis.org/radio/pdf/carbondating.pdf

Now that you know where my source originated from, you can take your foot out of your mouth. So, to answer your question...No, I did not read it at all. Because my source came from elsewhere.


And how are Scientific websites and wiki not credible?

You're taking what I actually said out of context, again. Big shocker there. I said that evolutionist websites aren't exactly unbiased, and that Wikipedia isn't the most credible source. Read the disclaimer on Wikipedia if you don't believe me, it states something like: "Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Meaning, anyone can put blatantly objectionable material on there, and do so with little concern for ambiguous definitions or alternate meanings. You should know this, you quote it all the time...



God does not exist.

Does repeating the same old drab sentence reaffirm your belief that you know what you're talking about? Maybe you're the missing link that can prove that humans evolved from stubborn, ignorant, shit-flinging monkeys! Get yourself to a lab quick, so that your primitive brain can be sliced open and scrutinized!

There...now you've done it. You made me swear. I was hoping to be able to keep my implacable calm for the duration of our little pissing contest, but I guess that's just not possible when dealing with imbecilic & pompous assholes. Go grab yourself a banana. That ought to keep you preoccupied for a few hours.

L...M...F...A...O...

[420 FMX]

what would a combination of evolution and religion be, say if god created us then we evolved from what he created, so therefore both side are correct? :rasta:


good 2 see some intelligent stoners :)

[Mr. Clandestine]

what would a combination of evolution and religion be, say if god created us then we evolved from what he created, so therefore both side are correct? :rasta:

Sympathizers of evolutionist theories and creationist theories can certainly coexist peacefully. While there aren't terribly many compromises, there are definitely empathetic people on both sides who don't want to hurt the feelings of the other...and, hence, will base their arguments around civil topics and then have civil discussions about them.

The person I'm arguing with isn't one of those people. He simply showed up out of left field, told me that I'm stupid for adhering to my beliefs, and is now desperately flailing about trying to discredit me. I'm perfectly capable of having an inquisitive conversation with people who know a lot more about evolutionist theories than I do, and at least remain open-minded to the things they're teaching me...even if I cannot entirely agree with their views. Some people, unfortunately, are not capable of remaining civil while discussing topics such as these...and therefore, boisterous yelling contests can sometimes ensue.

I apologize for this, because it's partially my fault for even responding to his crude post in the first place. I'm trying to negotiate an end to all this pointless bickering...but I feel he'll probably want to get in a last word, especially since I was a little less than civil with my last post!

[mfqr]

Biblical age of earth 6000-10000 years.

Actual age several million - 100 million years.


Well, of course the Earth is not 6k-10k years old, but it's definitely more than 100 million years. Last I heard it was estimated be around 4 billion years old. But of course, that could be incorrect. I have a feeling it could be much older than that. But that's just my feeling.

[mfqr]

He's got you there.

No, I was saying "OKKKAAYYY" in a Lil Jon voice, just like he said "WHAAAAAT." It was a joke ;).

[BeforeYourTime]

For the second, and last, time...this is not where I got my information. I paraphrased from...oh, forget it. Just see for yourself: http://www.answersingenesis.org/radio/pdf/carbondating.pdf

Now that you know where my source originated from, you can take your foot out of your mouth.

and answersingenesis.org is credible????:wtf:
Its a Christian website you fool. The name says it all, Answers in Genesis. Try looking for answers in the real world.

Your boring me now so i'll leave you to it.

[BeforeYourTime]

Well, of course the Earth is not 6k-10k years old, but it's definitely more than 100 million years. Last I heard it was estimated be around 4 billion years old. But of course, that could be incorrect. I have a feeling it could be much older than that. But that's just my feeling.

Ye, your right. My mistake, shoulda put a + on the end.:thumbsup:

[BeforeYourTime]

"That theological discussions and probably discourse took place is almost certain, because the mythology of the religion evolved, becoming more complete, sophisticated and more complex over time." [B](By the addition of new gods showing up and old gods being forgotten frequently.)


1 more thing... no need to add your own interpretation




Set has been worshiped since predynastic times. The first representation of Set that has been found was on a carved ivory comb, an Amratian artifact. He was also shown on the Scorpion macehead. He was worshiped and placated through Egyptian history until the Third Intermediate Period where he was seen as an evil and undesirable force. From this time on, some of his statues were re-carved to become the statues of other gods, and it was said that he had actually been defeated by the god Horus.
Egypt: Set (Seth), God of Storms, Slayer of Apep, Equal to and Rival of Horus (http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/set.htm)

Set along with many other gods were worshiped for several thousand years. 2000+years

Predynastic times.. 3100-5100+ BC
Egypt: Upper Egyptian Neolithic and Predynastic Religion and Rulers, A Feature Tour Egypt Story (http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/predynastic.htm)
Egypt: History - Predynastic Period (http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm)


3rd Intermediate .. 664-1069 BC
Egypt in the Third Intermediate Period (http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/3inter/index.html)


Also, does any of this sound familiar?
examples of famous births on december 25th besides that of jesus (http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/examples_dec_25_births.htm)

[Delta9 UK]

The media would have you believe that there is a huge debate on the validity of evolution, but there are very few scientists who are actually debating it, only people who havent even studied evolution are saying there should be a debate.

Indeed that seems to be the case, as a Brit I didn't even know there was a debate outside of the U.S until I came onto this website ;) seems like its a hot topic though.

[Canadian_Cron]

no, in a theory u believe it or you dont. theres no other conditions involved you either believe that man evolved from the great apes or they didnt, end of story (no morals or ethics involved).

a faith/religion is much more complex than that. a faith has a bunch of moral values (ethics) attached to it. like the 10 comandments is the basic foundation of the christian faith along with the idea that god created the world and man. if you believe in that religion you will follow most of them (as well as other practises by the church) and also some practises and ethics that people who do not have that faith wouldnt normally follow.

and yes im sure that most people who arent religious dont comit murder and all that as well, but thats not beacuse of the ethics or morals that would be involved in the theory of evolution. they made those choices based on what they think not because the theory of evolution told them to, and thats one difference.

another difference is that a theory is not stated as a fact, and if you listen to any religion they're not like ok we think but were not 100% sure that god created the world... they state it as a fact that god did create man and the world.

theories are not stated as a fact, and they let you set you own morals and ethics, a faith or religion tells you what they are or should be and states their views as facts.


Mr. Clandestine you still havent responded to my previous post...?

[yokinazu]

ok first let me state i am an artist not a scientist.
i have question: radio carbon dating is the prossess of messuring the amount of decay that has taken place in cabon 14 correct? so if there is more carbon 14 then wouldnt that make something look younger than it would older? also if only a lving thing can absorb carbon 14, wich it quits doing at the time of its demise, what would it matter if the levels were higher now? i just cant see the argumnt with the inrease in the level now as aposed to the past. because from my understanding carbn 14 degrades into a nitrgen atom and that specific atom can be messured there by giving you an amount of carbon in the atmosphere at the time. i would say without a shadow of a doubt that this is not the first time i history that atmospheric carbon levels have changed.

one other thing i would like to say is that i DID in fact study creation in school. being an artist i studied many forms of art one being litterature. i studied the creation "theory" right in the class where it belongs.mythology. because that is exacly what it is. a myth.
i had to right a paper on the differant gods once, well the subject i chose some would call sacrilage. my paper was titled "the death of god" . simply put is the fact that a hindu beleives as strongly in the existance of shiva as a christian believes in the existance of "god". same with all religions the greeks believed as strongly in their gods as any one else. but now these gods are "dead". why? thats easy people quit believing. so what brings these gods into being? same thing, belief. so it is within mans power to create or destroy a god or to give him power or make him powerless. so if there were no christian or jews there would be no god ,if there is no god then he could not have created us, it is a myth. and myths are not science. i am by no means an atheist i beleive in the oldest of all religions, nature. that is what created us.

[Reefer Rogue]

I have no faith anymore, i do not believe in a God. I am now an Atheistic, Existentialist, Preference Utilitarian.

[FinnFtw]

Stein speaks the truth.

btw, isn't that the guy from the clear-eyes commercials?

[Mr. Clandestine]

and answersingenesis.org is credible????.

You're telling me it's not? Why? Because it's Christian based? Under your moronic premise, I can just say that every evolutionist source you so ceremoniously quote is equally as discredited, based on its biased views on the subject. But, I wouldn't do that...because I'm perfectly capable of keeping an open mind when it comes to reading evolutionist sources. In fact, I enjoy reading most of the sources, because I know many of them are actually pointing out relevant evidence...while others only make vain attempts to discredit and belittle religion. Maybe you should consider doing the same, because I hate to break it to you...but not all Christians sources are going to blatantly lie just to try and prove a point. And my source wasn't Answersingenesis.org, it was a detailed article by Dr. Donald James Batten that AIG.org decided to include on their site. I read the article a while back, and was initially introduced to their website a few nights ago when I Googled Dr. Batten's name.


Your boring me now...

That's funny, because you've been boring me ever since you insulted me with your atheistic & commonly parroted drivel. Don't forget this, bud...you attacked me for no reason. I have just been defending myself against your petty & widely parroted rhetoric. Had you simply posted your opinion - which is all you have, an opinion - without feeling the need to insult the only Christian in the room, then I would have gladly let you have your say and wouldn't have ended up "boring" you with my own opinions. But you couldn't do that, because your narrow mind won't allow you to accept the fact that not everyone agrees with your snide & hateful rhetorical arguments. At least, that's exactly how they were presented to me.


Set along with many other gods were worshiped for several thousand years. 2000+years

Again, you take things that I actually said...and rearrange it to fit your own interpretation and desperate scrutinization.


As for your impressive little list of Egyptian mythological "gods"...I'm willing to bet that I could make an even longer list of mythological Greek gods, many of whom faded into obscurity in the hearts of the populace after a few hundred years, or less.

How you misinterpreted "many of whom" and get "every single one" out of it, I won't even try to understand. I only wanted to point out that my God is still being worshiped to this day, while Set, Amn, Ra, etc., etc., etc., were long forgotten and replaced by modern day (and mostly monotheistic - including Christian) religions.

Forgive me, but I'm not even going to bother following any more of the links you provide...because I know that arguing any of the points isn't going to do any good. You'll only hear what you want to hear, and completely disregard the rest. And I'm tired of wasting my time on someone who's not even interested in what I have to say. Good day to you, my friend. I pray that you can find some peace and learn not to be so quick to spitefully criticize people with opinions that are so different from your own.

[Mr. Clandestine]

Mr. Clandestine you still havent responded to my previous post...?

I apologize, but I've been wasting what little time I have to spend online trying to get a point across to someone who despises me because of my religious beliefs. It obviously didn't end very well.


no, in a theory u believe it or you dont.theres no other conditions involved you either believe that man evolved from the great apes or they didnt, end of story (no morals or ethics involved).

I guess what it all boils down to is a simple difference in opinion on the definition of ethics. Philosophically, ethics relates to personal values and standards of conduct that a person holds dear and true to them, regardless of any outside influence, i.e. - religious influence, societal influence, parental, etcetera. Though all of those influences can play a part in molding a persons values.


they made those choices based on what they think not because the theory of evolution told them to, and thats one difference.

Again, I apologize if I made it seem that I was likening choices that a non-religious person makes to choices that an evolutionary thinker makes. If I said this, it wasn't done on purpose. I was simply trying to liken the mindset between what religious and non-religious (or even evolutionists) consider to be a theory, and what makes them believe in it, even if it's not backed up by tangible facts.


another difference is that a theory is not stated as a fact, and if you listen to any religion they're not like ok we think but were not 100% sure that god created the world... they state it as a fact that god did create man and the world.

This is where opinions can vary concerning the definition of a theory. When discussing religion, especially my own, I consider contemplation/speculation as viable as others would consider blind faith. I don't just have blind faith in Christianity, and am not one of the evangelists who will tell you that it's an undisputed fact, and that you're just flat-out wrong if you disagree with me. I understand that it's a belief system; it's just a belief that I happen to have faith in, where many others do not. But again, in many respects, there are also a lot of people who probably refer to me having faith in a theoretical concept. (A coherent group of general propositions.) I just don't consider it theoretical, I actually believe in it. Again, I'm not trying to convince you it's a fact just because I believe in it. I'd rather you make the decision for yourself, just like I did. I wasn't always a Christian, you know.

Sorry again for taking so long to respond to your follow-up post. I still have some reading I'd like to do on transitional fossils, and specifically, Archaeopteryx, so that I can better understand what Delta9 pointed out to me earlier. Again, I'm not ignorant to the views that others have about evolutionist theories...I just need to have the time to read about them and understand them on my own terms, as opposed to having views shoved down my throat by unscrupulous people. I may be a Christian, but that doesn't mean I have a closed mind...unlike quite a few of the Christians that I know are out there. I still strongly believe in the Golden Rule: Treat others the way you'd want to be treated. And I know evolutionists and non-religious people alike don't want to be treated cruelly and skeptically by Christians, which is why I try my best not to do such things.

[Hardcore Newbie]

I have no faith anymore, i do not believe in a God. I am now an Atheistic, Existentialist, Preference Utilitarian.
Dude are you joking?

[mfqr]

Ye, your right. My mistake, shoulda put a + on the end.:thumbsup:

Lol, don't worry about it bro. It's not a big deal.

[Reefer Rogue]

Dude are you joking?

I'm not joking. God is a delusion.

[OnionsOfLove]

maybe someday everyone will come to understand their true potential.

until then the government will continue their brainwashing.

[Hardcore Newbie]

I'm not joking. God is a delusion.Well, welcome to a world of truth bro :)

[delusionsofNORMALity]

I'm not joking. God is a delusion.
god i just an oversimplification of reality.:hippy:

[Reefer Rogue]

It's amazing to be free. Embrace existence =]

[mfqr]

I'm not joking. God is a delusion.

Well, well, well. Welcome, friend.

[Hardcore Newbie]

It's amazing to be free. Embrace existence =]What was your turning point, if i may? anything in particular?

[Reefer Rogue]

I have reverted to my inital reaction and instinct. I feel i am a logical and rational person, who should base his beliefs in evidence rather then the lack of. I think the time attempting to believe in God has provided a more clear truth through the collision with error. Why wasn't I a muslim, or a jew or hindu? It's only because of the environment i live in which dictates which beliefs and values i may hold which i learn from people of that time frame. No one believes in Zeus or Thor. People cherry pick from the bible. I completely reject any form of racism, homophobia etc. Religion is a tool of control, playing on people's fears. I fear not. I am my own man and i can not rely on an afterlife. I do not lack morals without a God. Richard Dawkins really made me question my beliefs i had and i feel i am more comfortable as i originally was. How can an omnibenovolent being produce so much evil? A wise man proportions his beliefs to the evidence.

'Thus, although God may have made man in his own image, the concept of God is made in man's own image.' - David Hume

[Fallen_Icarus]

I seriously am starting to get bored of this thread alongside probably many others.

So ill be brief.


When you learn what evolution means, you won't make these kinds of assumptions.

I know exactly what evolution means, it is a process of development, a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage.

Okay, now I think YOU should understand that the evolution I am talking about is on an extremely macro evolutionary basis and considering human evolution with regards to DARWINIST ORTHODOX evolution (you know, the one they teach in schools?), not just 'change'.

I mentioned this in my previous post, please read it thoroughly.


Why not consider it? There's nothing wrong with considering things but science that is taught in class rooms shouldn't be based on suppositions.

well, I dont think it is fair to call intelligent design a superstition, you need to understand the meanings of words before you enter these debates.

Your pertaining to the belief that we "consider" intelligent design through fear and ignorance, I dont call atleast the process of giving careful thought to something to be labelled an act of ignorance and fear.

I consider an intelligent designer, not because I am scared of the wrath of this intelligent designer (it could have died many a thousand year ago) but because I am open minded enough to hold the consideration of it.

Respect it and move on newbie.


From what I've read, we have a common ancestor with apes, if that's what you mean. I think this is based on solid fact, yes.

What your forgetting is that there is a missing link to show the evolutionary path between ape and human, and even so, the 'proof' you have described brings up many other new theories such as co existence.

This is why I said, do not presume evolution is 100% correct, the more evidence they find the more theories they open, and a strong theory by modern scientists is co existence.

I remember watching a documentary a while ago, a few years back (about 3) about this Brazilian archaeologist who was excavating in Peru, she found dinosaur footprints alongside man footprints and suggested that man literally walked with dinosaurs and co existed with them.

This is a very brief overview (im very tired) but may that not mar the authority of this description, this archaeologist lost her job, her research funds and her entire team was split up due to the finds. Simply because it went against the universal held 'truth' and assumption that we evolved from these ancient mammals.

Now. This is no superstition, so lets consider it lol.


I mentioned it because you brought up silver reflective skin, a detriment. Adapting silver skin would be devolution.

Well it depends on your interpretation and perception of this silver like skin, I mean if I was to wrap you in foil and send you out into the sun im sure it would not be very effective.

Is this the kind of work you believe can be linked to the likes of natural selection and billions of years of evolution.

This was my point, you can percieve the skin to be a magical absorbing material which calculates perfectly the correct amount of vitamin D and sunlight for the skin to be exposed to etc, which would be more fit a suit for survival.

Or you can look at it from the foil example.

Ill give you 3.8 Billion years to think about it.


From what I've read, we have a common ancestor with apes, if that's what you mean. I think this is based on solid fact, yes

So humans came from apes. Right.

Sorted, forget EVERYTHING ELSE.


Because our species originated in Africa.

Right, and what about the blisteringly cold nights of Africa?

This is why I said, fur would fluctuate in its tenacity, it would keep you cold as well as warm.

Which brings me to ask you the question.

Why donâ??t all animals lose their fur in Africa then? Maybe its because they donâ??t live by the stereotype that Africa is a burning hot continent 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

Newbie, loss of hair is not an unmixed blessing in regulating body temperature because the naked skin absorbs more energy in the heat of the day and loses more in the cold of the night.

You could have come up with a million better answers than the ones you give me, how about simply - vanity? or changes in human DNA - how about these?

There is no clear cut reason why this happend but there are certainly better theories than the ones you can come up with.


One has proof (evolution or "change") and one is just a supposition.

What did I say at the very start of this thread?

I said that evolution is good at explaining how lower life forms can form into more adapted 'higher' life forms, I agree with this, I also agree with evolution, there is nothing wrong with me coming here and hitting points out into the open about theories I may agree or even disagree with.

Im just saying be it the ignorance of many to pertain to the belief that studying evolution means that an intelligent designer could not have possibly created us or had any intervention on any level with our genes or anything of the kind is ignorant!

Why - when orthodox evolution be taught in school must we rule out intelligent design? There is no proof of intelligent just as their is no disproof of it, to remove it completely and then 100 years down the line realise it could actually be viable after all and co existence was true (and evolution) would be an embarrasing situation!


The truth is that Gods were invented to explain what was the unexplainable (astrology at the time ). The Christian God and Jesus were no different. Infact most Christian beliefs are stolen from ancient myths and astrology

I wouldnt say stolen, perhaps an exact copy with a different name, I mean if you look into the similarities of jesus and horus im sure you will be suprised.

These religious beliefs all date back to planet worship, allah was a female goddess (Allat) in Arabia - the God of venus which is represented by the 5 pointed star, one of the reasons muslims have 5 pillars of islam and prayer 5 times a day.

But a muslim will obviously tell you different :wtf:


The Bible is an adaptation of ancient astrology, surrounded by myth, rewritten several times to fit in with current morals and thought. Written as a system of control to gain power over the people.

I dont mean to offend anyone but when you look into all of this, the middle eastern crisis and the political powers of control, you will find it is all to do with drugs and money and power.

Its as simple as that.

Please do not come here talking about the vatican on some moral highground, your also talking about one of the worlds richest busineses, a business that would behead (in the name of christ) you if you were not its serving 'customer'.

:D


Source, please.

I'd love to sit here and spend 3 hours replying to your 3,283,298,139 character post, but you're starting to bore me with saying the same old things over and over again (rephrased, mind you).

Im not asking you to respond, and clearly your only touching on about 5% of my post yet still lacking a reason to do so lol.

What are you trying to debate with me about?

YouTube - Fossil Skull Discovery Pt.1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebzF7jpt1aI)


Show us these lengths at which it goes to, to support intelligent design. I'd love to see this.

YouTube - Fossil Skull Discovery Pt.1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebzF7jpt1aI)


Well it's funny that you should make that assumption. I've never heard of "Carl Sagans: The Cosmos."

You must be 39 then.


Animals adapt to their environment...

Really?

lol


and that is essentially natural selection

So does that make japanese people more evolved than anyone else due to their serious lack of hair?

(This is an actual field of modern evolution thinking)


But it is certainly a much more viable option than intelligent design.

I didnt actually say it wasnt lol.


However, I believe the basic element of this whole thread is the validity of intelligent design...

Right... Okay...

But we know its not proven or disproven...

So what is the point in debating its 'validity' you either believe its true or you dont or you do neither (which is what I propose).

lol.


which you say you're not arguing about (even though I think it's pretty obvious you are).

Erm... Okay... So if I argue about my PC brand being better than yours... lol..

Does that mean that I wont ever ever ever ever ever ever ever buy the brand of PC you have?

What if mine breaks down?

lol




Nope, never ruled out some kind of creator

Good. Done.


Though, I see no evidence for it,

I dont know, im sure last week I saw a fairy man flying through the sky creating people.


Too bad you destroyed that possibility with arguments like "we didn't evolve from rocks."

When did I say we didnt evolve from rocks?

Infact when, have I once outright disagreed with ANY theory which has been discussed here?

:wtf:

Oh... And I said there is NO PROOF for Abogenisis (That we evolved from rocks:D)

There is a difference between there being no proof and it being completely irrifutably untrue... C'mon, im sure your a proponent of this type of thinking lol.


Why do I have the right to link these things? Well, I have the right to say anything I please, as I have a mouth (or hands), and it allows me to say whatever I please.

Yes of course, like I have the right to be a profoundly conservative christian, indoctrinating my children and castigating the thought of sex with severe beatings, yet myself being a regular at the local strip club.

Your free to be a complete hypocrite:D


Sorry, but maybe you should take your own advice and think about your own beliefs as well.

HAHA, Ive been waiting for someone to say this.

mfqr... what beliefs are you referring to?


Believing that something "just happens" doesn't mean that one does not believe that there's a reason behind it.

Get this into your head, YOU EVOLVING FROM AN APE HAS NO EVIDENCE.

I may be the biggest proponent of evolution and still agree with this.


that's why. I've thought about it - about aliens possibly starting things up here... but is there evidence of this? No, so why would I sit here and claim it to be a viable option

Get your head out of the dumb sand, what dont you understand about 'not ruling' out - or how about I put it this way with the use of an advertisement.. AXXA PP life insurance... "BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS".


It's possible, as anything is, but it's not something that needs to be taught in school.

Have you got the attention span of a 3 year old?

What didnt you get about me saying "I DONT WANT IT TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS">?


That "basic change" is called adaptation, I believe

And what does the word adaptions mean?

= "Provisions for gradual or incremental changes";)

...why?


Well, since you have corrected someone else's spelling mistake, I will tell you that the comma you placed was incorrect.

Correction, I did not correct any spelling error.

I simply pointed out that the word did not infact even exist.

So, before you correct mine, learn how to read.;)


When you mention aliens, you're just supposing. Coulda been boogy men, coulda been elves, coulda been magic, coulda been ghosts. Why mention the alternatives when they offer no more proof than any religion?

Yes, well done for understanding that when I mention aliens I dont mean THAT THEY DID IT FOR SURE.

Well done! Big achievement.:thumbsup:

Read my posts again, I know it could have also been a hairy man having a shit on a toilet who created us it doesnt matter WHAT GOD OR ENTITY YOU BELIEVE DID IT

But we are talking about intelligent design not who the designer was!

The reason I mention Aliens is that there are some foolish moronic idiots that actually think EVERY single tiny thought of intelligent design will lead to religion.

And it "Coulda* been intelligent design".

*Thats also a spelling mistake - and a word that does not exist - SUE ME.

:thumbsup:

[Delta9 UK]

OK

1. We DID NOT EVOLVE FROM APES - stop repeating this junk.
We share a common ancestor, why is that so hard to understand?

2. Your YouTube videos (re: Forbidden Archaeology) are based on (twisting) old research which still makes it creationism. You need a better source. If you like I can post a list of the fuck-ups in that video, it was entertaining regardless.

3. (WRT Mfqrs Post) Supposition and Superstition are two different words - read more, post less. You didn't read what he actually wrote before flying off on one.

4. If you really believe that human footprints and dinosaur footprints have been found side-by-side then you just lost any remaining credibility. They are ALL fakes.

This is getting silly now, but I'm not about to pick your entire post apart bit by bit as I have better things to do.

[mfqr]

Im not asking you to respond, and clearly your only touching on about 5% of my post yet still lacking a reason to do so lol.


Geez, if that was 5% of your post, then you must have a hell of
a lot of time to spend typing replies, and breaking apart quotes so that you can pick apart arguments.



What are you trying to debate with me about?


Anything you say. :) It's not a debate, though. I won a long time ago. :thumbsup:



YouTube - Fossil Skull Discovery Pt.1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebzF7jpt1aI)


LOL, nice source... a youtube video. Well, you've convinced me. :S2:



YouTube - Fossil Skull Discovery Pt.1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebzF7jpt1aI)


:S2:



You must be 39 then.


You must be 12, troll.



Really?

lol


Yeah, I guess. Although I can't remember what that is a reply to. But yes. I will stick to whatever I said.



So does that make japanese people more evolved than anyone else due to their serious lack of hair?


Hmmm... I've seen some pretty hairy Japanese people in my day, so I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.



(This is an actual field of modern evolution thinking)


Or maybe it's creationist propaganda? Never heard of such a thing.



I didnt actually say it wasnt lol.


That sounds like a lie to me. I think your lack of punctuation shows your lack of sincerity in that statement.



But we know its not proven or disproven...


Good for it.



So what is the point in debating its 'validity' you either believe its true or you dont or you do neither (which is what I propose).


You tell me. You've been doing it longer than I have in this thread.



lol.


rofl.



Erm... Okay... So if I argue about my PC brand being better than yours... lol..


Bad comparison, troll.



Does that mean that I wont ever ever ever ever ever ever ever buy the brand of PC you have?


Bad comparison, troll.



What if mine breaks down?

lol


Then you should learn more about computers.

lol



Good. Done.


Sweet.



I dont know, im sure last week I saw a fairy man flying through the sky creating people.


Never said it wasn't possible. :thumbsup:



When did I say we didnt evolve from rocks?


Try looking back a few pages. You might find it in one of your long-winded posts.



Infact when, have I once outright disagreed with ANY theory which has been discussed here?

:wtf:


Then why are you still debating it?



Oh... And I said there is NO PROOF for Abogenisis (That we evolved from rocks:D)


I'll let someone else take care of that one.



There is a difference between there being no proof and it being completely irrifutably untrue... C'mon, im sure your a proponent of this type of thinking lol.


You're sure? Well, I'm sure you're a troll.



Yes of course, like I have the right to be a profoundly conservative christian, indoctrinating my children and castigating the thought of sex with severe beatings, yet myself being a regular at the local strip club.


It's up to you. However, I feel very sorry for your child.



Your free to be a complete hypocrite:D


Oh.



HAHA, Ive been waiting for someone to say this.


Did you think you trapped me into saying it? Obviously if you're going to imply that people should rethink their positions, you should as well. Unless you're a hypocrite. Of course, you're free to be a complete hypocrite. But I don't think people would look up to you very highly if you were.



mfqr... what beliefs are you referring to?


Whichever beliefs you hold. I was not trying to be specific.



Get this into your head, YOU EVOLVING FROM AN APE HAS NO EVIDENCE.


Good for it, I don't care ;).



I may be the biggest proponent of evolution and still agree with this.


And you're free to agree with whatever you wish. Just because you agree with it does not mean that anyone else needs to.



Get your head out of the dumb sand,


Dumb sand?



what dont you understand about 'not ruling' out - or how about I put it this way with the use of an advertisement.. AXXA PP life insurance... "BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS".


LOL, whatever, pal :).



Have you got the attention span of a 3 year old?


I might ;). Troll.



What didnt you get about me saying "I DONT WANT IT TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS">?


I remember, you did say that it should be something to be taught in school, since it has just as much evidence as evolution, which you state is zero.



And what does the word adaptions mean?

= "Provisions for gradual or incremental changes";)

...why?


Why what?



Correction, I did not correct any spelling error.

I simply pointed out that the word did not infact even exist.

So, before you correct mine, learn how to read.;)


Oh, sorry. The fact remains, you were being picky about someone else's typing. Therefore, I jokingly corrected your mistake. Troll.



Yes, well done for understanding that when I mention aliens I dont mean THAT THEY DID IT FOR SURE.


Well, I know for a fact that they do exist for sure. So I don't care what you meant ;).

[Hardcore Newbie]

I know exactly what evolution means, it is a process of development, a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage.

Okay, now I think YOU should understand that the evolution I am talking about is on an extremely macro evolutionary basis and considering human evolution with regards to DARWINIST ORTHODOX evolution (you know, the one they teach in schools?), not just 'change'.

I mentioned this in my previous post, please read it thoroughly.
You have a lot of previous posts. You keep giving examples of how evolution should fail, even in regards to "micro" evolution.


well, I dont think it is fair to call intelligent design a superstition, you need to understand the meanings of words before you enter these debates.
I didn't, I called it a supposition. Something one "supposes". Maybe you should learn to read before you tell someone to learn the language.



Your pertaining to the belief that we "consider" intelligent design through fear and ignorance, I dont call atleast the process of giving careful thought to something to be labelled an act of ignorance and fear.

I consider an intelligent designer, not because I am scared of the wrath of this intelligent designer (it could have died many a thousand year ago) but because I am open minded enough to hold the consideration of it.
You're creating a strawman argument, I say we shouldn't consider it until it has some proof. It has nothing to do with ignorance and fear, that's reserved for religion.

Being open minded is a wonderful thing, I'll consider anything as a possibility even the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But when there is no proof for the thing I'm being open minded to, it doesn't have the same weight as things that do have proof.



What your forgetting is that there is a missing link to show the evolutionary path between ape and human, and even so, the 'proof' you have described brings up many other new theories such as co existence.

This is why I said, do not presume evolution is 100% correct, the more evidence they find the more theories they open, and a strong theory by modern scientists is co existence.
Point me to these theories of coexistence, please.



This is a very brief overview (im very tired) but may that not mar the authority of this description, this archaeologist lost her job, her research funds and her entire team was split up due to the finds. Simply because it went against the universal held 'truth' and assumption that we evolved from these ancient mammals.
Again, you really do like to borrow arguments from creationists. If you had a link to it, that'd be cool to read about, and (probably, but not certainly) laugh at.



Well it depends on your interpretation and perception of this silver like skin, I mean if I was to wrap you in foil and send you out into the sun im sure it would not be very effective.

Is this the kind of work you believe can be linked to the likes of natural selection and billions of years of evolution.

This was my point, you can percieve the skin to be a magical absorbing material which calculates perfectly the correct amount of vitamin D and sunlight for the skin to be exposed to etc, which would be more fit a suit for survival.

Or you can look at it from the foil example.

Ill give you 3.8 Billion years to think about it.
I don't think skin is magical, so you're setting up yet another straw man that's easier for you to knock down. Evolution isn't a perfect process, like cows. My internet is really screwing up tonight, so I can't actually research anything tonight with any sense of speed. So I'll go by memory and say that cows have a stomach with 4 compartments. A cows stomach is inferior to ours, we have one part that does everything for us, not 4 parts for 4 stages.

We don't always get "the best" stuff, we just get something that enables us to survive.


So humans came from apes. Right.

Sorted, forget EVERYTHING ELSE.
And this is where I start ignoring you. I specifically said "From what I've read, we have a common ancestor with apes, if that's what you mean. I think this is based on solid fact, yes"

Just because a Canadian shares an ancestor (or father) from Russia with an American, that doesn't infer that the Canadian came from America, or vice versa.

If all you're going to do is set up straw men, put them in a crop field, please.

[yokinazu]

god created man and the universe
the earth is flat
the earth is at the center of everything
we have already learned everything there is to know
and witches weigh less than ducks

[mfqr]

god created man and the universe
the earth is flat
the earth is at the center of everything
we have already learned everything there is to know
and witches weigh less than ducks

:):thumbsup:

[dragonrider]

Interesting thread about common descent: http://boards.cannabis.com/spirituality/143070-evidence-common-descent.html