Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen_Icarus
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.
Quote:
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...
Quote:
What exactly do you believe I have a lack of understanding about?
Evolution.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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."
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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).
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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."
Quote:
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?
Quote:
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWHATTTT?????
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKAAYYYYY!!!!!!
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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).
