Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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!
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
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.
Quote:
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!
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Evolution = Astronomy, both have proof.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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!
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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]
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!
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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..
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
