Some front line views of the war against God.

[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.

dragonrider Reviewed by dragonrider on 10-25-2007. Some front line views of the war against God. 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 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 Rating: 5

[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...ostexcuseme: 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:

1. Five proteins required for making of cell-membrane fats and structures;
2. Eight proteins for a very simplified and basic form of energy metabolism
3. Ten proteins required for the production of the nucleotides (building-blocks for making DNA) and for the actual production of DNA; and then, finally,
4. 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, 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.

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

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.