| View Poll Results: How do you think Life got to where it is today? | |||
| Evolved from more primitive forms of life. |    | 29 | 87.88% |
| Created as is. |    | 4 | 12.12% |
| Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll | |||
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 3,399 
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
January 28th, 2006, 08:41 PM
Read the whole thread Jay, paying particular attention to what was posted on January 15th.
Read the whole thread Jay, paying particular attention to what was posted on January 15th.
Newbie
Posts: 2
September 6th, 2007, 08:58 AM
Well I see that scorn is alive and well. It would seem that all evolutionary science needs for defense is ridicule. Ridicule passes as the new replacement for hypothesis and testing.
I’ve been reading you people and realized quickly that you have absolutely NO IDEA what the debate between evolution and Intelligent Design is all about nor the facts supporting it. It’s maddening, so let me set the record straight for you why there is still debate and belief in Intelligent Design.
People who believe in God outnumber Atheists by over 10 to 1 worldwide so don’t act like it is a surprise that people believe in a creator God.
As for science, science has not proved there is a NOT a God, it simply first Pre-supposes that there is not a God. This is already on dubious philosophical territory, not lab science.
Looking at scientific facts, evolution is not the slam dunk you think. Biologists are finding biological mechanisms that defy accidental appearance through mutations because they have just too many moving parts. An example is the phlagellum on some bacteria, a tail that spins for propulsion with some 40 working parts. The rotor and bushings rival any modern man-made machine for efficiency. To imagine that a genetic defect accidentally creates one or two parts is possible, when you get over 10, it is becoming hard to believe. When you suggest that accidental mutations can create over 20 working parts we are becoming unbelievable. Then you reach a number like 40 inter-related parts of one machine where all parts are perfectly designed, necessary and the entire system fails if even 1 part is defective.
At this point you can scoff, sneer and ridicule the researchers all you like. That does not pass a reasonable argument against the scientists who make these discoveries believing there was a designer. When you say that 40 complex parts or mechanisms for one specific machine can arise by pure chance, you are the one who now has RELIGIOUS belief!!!
This is only one example of thousands of scientific facts that make more sense in light of a Designer/Creator.
The next time you want to ridicule, do some reading first.
Well I see that scorn is alive and well. It would seem that all evolutionary science needs for defense is ridicule. Ridicule passes as the new replacement for hypothesis and testing.
I’ve been reading you people and realized quickly that you have absolutely NO IDEA what the debate between evolution and Intelligent Design is all about nor the facts supporting it. It’s maddening, so let me set the record straight for you why there is still debate and belief in Intelligent Design.
People who believe in God outnumber Atheists by over 10 to 1 worldwide so don’t act like it is a surprise that people believe in a creator God.
As for science, science has not proved there is a NOT a God, it simply first Pre-supposes that there is not a God. This is already on dubious philosophical territory, not lab science.
Looking at scientific facts, evolution is not the slam dunk you think. Biologists are finding biological mechanisms that defy accidental appearance through mutations because they have just too many moving parts. An example is the phlagellum on some bacteria, a tail that spins for propulsion with some 40 working parts. The rotor and bushings rival any modern man-made machine for efficiency. To imagine that a genetic defect accidentally creates one or two parts is possible, when you get over 10, it is becoming hard to believe. When you suggest that accidental mutations can create over 20 working parts we are becoming unbelievable. Then you reach a number like 40 inter-related parts of one machine where all parts are perfectly designed, necessary and the entire system fails if even 1 part is defective.
At this point you can scoff, sneer and ridicule the researchers all you like. That does not pass a reasonable argument against the scientists who make these discoveries believing there was a designer. When you say that 40 complex parts or mechanisms for one specific machine can arise by pure chance, you are the one who now has RELIGIOUS belief!!!
This is only one example of thousands of scientific facts that make more sense in light of a Designer/Creator.
The next time you want to ridicule, do some reading first.
A Mad Mulligan
Posts: 2,766
Videos: 3
Location: The Moonsine Cafe
Videos: 3
Location: The Moonsine Cafe
September 6th, 2007, 09:34 AM
Some people can jump to the conclusion that there is no possible way that an invisible man in the sky could not exist and control everything with nothing more than the suggestion of it by someone they don't even know. Yet show them all the evidence pointing to evolution and all of a sudden, they can't believe in even the basic laws of science.
To promote the idea that no one can prove conclusively that there is no God, thus it must be that there is a God, is the clearest evidence that they have exactly no idea of what they are talking about.
Go ahead an prove I'm not your God. I'll be back later to listen to you humble yourself before your master.
Some people can jump to the conclusion that there is no possible way that an invisible man in the sky could not exist and control everything with nothing more than the suggestion of it by someone they don't even know. Yet show them all the evidence pointing to evolution and all of a sudden, they can't believe in even the basic laws of science.
To promote the idea that no one can prove conclusively that there is no God, thus it must be that there is a God, is the clearest evidence that they have exactly no idea of what they are talking about.
Go ahead an prove I'm not your God. I'll be back later to listen to you humble yourself before your master.
Newbie
Posts: 2
September 6th, 2007, 09:59 AM
I never said that people believe in God because scientists have not proven Atheism. That would indeed be silly. What I said is that scientists discover biological machines that make more sense as designed units. This may indeed lead to a belief in God.
I wonder just how free scientists are in such a hostile environment. Galileo was afraid of the Catholic Church. Perhaps our present day scientists must fear the new Atheistic Popes!!
I never said that people believe in God because scientists have not proven Atheism. That would indeed be silly. What I said is that scientists discover biological machines that make more sense as designed units. This may indeed lead to a belief in God.
I wonder just how free scientists are in such a hostile environment. Galileo was afraid of the Catholic Church. Perhaps our present day scientists must fear the new Atheistic Popes!!
A Mad Mulligan
Posts: 2,766
Videos: 3
Location: The Moonsine Cafe
Videos: 3
Location: The Moonsine Cafe
September 6th, 2007, 10:59 AM
If God made Adam first and Eve from Adam's rib, what the hell is up with nipples on men?
It's a stupid place to begin the question. Science hasn't proven conclusively that Aliens named Steve didn't make the world the solar system and the universe in 17 minutes out of silly putty and spit either but that isn't the reason that it's ruled out as a logical starting point and something to consider along the way while working to figure out how it all fits together and why.
There is absolutely no evidence that there is or ever was a God in the form "most people in the world" seem to believe there is. Not one single shred of evidence that conclusively points to a supreme being.
At best there are unanswered questions. But no one is saying that the method of science has all the answers yet.
Now it's all fine and dandy to tell your children that they best behave or Jesus will get them with his devils in Hell to keep them in line, but don't be trying to tell me that the invisible man in the sky is waiting to judge me for all that I've done and forgive any and all atrocities as long as I bow down. What's more, don't try and tell me that public policy through government rule must be filtered through some mixed up mumbo jumbo to favour a few.
Quote:
Come on now.
As for science, science has not proved there is a NOT a God, it simply first Pre-supposes that there is not a God. This is already on dubious philosophical territory, not lab science
If God made Adam first and Eve from Adam's rib, what the hell is up with nipples on men?
It's a stupid place to begin the question. Science hasn't proven conclusively that Aliens named Steve didn't make the world the solar system and the universe in 17 minutes out of silly putty and spit either but that isn't the reason that it's ruled out as a logical starting point and something to consider along the way while working to figure out how it all fits together and why.
There is absolutely no evidence that there is or ever was a God in the form "most people in the world" seem to believe there is. Not one single shred of evidence that conclusively points to a supreme being.
At best there are unanswered questions. But no one is saying that the method of science has all the answers yet.
Now it's all fine and dandy to tell your children that they best behave or Jesus will get them with his devils in Hell to keep them in line, but don't be trying to tell me that the invisible man in the sky is waiting to judge me for all that I've done and forgive any and all atrocities as long as I bow down. What's more, don't try and tell me that public policy through government rule must be filtered through some mixed up mumbo jumbo to favour a few.
Time Out
Posts: 3,867
Videos: 1
Location: Honour our Fallen
Videos: 1
Location: Honour our Fallen
September 6th, 2007, 11:10 AM
I'm going to be very serious here..I'm learning about Atlantis and it's close relative early Egyptian spin off after it sank....
All myth and religion are watered down versions from this great time....
I'm about to learn more...will keep you informed....
I'm going to be very serious here..I'm learning about Atlantis and it's close relative early Egyptian spin off after it sank....
All myth and religion are watered down versions from this great time....
I'm about to learn more...will keep you informed....
September 6th, 2007, 11:18 AM
Science says nothing about God. Scientists may have their opinions, but in the halls of learning there are no serious studies to prove or disprove the existance of God. You can't prove God doesn't exist. How could I prove to you that Zeus doesn't exist? I can't. Nobody can.
As far as ID goes, it does not come close to the rigors of science. It jumps to conclusions, ignores the billions of evolutionary steps which can be traced through fossilized remains. How do we know a fish isn't a frog? Different pysiology. How do we know a brook trout isn't a brown trout? Different morphology. How do we classify a new species? Not using the bible, but through it's relation to closest species on the taxonomic tree.
To look for answers in a static book written before we know what we know today is an exercise in futility, and in my opinion is proof that the great books are little more than writings trying to put forth a controlled morality on a population who knew no better.
Science says nothing about God. Scientists may have their opinions, but in the halls of learning there are no serious studies to prove or disprove the existance of God. You can't prove God doesn't exist. How could I prove to you that Zeus doesn't exist? I can't. Nobody can.
As far as ID goes, it does not come close to the rigors of science. It jumps to conclusions, ignores the billions of evolutionary steps which can be traced through fossilized remains. How do we know a fish isn't a frog? Different pysiology. How do we know a brook trout isn't a brown trout? Different morphology. How do we classify a new species? Not using the bible, but through it's relation to closest species on the taxonomic tree.
To look for answers in a static book written before we know what we know today is an exercise in futility, and in my opinion is proof that the great books are little more than writings trying to put forth a controlled morality on a population who knew no better.
Time Out
Posts: 3,867
Videos: 1
Location: Honour our Fallen
Videos: 1
Location: Honour our Fallen
September 6th, 2007, 11:30 AM
is this the new creationist word for it?
Quoting Tonington
ID inteligent design???
Science says nothing about God. Scientists may have their opinions, but in the halls of learning there are no serious studies to prove or disprove the existance of God. You can't prove God doesn't exist. How could I prove to you that Zeus doesn't exist? I can't. Nobody can.
As far as ID goes, it does not come close to the rigors of science. It jumps to conclusions, ignores the billions of evolutionary steps which can be traced through fossilized remains. How do we know a fish isn't a frog? Different pysiology. How do we know a brook trout isn't a brown trout? Different morphology. How do we classify a new species? Not using the bible, but through it's relation to closest species on the taxonomic tree.
To look for answers in a static book written before we know what we know today is an exercise in futility, and in my opinion is proof that the great books are little more than writings trying to put forth a controlled morality on a population who knew no better.
As far as ID goes, it does not come close to the rigors of science. It jumps to conclusions, ignores the billions of evolutionary steps which can be traced through fossilized remains. How do we know a fish isn't a frog? Different pysiology. How do we know a brook trout isn't a brown trout? Different morphology. How do we classify a new species? Not using the bible, but through it's relation to closest species on the taxonomic tree.
To look for answers in a static book written before we know what we know today is an exercise in futility, and in my opinion is proof that the great books are little more than writings trying to put forth a controlled morality on a population who knew no better.
is this the new creationist word for it?
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,902
Location: Northern California
Location: Northern California
September 6th, 2007, 11:41 AM
Takes two sides in every case if there is to be any gain.
Conservatives/liberals are reason enough to cause us to learn something.
It is what we allow, that makes the difference.
We chart our course and leave it to our kids to sort out, for they to, will go through the same thing.
It is a never ending cycle; hopefully, each generation gives a structured base by which our kids may be able to survive the issues of the day against self destruction.
I am a conservative thinker, and my base is based on biblical principles. I have had to learn through trial and error to respect other peoples beliefs, yet, not allow the liberty of actions to destroy the foundation that has held true for so many years.
Humanity is such that if left unchecked, humanity would run amok.
Peace>>>AJ
Takes two sides in every case if there is to be any gain.
Conservatives/liberals are reason enough to cause us to learn something.
It is what we allow, that makes the difference.
We chart our course and leave it to our kids to sort out, for they to, will go through the same thing.
It is a never ending cycle; hopefully, each generation gives a structured base by which our kids may be able to survive the issues of the day against self destruction.
I am a conservative thinker, and my base is based on biblical principles. I have had to learn through trial and error to respect other peoples beliefs, yet, not allow the liberty of actions to destroy the foundation that has held true for so many years.
Humanity is such that if left unchecked, humanity would run amok.
Peace>>>AJ
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,902
Location: Northern California
Location: Northern California
September 6th, 2007, 11:46 AM
ID inteligent design???
What? Are we criticizing creation as though we had a hand in it?
It is there for our amusement and enjoyment, enjoy it. Treasure every different thing you see. Appreciate the things that are, and work to preserve them for your kids.
Makes for great study.
Peace>>>AJ
ID inteligent design???
What? Are we criticizing creation as though we had a hand in it?
It is there for our amusement and enjoyment, enjoy it. Treasure every different thing you see. Appreciate the things that are, and work to preserve them for your kids.
Makes for great study.
Peace>>>AJ
September 6th, 2007, 11:50 AM
Today it is pushed by the ultra conservative as a reliable and justifiable counter view to that of evolution, even so far as to try to have it introduced into biology classes...
Quoting DocDred
The term actually goes back to a US Supreme Court case some time in the 80's where the courts ruled that teaching 'creationist science' alongside evolution violates the constitution, you know that ole diddy about separation of church and state.
ID inteligent design???
is this the new creationist word for it?
is this the new creationist word for it?
Today it is pushed by the ultra conservative as a reliable and justifiable counter view to that of evolution, even so far as to try to have it introduced into biology classes...
Time Out
Posts: 3,867
Videos: 1
Location: Honour our Fallen
Videos: 1
Location: Honour our Fallen
September 6th, 2007, 11:59 AM
Quoting Tonington
yer kidding me...like the monkey trial spin off stuff is still alive and well in schools down there....
The term actually goes back to a US Supreme Court case some time in the 80's where the courts ruled that teaching 'creationist science' alongside evolution violates the constitution, you know that ole diddy about separation of church and state.
Today it is pushed by the ultra conservative as a reliable and justifiable counter view to that of evolution, even so far as to try to have it introduced into biology classes...
Today it is pushed by the ultra conservative as a reliable and justifiable counter view to that of evolution, even so far as to try to have it introduced into biology classes...
September 6th, 2007, 12:08 PM
I think it's more like three. I find it hard to believe that at heart the majority aren't much more moderate, only they can't help but be persuaded by the polarization of issues. It seems in the media they're either fringe lefties or ultra conservative. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get.
I think it's more like three. I find it hard to believe that at heart the majority aren't much more moderate, only they can't help but be persuaded by the polarization of issues. It seems in the media they're either fringe lefties or ultra conservative. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get.
Time Out
Posts: 3,867
Videos: 1
Location: Honour our Fallen
Videos: 1
Location: Honour our Fallen
September 6th, 2007, 12:29 PM
Quoting Tonington
i see where you are going and i agree....
I think it's more like three. I find it hard to believe that at heart the majority aren't much more moderate, only they can't help but be persuaded by the polarization of issues. It seems in the media they're either fringe lefties or ultra conservative. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get.
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 3,399
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
September 6th, 2007, 02:09 PM
You need to do a little reading yourself.
Quoting markglaab
Neither do you. There are no facts supporting intelligent design that aren't readily explicable more prosaically. The example you used of the bacterial flagellum, for instance, has been explained by naturalistic processes, as you would have discovered if you'd done a little research.
I’ve been reading you people and realized quickly that you have absolutely NO IDEA what the debate between evolution and Intelligent Design is all about nor the facts supporting it.
Quote:
Irrelevant. The number of people who believe something to be true has nothing to do with whether it's actually true or not.
People who believe in God outnumber Atheists by over 10 to 1 worldwide so don’t act like it is a surprise that people believe in a creator God.
Quote:
That's a bit of a distortion. Science seeks naturalistic explanations for things; starting from the assumption that some deity is doing it all makes no further explanation possible or necessary. "God did it" is functionally no different from "We don't know," which science won't accept as the final answer.
As for science, science has not proved there is a NOT a God, it simply first Pre-supposes that there is not a God.
Quote:
You think so? Most philosophers throughout the history of civilization have tried to find explanations for things without resorting to deities. Science starts from the assumption that nature is consistent and predictable and, at least in principle, comprehensible; it does not postulate that there is no god, it simply seeks explanations that don't require one.
This is already on dubious philosophical territory, not lab science.
Quote:
Google "flagellum" (helps if you spell it right), you'll find multiple explanations and discussions of it that'll show you're wrong. You're just trying out the old "irreducible complexity" argument, which has been thoroughly discredited. Your understanding of evolution is obviously also pretty limited. "Pure chance" is not how it works.
Looking at scientific facts, evolution is not the slam dunk you think. Biologists are finding biological mechanisms that defy accidental appearance through mutations because they have just too many moving parts. An example is the phlagellum on some bacteria...
You need to do a little reading yourself.
