[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Many other people on this thread fail to realize everything in the Bible isn�??t literal and choose to ignore the logic and reasoning abilities the good Lord gave us.[/quote]
See the problem is that some people decide to tell me that the Bible isn’t literal, then i the same sentence tell me that it IS the literal word of God.
You’ll have to be patient with people like us.
[quote]pat wrote:
I kinda think that evolution was an intelligent creation.
This whole intelligent design thing came about by bible-only evangelicals who subscribe to the literal translation of the bible. I think intelligent design a bunch of horseshit myself and I am a theist and a christian. It just sounds like people are trying to make facts fit the bible verbatim. It just doesn’t work that way. The Bible is a book of truth not a book of facts. It uses multiple methods by which to get it’s messages across. It uses stories, factual events, poetry, etc. The message is what matters not whether there was an Adam and an Eve and a garden.
I don’t need to bible or science to tell me that humans, though animals, are very, very different from any other animal to live of have ever lived. That is pretty obvious.[/quote]
Then I think we think the same thing here! (More or less)
[quote]Hah!
I always swore I would never take theoretical physics seriously until they found a frictionless surface. With the discovery of super-fluids, they came close enough to give them credit.
I do have to admit that chemistry is much more exact at an atomic scale (I�??m assuming you are modeling at a micro level). However, chemistry at an atomic scale is really theoretical physics isn�??t it?[/quote]
Considering that chemists determined the structure of individual molecules to a massive degree of accuracy simply by mixing stuff and seeing what happened I rank them pretty highly.
Are you sure you’re good enough to pull a Murray Gell-Mann? (“Everything that is not fundamental physics is tosh”!). 
No one ‘believes’ in the Theory of Evolution.
It is the best theory at this time and helps us explain things.
Anyone who uses any tool which science has enabled in this modern day (your Internet connected PC for starters) should learn some respect for science and not try to conjure stupid theories which:
Science and Thesism can coexist but they are distinct from each other and deal with different realms of thought.
There is nothing to debate.
ID is not a scientific theory it is just political nonsense.
I’m happy for religious classes in schools.
Just as any philosophy is worthy to teach.
They are distinct things.
Otherwise I demand that my faith also be taught as scientific fact - Pastafarianism.
[quote]Spry wrote:
No one ‘believes’ in the Theory of Evolution.
It is the best theory at this time and helps us explain things.
Anyone who uses any tool which science has enabled in this modern day (your Internet connected PC for starters) should learn some respect for science and not try to conjure stupid theories which:
Science and Thesism can coexist but they are distinct from each other and deal with different realms of thought.
There is nothing to debate.
ID is not a scientific theory it is just political nonsense.
I’m happy for religious classes in schools.
Just as any philosophy is worthy to teach.
They are distinct things.
Otherwise I demand that my faith also be taught as scientific fact - Pastafarianism.
[/quote]
macro evolution has no evidence. All I’ve said was it shouldn’t be in school corriculum if it’s a bullshit theory.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
macro evolution has no evidence. All I’ve said was it shouldn’t be in school corriculum if it’s a bullshit theory.[/quote]
Jesus Christ. Do you not listen or something? Every good teacher I know states that it’s JUST A THEORY. If you have an issue with that, take it up with the teacher.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
macro evolution has no evidence. All I’ve said was it shouldn’t be in school corriculum if it’s a bullshit theory.
Jesus Christ. Do you not listen or something? Every good teacher I know states that it’s JUST A THEORY. If you have an issue with that, take it up with the teacher.[/quote]
I know a lot more bad teachers than good ones sadly.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Makavali wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
macro evolution has no evidence. All I’ve said was it shouldn’t be in school corriculum if it’s a bullshit theory.
Jesus Christ. Do you not listen or something? Every good teacher I know states that it’s JUST A THEORY. If you have an issue with that, take it up with the teacher.
I know a lot more bad teachers than good ones sadly.[/quote]
exactly. My teacher never even used the word “theory”. Never mentioned any flaws with evolution, and basically most of what we “know” is based on it.
really fucking weak.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Spry wrote:
No one ‘believes’ in the Theory of Evolution.
It is the best theory at this time and helps us explain things.
Anyone who uses any tool which science has enabled in this modern day (your Internet connected PC for starters) should learn some respect for science and not try to conjure stupid theories which:
Science and Thesism can coexist but they are distinct from each other and deal with different realms of thought.
There is nothing to debate.
ID is not a scientific theory it is just political nonsense.
I’m happy for religious classes in schools.
Just as any philosophy is worthy to teach.
They are distinct things.
Otherwise I demand that my faith also be taught as scientific fact - Pastafarianism.
macro evolution has no evidence. All I’ve said was it shouldn’t be in school corriculum if it’s a bullshit theory.[/quote]
There are hundreds of instances of speciation. Add in the obvious molecular evidence and the fossil record and you can see why you and your Taliban creationsist buddies are laughed at so heartily.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html\
eagerly awaits a retort referencing a “Evolution protest pamphlet” from the 1950s LMAO!!
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Makavali wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
macro evolution has no evidence. All I’ve said was it shouldn’t be in school corriculum if it’s a bullshit theory.
Jesus Christ. Do you not listen or something? Every good teacher I know states that it’s JUST A THEORY. If you have an issue with that, take it up with the teacher.
I know a lot more bad teachers than good ones sadly.
exactly. My teacher never even used the word “theory”. Never mentioned any flaws with evolution, and basically most of what we “know” is based on it.
really fucking weak.[/quote]
Wow. That makes me sad. All my teachers (except 1) have always stated that evolution is simply a theory.
But again, isn’t this something that should be taken up with the education department? Science is taught because a lot of what we do is based off it. All I know is that none of the houses I’ve designed will fall down magically because the fundamental elements of gravity were proven wrong. Just like how if evolution is proven wrong, we’ll come up with another explanation and move on. A lot of the things ridiculed by ID’ers have helped a lot of the breakthroughs in the modern world.
Just saying.
[quote]RebornTN wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Why do so many people find it so difficult to comprehend how a complex structure such as the human eye could come about through the process of evolution?
-Honest question alert-
How does evolution explain the development of corresponding sexual organs with genetic mutation? Like, how did “we” evolve from being single celled organisms into reproductive systems that match and such.
-Honest question alert-[/quote]
There are a number of different theories on the development of sexual reproduction. It is thought that all organisms that utilize sexual reproduction share a single celled eukaryotic species as a common ancestor.
A prevalent theory is that sexual reproduction originated when a haploid organism with damaged DNA repaired itself by copying an undamaged sequence of DNA from another organism. This would be beneficial to the organism, as haploid individuals only have one copy of each gene, leaving them no record of what the undamaged sequence was.
The process of evolution from simple single celled organisms through to complex multicellular organisms could have occurred through a long series of tiny intermediate steps. What is necessary is that each step in the process provides a legitimate advantage to the organism.
This process does not occur purely randomly, but there is no final goal in mind either. Random genetic variations appear by chance, but natural selection decides which variations become fixed. Over many individuals across a long period of time, these tiny steps can result in huge changes.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Why do so many people find it so difficult to comprehend how a complex structure such as the human eye could come about through the process of evolution?
-Honest question alert-
How does evolution explain the development of corresponding sexual organs with genetic mutation? Like, how did “we” evolve from being single celled organisms into reproductive systems that match and such.
-Honest question alert-
There are a number of different theories on the development of sexual reproduction. It is thought that all organisms that utilize sexual reproduction share a single celled eukaryotic species as a common ancestor.
A prevalent theory is that sexual reproduction originated when a haploid organism with damaged DNA repaired itself by copying an undamaged sequence of DNA from another organism. This would be beneficial to the organism, as haploid individuals only have one copy of each gene, leaving them no record of what the undamaged sequence was.
The process of evolution from simple single celled organisms through to complex multicellular organisms could have occurred through a long series of tiny intermediate steps. What is necessary is that each step in the process provides a legitimate advantage to the organism.
This process does not occur purely randomly, but there is no final goal in mind either. Random genetic variations appear by chance, but natural selection decides which variations become fixed. Over many individuals across a long period of time, these tiny steps can result in huge changes.
[/quote]
Another honest question, then: If this is true, then why is it that we do not see one long, unbroken chain of development in the fossil record? From what I gather it is nothing like that at all, and in many (most?) cases new species seem to basically “appear” out of nowhere.
I’m certainly no IDer, I just would really like to get to the bottom of things, and I cannot accept evolution for the end-all-be-all answer like so many here readily (fervently? religiously?) seem to.
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Razorslim wrote:
Gene_lasker wrote:
All of you guys on here who are in favor of intelligent design and somehow against evolution are complete and utter morons.
Go to a research university and enroll in an Intro to Biology Course. That should clear up some of your issues.
Intelligent Design isn’t a scientific theory
Theories explain what goes on in the world. They explain facts. Theories are not something some scientist thinks up when he wakes up in the morning. Facts are the worlds data. Theories explain this data.
There is no such thing as MACRO and MICRO evolution. They are one in the same. These notions came about due to the popularization of science.
Intelligent Design doesn’t account for the fact of:
Change in allele frequencies throughout generations within a population. Evolution does.
I love when people start an argument out by calling the believers in the opposing view morons. I am sure there is a latin word for this kind of argument, but I don’t know it.
As far as Intelligent design goes, wether you believe it or not aren’t you the lease bit curious how the irreducible biological processes (like the healing process) and structures (like the eye) can be fully explained by evolution theory.
Why do so many people find it so difficult to comprehend how a complex structure such as the human eye could come about through the process of evolution?
Over many thousands of years, evolution can result in the formation of highly complex structures with independently functioning parts, even if it is only acting on a single gene at a time.
All that is necessary is that each intermediate step in the formation of the structure provides an adaptive advantage on its own, as each step in the process will be subjected to natural selection.
The human eye could have started simply as a few basic photoreceptor cells. To develop from that stage through to a more complex structure simply requires each tiny step in the process to provide a genuine advantage to the organism.
Even if the improvement is only relatively small, natural selection will still cause the adaptation to spread throughout the species over many generations.
Even the actual structure of the human eye tends to support the theory of evolution over intelligent design. For example, for some reason, the neural connections involved in transmitting information from the photoreceptor cells towards the brain are located in front of the photoreceptor cells, instead of behind the retina.
This means that the neural connections block some of the light from reaching the retina, which results in a reduction in visual quality.
Why would the creator design the human eye in such an illogical way, rather than having these nerve cells located behind the retina as is the case in some other species?
There are many other similar examples like this that simply make no sense at all when looked at from the perspective of intelligent design. Evolutionary theory on the other hand can easily explain why you would expect to observe such design flaws in highly complex structures.
There is no doubt in my mind that evolutionary theory can explain the existence of complex biological structures. A lot of evolutionist have used the “scaffolding hypothesis” as a means of refuting the irreducible complexity of some biological systems.
We are not arguing that evolutionary theory exists, which it does, we are arguing that the transition fossils to show how a cluster of photoreceptors in a simple invertabrate managed to transform itself step by step, cell by cell, mutated bit of DNA by mutated bit of DNA into the complex vision system we see in advanced mammals. It does not exist. It is all unproven theory.
[/quote]
You seemed to be implying that complex structures such as the eye cannot be fully explained by evolutionary theory. That is what I was responding to.
You are correct that the fossil record does not show perfect, continuous evolutionary sequences. That is why it is called the THEORY of evolution.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
BH6 wrote:
The theory of evolution causes so much controversy in the religious fundamentalist circles because it strikes at the very heart of their beliefs, that mankind was created by god. To believe otherwise is a challenge to their entire faith system.
If god didn’t interact with man at his creation, than perhaps he didn’t interact with man at all. Intelligent Design is an attempt to reconcile those opposing views of science and religion.
Intelligent design is not a theory, it is an idea or at best a hypothesis. Intelligence design is ultimately not testable and not adaptable because at the root of the argument you run into “GOD”.
GOD requires faith, faith is not measureable. The theory of evolution is a testable, measureable, adaptable theory that doesn’t claim to answer every question about the origin of man. It is simply the best explanation so far that has stood up to testing, measuring, and adapting to new findings.
Will the theory of evolution be the same in 50 years, absolutely not, new findings will create change in the theory, or create the need for a whole new theory. Intelligent design however will be the same, because of the “God” issue, it will not be able to accomodate new findings.
You almost want to ask them if evolution could in fact be God, or at least the will of.
I’m more interested in why we aren’t more actively trying to find a more sound way of explaining how wee got here. Macro evolution itself is a pretty ridiculous concept. Why aren’t we looking for somethnig more substantial?
Please explain why you believe that macroevolution is a ridiculous concept.
Be specific.
For the same reasons stated above. There is NO factual evidence for it. We have never seen species change into other species. We will only see slight variation within that species. Mutations can’t cause evolution because they cna only scramble existing genetic information. If we can trace our lineages back to micro organisms, do they have eyes or have other advanced organ structures like us primates do? How did the genetic information to create eyes get there?
sorry, you lose.[/quote]
Arrogant stupidity is the worst kind of stupid.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Why do so many people find it so difficult to comprehend how a complex structure such as the human eye could come about through the process of evolution?
-Honest question alert-
How does evolution explain the development of corresponding sexual organs with genetic mutation? Like, how did “we” evolve from being single celled organisms into reproductive systems that match and such.
-Honest question alert-
There are a number of different theories on the development of sexual reproduction. It is thought that all organisms that utilize sexual reproduction share a single celled eukaryotic species as a common ancestor.
A prevalent theory is that sexual reproduction originated when a haploid organism with damaged DNA repaired itself by copying an undamaged sequence of DNA from another organism. This would be beneficial to the organism, as haploid individuals only have one copy of each gene, leaving them no record of what the undamaged sequence was.
The process of evolution from simple single celled organisms through to complex multicellular organisms could have occurred through a long series of tiny intermediate steps. What is necessary is that each step in the process provides a legitimate advantage to the organism.
This process does not occur purely randomly, but there is no final goal in mind either. Random genetic variations appear by chance, but natural selection decides which variations become fixed. Over many individuals across a long period of time, these tiny steps can result in huge changes.
Another honest question, then: If this is true, then why is it that we do not see one long, unbroken chain of development in the fossil record? From what I gather it is nothing like that at all, and in many (most?) cases new species seem to basically “appear” out of nowhere.
I’m certainly no IDer, I just would really like to get to the bottom of things, and I cannot accept evolution for the end-all-be-all answer like so many here readily (fervently? religiously?) seem to.[/quote]
Here’s the deal. Don’t consider me an IDer. I’m fucking skeptic. I’m not trying to argue for ID, I’m argueing against the widespread belief that evolution is a proven fact.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
BH6 wrote:
The theory of evolution causes so much controversy in the religious fundamentalist circles because it strikes at the very heart of their beliefs, that mankind was created by god. To believe otherwise is a challenge to their entire faith system.
If god didn’t interact with man at his creation, than perhaps he didn’t interact with man at all. Intelligent Design is an attempt to reconcile those opposing views of science and religion.
Intelligent design is not a theory, it is an idea or at best a hypothesis. Intelligence design is ultimately not testable and not adaptable because at the root of the argument you run into “GOD”.
GOD requires faith, faith is not measureable. The theory of evolution is a testable, measureable, adaptable theory that doesn’t claim to answer every question about the origin of man. It is simply the best explanation so far that has stood up to testing, measuring, and adapting to new findings.
Will the theory of evolution be the same in 50 years, absolutely not, new findings will create change in the theory, or create the need for a whole new theory. Intelligent design however will be the same, because of the “God” issue, it will not be able to accomodate new findings.
You almost want to ask them if evolution could in fact be God, or at least the will of.
I’m more interested in why we aren’t more actively trying to find a more sound way of explaining how wee got here. Macro evolution itself is a pretty ridiculous concept. Why aren’t we looking for somethnig more substantial?
Please explain why you believe that macroevolution is a ridiculous concept.
Be specific.
For the same reasons stated above. There is NO factual evidence for it. We have never seen species change into other species. We will only see slight variation within that species. Mutations can’t cause evolution because they cna only scramble existing genetic information. If we can trace our lineages back to micro organisms, do they have eyes or have other advanced organ structures like us primates do? How did the genetic information to create eyes get there?
sorry, you lose.
Arrogant stupidity is the worst kind of stupid.
[/quote]
counter arguement?
arrogent: yes
stupid: not so much
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Why do so many people find it so difficult to comprehend how a complex structure such as the human eye could come about through the process of evolution?
-Honest question alert-
How does evolution explain the development of corresponding sexual organs with genetic mutation? Like, how did “we” evolve from being single celled organisms into reproductive systems that match and such.
-Honest question alert-
There are a number of different theories on the development of sexual reproduction. It is thought that all organisms that utilize sexual reproduction share a single celled eukaryotic species as a common ancestor.
A prevalent theory is that sexual reproduction originated when a haploid organism with damaged DNA repaired itself by copying an undamaged sequence of DNA from another organism. This would be beneficial to the organism, as haploid individuals only have one copy of each gene, leaving them no record of what the undamaged sequence was.
The process of evolution from simple single celled organisms through to complex multicellular organisms could have occurred through a long series of tiny intermediate steps. What is necessary is that each step in the process provides a legitimate advantage to the organism.
This process does not occur purely randomly, but there is no final goal in mind either. Random genetic variations appear by chance, but natural selection decides which variations become fixed. Over many individuals across a long period of time, these tiny steps can result in huge changes.
Another honest question, then: If this is true, then why is it that we do not see one long, unbroken chain of development in the fossil record? From what I gather it is nothing like that at all, and in many (most?) cases new species seem to basically “appear” out of nowhere.
[/quote]
Good question.
The rapid appearance of certain species in the fossil record is very interesting. One possible explanation is that it is because evolution does not tend to occur uniformly throughout a whole species. Instead, it is thought to occur within interbreeding populations that only occupy a small amount of the environment that the species as a whole exists in. In some cases, these populations are eventually able to adapt to the point where they sufficiently deviate from the species to form races, subspecies or eventually new species. For this reason, you would not expect the fossil record to show entire species following an unbroken chain of development.
[quote]
I’m certainly no IDer, I just would really like to get to the bottom of things, and I cannot accept evolution for the end-all-be-all answer like so many here readily (fervently? religiously?) seem to.[/quote]
This is pretty much how I feel as well.
In the end, I still have a problem with species divergence in the evolutionary theory. I don’t see an offspring having a different number of chromosomes and still being able to reproduce.
I mean you are talking about small steps, but at one point there would have to, for example, be an organism with 23 chromosomes that the next generation had say 24 (a change that would make an offspring unable to breed with it’s population, these are the kind of leaps the fossil record shows)
If it was some haphazard one of a kind mutation, the one and only 24 chromosome organism wouldn’t be able to breed.
There would have to be a co-mutation of a large portion of a generation of a species for this to make any since to me in terms of breed-ability and sustainability.
Unless for every significant change like that there would have to be an Adam and Eve type pair, but even that requires “random” mutation of multiple animals at the same time and place with the same mutation.
This is one place where ID makes more sense to me. The belief that these kind of changes occur with some sort of guidance. I’m not saying that it’s fact, but there are some reasons behind it.
The other problem with your baby steps to change is that the steps would have to get a statistically significant higher chance of survival, meaning not baby steps.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
In the end, I still have a problem with species divergence in the evolutionary theory. I don’t see an offspring having a different number of chromosomes and still being able to reproduce.
I mean you are talking about small steps, but at one point there would have to, for example, be an organism with 23 chromosomes that the next generation had say 24 (a change that would make an offspring unable to breed with it’s population, these are the kind of leaps the fossil record shows)
If it was some haphazard one of a kind mutation, the one and only 24 chromosome organism wouldn’t be able to breed.
There would have to be a co-mutation of a large portion of a generation of a species for this to make any since to me in terms of breed-ability and sustainability.
Unless for every significant change like that there would have to be an Adam and Eve type pair, but even that requires “random” mutation of multiple animals at the same time and place with the same mutation.
This is one place where ID makes more sense to me. The belief that these kind of changes occur with some sort of guidance. I’m not saying that it’s fact, but there are some reasons behind it.
The other problem with your baby steps to change is that the steps would have to get a statistically significant higher chance of survival, meaning not baby steps.[/quote]
good god, I’m glad I’m not the only person who thinks this way.
I believe in the fundamental tenets of Christianity but will admit that, with regard to the biological origin of life, I really don’t know. In my opinion, evolutionary theory makes some solid conclusion and some others are a bit of a reach. I don’t know how it really happened, won’t ever know and, except for a healthy degree of intellectual curiosity, don’t particularly care. It doesn’t diminish my faith, won’t affect my standing with the Almighty and the pursuit of an answer could waste too much of the precious little time I have in this world.
I think the problem occurs when those who take an agnostic/atheisic position believe they are then obligated to live by a humanistic philosophy and the moral relativism that accompanies it. Moral relativism affects not only individuals, but societies and, usually, not for the better. I think this is why Christians fear the universal acceptance of abiogenes and evolution, not the useless hair-splitting of evolution vs. 6-day creation.