Sparked by another thread I've taken it to new levels of achievement, help us poll who believes in this concept and who does not. I for one think it's madness to makeup a theory to fit the already pre-established scientific principles. There is no god directing evolution, or anything else for that matter! You all need to wakeup and see reality! It's that good paradox of "life will emerge in the only place it can, thus you will never know where it can't". If humans didn't develop here it would've been elsewhere, this was the only circumstance under which they could evolve and so they did... god certainly didn't make us or anything as ridiculious as that!

FFS. Are you an American?

FFS. Are you an American?
Yes, after all he's from the USA

No.

http://www.sciforums.com/images/statusicon/thread_lock.gif

Many people BELIEVE in many things including God. They have just as much right to BELIEVE in God as I do not BELIEVING in it. Although the THEORIES of the way the universe started have not yet been proven I still consider THEORIS my way to BELIEVE in how everything actually began. No one is right or wrong they all just have their own ways of getting through the day.

i like derenzi's polls.
what's the matter with ya, bunch of grumpy old farts.

http://www.sciforums.com/images/statusicon/thread_lock.gif
http://www.sciforums.com/images/statusicon/thread_lock.gif
http://www.sciforums.com/images/statusicon/thread_lock.gif

As I see it, they're all a matter of "belief".

Some "believe" in evolution, even though it has not answered all of the questions about life on this or any world.

Some "believe" in creationism and/or intelligent design.

Since there is no proof for any of it, aren't they all just a "belief"?

Baron Max

Unfortunately, there is overwhelming evidence for evolution.

design, by the very nature of its inherent definition implies intelligence.

have a look at this:
http://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/iols.htm

now, none of us posses the knowledge of the eye to the level of an opthlamic surgeon, but I think most of us can appreciate the shear level of intricacy that is involved in the design and manufacture of IOL lenses right?

yet anyone who raises the absurdity of the assertion that the same lense occouring in our eyes naturally can only be as the result of mere "chance", and randomness, is dismissed as rubbish.

scientists are so pertinacious and bloddyminded, and so terrified at any possibility of a theory exsisting other than their own precious speculations, that they so easily dismiss anything that doesn't support their own narrow, miopic view of the world, which as mentioned, at best is pure speculation and conjecture.

Unfortunately, there is overwhelming evidence for evolution.

Okay, tell me where every bit of matter and energy came from in the first place? If you can't do that, then we're right back to no-proof, only-belief.

Baron Max

Unfortunately, there is overwhelming evidence for evolution.
the evidence is far from overwhelming.

and the way that this "theory" is forced down our throats at an early age, with no balanced view, no discussion of the many problems of the theory (that darwin himself expressed), no counter view, no exploration of the mass of work by other scientists that show the holes in darwins theory, borders on fascism.

but we only asscribe those emotions to "religious" fanatics. oh look how irrational they are, how emotional they are.

not as irrational and emotional as some dipshit scientist clinging to his dear "darwin theory" with the ferrocity of a 6 yr old child clinging to his comfort blanket.

Well... science is based on laws, and while we may not understand all of them (just as with the legal ones) something is not in question, there are universal laws that apply to everything. This means physics, then biology. These things are analyzed then interpreted, but not using personal beliefs, rather we use methods of testing. God is not a reproducable effect, nor is it something that really exists like matter. Thus we determine cosmic evolution, like that of atomic evolution, must, infact be the only real thing.

I will now go throw up from the yapping of intelligent design stuff.

Okay, tell me where every bit of matter and energy came from in the first place? If you can't do that, then we're right back to no-proof, only-belief.

Baron Max
it pains me to say, but i agree with you on this.

the darwinists can take evoluton as far back as they want, but ulitmately they stop at the single carbon atom.

the single carbon atom, with 12 electrons orbiting the nucleus.
the complexity of this one single atom alone transcends mere human comrehension.

how did such an atom come into being spurious?
how ??
how did the electrons come into exsistence?
how?
tell me?

where's your precious darwin now eh?
tell me.

fucking scientists.

Ummm, chemical and reactions like it don't need evolution, they just hit eachother an stuff.

how did such an atom come into being spurious?
how ??
how did the electrons come into exsistence?
how?
tell me?

where's your precious darwin now eh?
tell me.

fucking scientists.

What does Darwin have to do with abiogenesis?

it pains me to say, but i agree with you on this.

the darwinists can take evolution as far back as they want, but ultimately they stop at the single carbon atom.

the single carbon atom, with 12 electrons orbiting the nucleus.
the complexity of this one single atom alone transcends mere human comprehension.

how did such an atom come into being spurious?
how ??
how did the electrons come into existence?
how?
tell me?

where's your precious darwin now eh?
tell me.


Is there a name for this type of reasoning? How is pointing out that something is 'complex' or not 'currently understood' supposed to be a valid argument?
BTW-- I'm not trying to argue the topic at all (heck- you're probably just being sarcastic) , I'm just talking about the method of reasoning itself. It seems like there should be a term for it because I see people try to use it all the time.

Ummm, chemical and reactions like it don't need evolution, they just hit eachother an stuff.
like, totally awsome dude!:bugeye:


What does Darwin have to do with abiogenesis?
very little.
darwin has very little to do with anything.


Is there a name for this type of reasoning?
reasoning.


How is pointing out that something is 'complex' or not 'currently understood' supposed to be a valid argument?
how is it not a valid argument.
refute the validity of the statement.
when discussing something of the magnitude of the nature and reasons of exsistence, i think it's not unvalid to point out the limitations of human comprehension.


BTW-- I'm not trying to argue the topic at all
then i suggest you do try.


(heck- you're probably just being sarcastic) ,
no, you'll know when I'm being sarcastic.


I'm just talking about the method of reasoning itself. It seems like there should be a term for it because I see people try to use it all the time.

yes yes off course, since an entity can only exsist when it has been defined, and a linguistic term applied to it:rolleyes: <------(that's sarcasm BTW, incase you missed it)

What does Darwin have to do with abiogenesis?


very little.
darwin has very little to do with anything.


What did Darwin claim about abiogenesis?

What did Darwin claim about abiogenesis?
i don't know.
you tell me.

One of the problems I've come across in that type of "where did the first atom come from?" debate is that the faithful think that the less-than-faithful have failed because they aren't willing to pin it all on an unverified extra-corporeal being. The faithful seem to want to stop looking for answers so they lay it all on a deity while the less-than-faithful don't seem to consider "I don't know" the end of the line and therefore continue to look for the answers.

If there is a god, the faithful should stop being so judgemental. The less-than-faithful will find it when it has determined they will, and not a moment sooner. If there is no god, then the answers long sought after by mankind will eventually come to light.

(The only drawback is that fundamentalists will have to find new reasons to hate and kill each other...)

i don't know.
you tell me.

So, in other words...

the darwinists can take evoluton as far back as they want, but ulitmately they stop at the single carbon atom.

the single carbon atom, with 12 electrons orbiting the nucleus.
the complexity of this one single atom alone transcends mere human comrehension.

how did such an atom come into being spurious?
how ??
how did the electrons come into exsistence?
how?
tell me?

where's your precious darwin now eh?
tell me.

fucking scientists.

...was just you talking out of your ass, you have no clue and I should ignore you.
Sounds good to me.

how is it not a valid argument.
refute the validity of the statement.
when discussing something of the magnitude of the nature and reasons of existence, i think it's not invalid to point out the limitations of human comprehension.


You aren't pointing out the 'limits of human comprehension' though. Understanding doesn't end with "it's too complex". It usually just prompts more study.

My pets, read

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

I am certain of intelligent design, not sure if everything is predictable or pre-destined to be but certain of intelligent design.

it pains me to say, but i agree with you on this.

the darwinists can take evoluton as far back as they want, but ulitmately they stop at the single carbon atom.

the single carbon atom, with 12 electrons orbiting the nucleus.
the complexity of this one single atom alone transcends mere human comrehension.

how did such an atom come into being spurious?
how ??
how did the electrons come into exsistence?
how?
tell me?

where's your precious darwin now eh?
tell me.

fucking scientists.

Darwin is buried in Westminster Abbey. The theory of evolution describes how the diversity of life comes about.

If you want to know how an atom came into being I suggest you ask a physicist.

Okay, tell me where every bit of matter and energy came from in the first place? If you can't do that, then we're right back to no-proof, only-belief.

Baron Max

You need to go to school and take a biology class. Alternatively follow this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

The theory of evolution describes how the diversity of life comes about.
no it doesn't spurious.
it offers a speculative idea. it theoretises, it postulates as to the possible origins of mankind.
to take it as being something that provides the irrefutable, actuality beyond question is quite frankly absurd, and you know that.


If you want to know how an atom came into being I suggest you ask a physicist.
no one can offer conclusive origins of the atom spurious, again all physicists can do is offer speculation, conjecture and hypothisis.

So, in other words...


...was just you talking out of your ass, you have no clue and I should ignore you.
Sounds good to me.
you can give me conclusive, irrefutable, answer as to the origin of our exsistence, then be my guest...

this should be good.


you have no clue and I should ignore you
we all have no clue.
what, you think that one raven has the answer to it all?
dont be so arrogant, and belligerent.

no it doesn't spurious.
it offers a speculative idea. it theoretises, it postulates as to the possible origins of mankind.
to take it as being something that provides the irrefutable, actuality beyond question is quite frankly absurd, and you know that.


Well, you can't refute the Theory of evolution and hence it is pretty much irrefutable.

you can give me conclusive, irrefutable, answer as to the origin of our exsistence, then be my guest...
I can't.
I never claimed I could.
But you know what...
Try and pay attention here because this is the whole point you seem to be missing.
DARWIN NEVER CLAIMED TO EITHER.
He didn't claim anything about the origin of life.
So your whole mini-rant about "Darwinists" that I took issue with is pointless and reveals that you, in fact, know nothing about what you are arguing against.


we all have no clue.
what, you think that one raven has the answer to it all?
No I don't have the answer to it all.
I am fully aware of that.
Unlike some people, however, I don't argue beligerantly about theories that I know nothing about.

Well, you can't refute the Theory of evolution and hence it is pretty much irrefutable.

I agree. But then ...what started it? How did evolution have anything to work with in the first place? Is it part of the theory that matter and energy just pop up out of nowhere ....from nothing?

See? It's all just "belief" ....all of it. Some take it on faith that the theory of evolution made us what we are today ...and those people take it on faith that one day, somehow, they'll finally figure it all out. See? Faith.

Baron Max

Yes, Darwinism is a faith based philosophy.

Baron Max:


As I see it, they're all a matter of "belief".

Well, yes, but one is belief based on overwhelming evidence, and the other is belief based on an argument from religious authority.


Some "believe" in evolution, even though it has not answered all of the questions about life on this or any world.

Do you expect any scientific theory to answer all of the questions about life on this world? Be realistic. Note also that nobody has ever claimed for the theory of evolution that it answers all questions about life on this world.


Okay, tell me where every bit of matter and energy came from in the first place? If you can't do that, then we're right back to no-proof, only-belief.

Wrong. You're demanding of the theory of evolution something that nobody has ever claimed for it - that it explain the origin of matter and energy. The theory makes no attempt at all to do that, and no claim to do so either.


I agree. But then ...what started it? How did evolution have anything to work with in the first place? Is it part of the theory that matter and energy just pop up out of nowhere ....from nothing?

No, that's not part of the theory of evolution at all.

If you want to investigate the origins of the universe, you need to look to Physics, not Biology.


outlandish:


the darwinists can take evoluton as far back as they want, but ulitmately they stop at the single carbon atom.

Actually, they stop at the emergence of the first life form. Evolution is a biological theory, not a physical theory.


how did such an atom come into being spurious?
how ??
how did the electrons come into exsistence?
how?
tell me?

Briefly, atoms are made up of more fundamental particles, including electrons, neutrons and protons. These were formed partly in nucleogenesis processes inside stars. Stars, in turn, formed from the gravitational collapse of hydrogen gas. The hydrogen gas was formed in the big bang.

That's how it all came into existence.

You know that you could have just got a book out of the library about basic science, pitched at, say, 4th grade level, and found this out. I'm surprised you've never bothered, if you're interested in this kind of thing.

Well... science is based on laws, and while we may not understand all of them (just as with the legal ones) something is not in question, there are universal laws that apply to everything. This means physics, then biology. These things are analyzed then interpreted, but not using personal beliefs, rather we use methods of testing. God is not a reproducable effect, nor is it something that really exists like matter. Thus we determine cosmic evolution, like that of atomic evolution, must, infact be the only real thing.

I will now go throw up from the yapping of intelligent design stuff.


Evolution has never been observed. It's just as invisible as God is.

So the theory cannot even be supported by evidence of observation. Evolutions methods of testing cannot be relied upon either.

I'm surprised that people still don't know that there's no real evidence supporting evolution and therefore it's not a fact. It's a theory.

When you start manipulating facts to suit your theory then you're levelling on plain fantasy and quite frankly, lies.

And by the way, interpretations are subject to the use of personal beliefs. This is how we have many religions, evolution just being another one that bites the dust...

Baron Max:



Well, yes, but one is belief based on overwhelming evidence, and the other is belief based on an argument from religious authority.



Do you expect any scientific theory to answer all of the questions about life on this world? Be realistic. Note also that nobody has ever claimed for the theory of evolution that it answers all questions about life on this world.



Wrong. You're demanding of the theory of evolution something that nobody has ever claimed for it - that it explain the origin of matter and energy. The theory makes no attempt at all to do that, and no claim to do so either.



No, that's not part of the theory of evolution at all.

If you want to investigate the origins of the universe, you need to look to Physics, not Biology.


outlandish:



Actually, they stop at the emergence of the first life form. Evolution is a biological theory, not a physical theory.



Briefly, atoms are made up of more fundamental particles, including electrons, neutrons and protons. These were formed partly in nucleogenesis processes inside stars. Stars, in turn, formed from the gravitational collapse of hydrogen gas. The hydrogen gas was formed in the big bang.

That's how it all came into existence.

You know that you could have just got a book out of the library about basic science, pitched at, say, 4th grade level, and found this out. I'm surprised you've never bothered, if you're interested in this kind of thing.

Well James R, since you have this 4th grade book, tell us what caused the big bang. And I'm warning you, if you say quantum tunneling, I'm going to hang your cheese eating, buffoon of a master out of a four story tall window.

And whose going to feed you then?

fruityfigtree:


Evolution has never been observed. It's just as invisible as God is.

Actually, it has been directly observed in the laboratory.

But even if it had not been directly observed, it would have to be inferred from the multitude of other evidence that supports it.


Teetotaler:


Well James R, since you have this 4th grade book, tell us what caused the big bang.

I don't know. I'm not even sure it was caused.

But you don't know, either.

I agree. But then ...what started it? How did evolution have anything to work with in the first place? Is it part of the theory that matter and energy just pop up out of nowhere ....from nothing?

I'm afraid you are ill-informed. The earth was awash with organic molecules, substrates, soapy liquids etc. There was plenty of raw material for the first life forms to exist on.

fruityfigtree:

Actually, it has been directly observed in the laboratory.

But even if it had not been directly observed, it would have to be inferred from the multitude of other evidence that supports it.


If you're talking about the observation of bacteria in evolution then I suggest you read this...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0131observation.asp?vPrint=1

most of "the multitude of other evidence that supports it" has been disputed.

If you're talking about the observation of bacteria in evolution then I suggest you read this...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0131observation.asp?vPrint=1

most of "the multitude of other evidence that supports it" has been disputed.

haha...that was a funny read. That guy that wrote that is a real idoit.

basically the guy claims that because we started walking upright we didn't evolve. Because it changed the way we are which was "good" and "stable".

It's circular reasoning. Evolution means change to adapt to the environment. It doesn't matter if the old function isn't performed anymore as good as it used to be. If evolution means (like it is portrayed in that 'article') that there has to be an adaptation and the organism has to also be perfectly adapted to the old environment at the same time you are creating a strawman. That's not evolution.

If that was evolution no parasites could ever have evolved.

I'm surprised that people still don't know that there's no real evidence supporting evolution and therefore it's not a fact. It's a theory. ..I am leaning towards the view that individuals who make the 'its only a theory' statement should be painlessly put down. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant of how science works and what exactly a theory is. But when that ignorance is worn as a badge of honour and used as a cornerstone of arguments, the individual responsible (or rather irresponsible) has shown themselves to be a dangerous member of society. However, since I am something of a pacifist at heart I shall just go away and vomit quitely in a corner.

I am leaning towards the view that individuals who make the 'its only a theory' statement should be painlessly put down. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant of how science works and what exactly a theory is.
You could always direct them to the encyclopedia on theory. It could do with a better description though.

"A theory in science is a logical explanation or description of an occurrence or observation, or a verified hypothesis or proven model of the manner of interaction of natural phenomena, which can be used to predict future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and which is capable of being falsified through empirical observation. "

It's a good enough definition. The problem is, the theory of evolution has many logical fallacies and hasn't been observed.

I was probably wrong in even calling it a theory. It's just another philosophy as IceAgeCivilisation so eloquently put it.

i just doubt i came from a rock or primordial soup

"A theory in science is a logical explanation or description of an occurrence or observation, or a verified hypothesis or proven model of the manner of interaction of natural phenomena, which can be used to predict future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and which is capable of being falsified through empirical observation. "

It's a good enough definition. The problem is, the theory of evolution has many logical fallacies and hasn't been observed.

I was probably wrong in even calling it a theory. It's just another philosophy as IceAgeCivilisation so eloquently put it.

Ophiolite. hand me a bucket. I am going to vomit too.

Could you please enlighten me of the logical fallacies that thousands of scientists have conveniently overlooked or not noticed?

Theory in a nutshell

Darwin's theory is based on key observations and inferences drawn from them:

1. Species have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood.

2. Populations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations.

3. Food resources are limited, but are relatively stable over time.

4. An implicit struggle for survival ensues.

5. In sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical.

6. Some of these variations directly impact the ability of an individual to survive in a given environment.

7. Much of this variation is inheritable.

8. Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce, while individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce.

9. The individuals that survive are most likely to leave their inheritable traits to future generations.

10. This slowly effected process results in populations that adapt to the environment over time, and ultimately, after interminable generations, the creations of new varieties, and ultimately, new species.


Which bit is false?

You could always direct them to the encyclopedia on theory. It could do with a better description though.
This is true, but I derive much pleasure from being frustrated and angry.:)

i just doubt i came from a rock or primordial soupI don't doubt that you doubt it. Fortunately your doubts have bugger all to do with reality.
Where do you get the arrogance to doubt what you clearly do not understand? What gives you the self righeous confidence to pontificate on topics you are almost wholly ignorant of? I ask these questions not as a sly way of insulting you, but because I am genuinely intrigued by your thought processes (or apparent lack of them).

oh dear.

That's so heart warming that you want young earth creationists to be "put down," Ophi, you should really watch your language.

haha...that was a funny read. That guy that wrote that is a real idoit.

basically the guy claims that because we started walking upright we didn't evolve. Because it changed the way we are which was "good" and "stable".

It's circular reasoning. Evolution means change to adapt to the environment. It doesn't matter if the old function isn't performed anymore as good as it used to be. If evolution means (like it is portrayed in that 'article') that there has to be an adaptation and the organism has to also be perfectly adapted to the old environment at the same time you are creating a strawman. That's not evolution.

If that was evolution no parasites could ever have evolved.

I'm afraid I do not understand most of what you have written but I'll try give you my view of it all.

Adaptation means "change to adapt to the environment". Microscopic evolution is basically adaptation. However, the debate is on Macroscopic evolution (big bang, soup-to-human, rock-to-plant etc).

What this guy is saying is that what was observed in those bacteria was adaptation and not evolution.

The Evolution Theory is basically the genetic mutations of a species over many years (millions and millions) to survive their environment but their genetic mutations are for the better (making them stronger) AND that this happens through natural selection thus meaning the weaker of the species die in the process AND this all happens by chance.

The guy also points out that genetic mutations have been proven to lose pre-existing genetic information and not gain new information. Evolution is about the gain of new genetic information (like maybe wings on pigs so they can fly...).

"In a recent paper in Nature Genetics,1 scientists have reported observing the

evolution of Escherichia coli bacteria in a matter of days. An initial

response might be to ask what they evolved into. The answer would be mutant

bacteria with a loss of pre-existing genetic information. The next question

might be about what the authors’ definition of evolution is. The answer would

be mutation and natural selection acting over millions of years to bring about

complex life forms from simpler ones. The final question might be: “Then did

they really observe evolution?” The answer would be: “No!”"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0131observation.asp?vPrint=1

This is basically what that whole article is about. It's his opening paragraph.

Evolution has never been observed. It's just as invisible as God is.


Actually, it has been directly observed in the laboratory.

Actually it has been observed in nature as well.
See the Daphne Island Finches.




i just doubt i came from a rock or primordial soup

Yet again, Darwn made no claims about abiogenesis.
Learn what the theory is before you argue against it.

Are the finches still finches? Thought so.

Theory in a nutshell

Darwin's theory is based on key observations and inferences drawn from them:

1. Species have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood.

2. Populations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations.

3. Food resources are limited, but are relatively stable over time.

4. An implicit struggle for survival ensues.

5. In sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical.

6. Some of these variations directly impact the ability of an individual to survive in a given environment.

7. Much of this variation is inheritable.

8. Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce, while individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce.

9. The individuals that survive are most likely to leave their inheritable traits to future generations.

10. This slowly effected process results in populations that adapt to the environment over time, and ultimately, after interminable generations, the creations of new varieties, and ultimately, new species.


Which bit is false?

I'd say number 10 is arguable :D .

Adaptation happens, no doubt. But a change into a new species? That's where I beg to differ.

I heard a rumour that the only qualification Darwin had was a degree in theology..

And species is a meaningless term, as different "species" can "interbreed," so Darwin was not much of a biologist for sure, yet he is the icon of mainstream biologists, how strange.

I'd say number 10 is arguable :D .

Adaptation happens, no doubt. But a change into a new species?


Here is some examples.

http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf

I'd say number 10 is arguable :D .

Adaptation happens, no doubt. But a change into a new species? That's where I beg to differ.


I see. The logical fallacy being that you can't believe it? Do you know what a logical fallacy is?
How is the accumulation of small changes leading to new species a logical fallacy? Can you not cover a large distance with small steps?




I heard a rumour that the only qualification Darwin had was a degree in theology..


red herring. He was an excellent biologist and not only know for his theory of evolution. His work on barnacles was world class. He proposed a theory on how coral atolls form. His work on worms was thrilling.

How is the accumulation of small changes leading to new species a logical fallacy? Can you not cover a large distance with small steps?

Yeah, it just takes lots of faith and belief, huh?


Do you know what a logical fallacy is?

Huh, let me guess! It's a new kind of Tex-Mex food, right?

How is the accumulation of small changes leading to new species a logical fallacy? Can you not cover a large distance with small steps?


He was an excellent biologist and not only know for his theory of evolution. His work on barnacles was world class. He proposed a theory on how coral atolls form. His work on worms was thrilling.

Sounds kinda like worship, don't it?

Baron Max

It's one thing to say that kinds of animals morphed into new kinds, it's another to show that it did in fact happen that way.

"His work on worms was thrilling," sounds like something Genji would say.

Yeah, it just takes lots of faith and belief, huh?
No. You can test it.




Sounds kinda like worship, don't it?


No, it doesn't. I merely tried to show that Darwin was an excellent biologist. I actually have read accounts of top Dutch embryologist in the second half of the 19th century on Darwin's work (see correspondence of the likes of P.P.C. Hoek and Hubrecht). They were not talking about his theory of evolution at all. They were discussing his work on Barnacles since it also covers the developmental biology of these organisms. He was their peer.

Obviously an American like you will never come into contact with Historical material like that, so I will just do you the pleasure of informing you that this stuff still exists in museums and libraries in Europe.



Baron Max
Who?

And Darwin is on British money, bad bet.

That's so heart warming that you want young earth creationists to be "put down," Ophi, you should really watch your language.No. I lean to the notion (which is different from wanting) that people who don't understand what a theory is, yet take pride in their ignorance, should be euthenised. Take lessons in reading comprehension. Also learn the function of metaphor and hyperbole.

Nice squirm away.

I don't think Intelligent design and Unintelligent design are mutually exclusive. Look at any city.

So it is not acceptable that we could evolve from simple life forms.. yet it is completely believable that an infinitely complex and powerful being (such as a god) could just pop into existence?

I'm proud this poll has done so well, thank you all for contributing to it :)

I didn't.

red herring.


Here is what I was talking about when I asked if there was a term for the reasoning. Of course, "red herring" isn't the specific term I was looking for, but something similar. Nobody ever ended up answering my question.

...

Nice squirm away.

Likely Piltdown man caused the same amount squirming for him and the scientific community.

Let us speak of scientific ignorance and closed mindness that they wish to draw the most amount of attention away and avoid responsibility.

Yeh, turned out "Nebraska Man" was "fleshed out" from a pig's tooth.

Likely Piltdown man caused the same amount squirming for him and the scientific community.

Let us speak of scientific ignorance and closed mindness that they wish to draw the most amount of attention away and avoid responsibility.Saquist continues to displays a total failure to understand the scientific method. He confuses the action of scientists acting against the scientific method as being a condemnation of science.
He fails to understand the provisional nature of all scientific results.
Do you have any sort of education at all, Saquist? Just curious? You keep it so well concealed.

You gotta bring something stronger than that Ophi, here comes Sarquist.

Why aren't there any human fossils older than 200K years?

Saquist continues to displays a total failure to understand the scientific method. He confuses the action of scientists acting against the scientific method as being a condemnation of science.
He fails to understand the provisional nature of all scientific results.
Do you have any sort of education at all, Saquist? Just curious? You keep it so well concealed.

condeming...no you display social incompetence. Lets leave interpretation aside.

The Piltdown man is the perfect example of just what a scientist (like yoursef)is willing to do to see theory become Law...

Do you understand truth Ophilolite? This you keep this so well concealed under your arrogance for there is no reason to percieve that as an attack against science...

Respecting science as I do I do not reject a theory for disagreements sake. I do not value my own opinion as grossly as you do your own.

That was the lesson learned. But it's a good lesson, humbling and the same state of limbo that occured after this dramatic discovery is the same limbo evolution continues to occupy. Oblivion...
chase it if you will...Spite me for not leaping over the cliff after your example to salavage it.

yawn.

If you want to know what scientists are thinking on human evolution you look at the latest article on human evolution. You don't go and surf creationist websites and wonder about the 'piltdown man'.

Well, you can't refute the Theory of evolution and hence it is pretty much irrefutable.
that isn't the case.



http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php

that isn't the case.



http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php

Dear Outlandish,

Harun Yahya is not a scientist, he uses other scientists work out of context to justfify his Creationist beliefs.

I suggest to get a clear understanding of evolution you try:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

"Do not look at the man behind the curtain."

You are all fools! Intelligent design is as big a farce as christianity was & still is, give it up!

And you would have us believe that the fire fly morphed from a slug, go figure.

Why not? You did.

that isn't the case.



http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php

That isn't a refutation. That's a link to some silly books.

Why not? You did.I am considering reporting you for this post. Fireflys and slugs are valuable members of the biosphere. To compare them to Ice Age Civilisations is a gross calumny.:bawl:

Keep your day job Ophi, your future is not in comedy.

I continue to be fascinated how the uniformitarian approach resembles the orthodoxy approach to new ideas introduced....ridicule ridicule and ridicule....

It appears while becoming more scientific and delving into "how" and "why things happend they inherited the same flat faced attitude the church employed.

At least we know human nature hasn't evovled.

That's because you are a moron.

Clever retort spur.

im sure that's not entirely his fault, I could be wrong though...

Who are you two kidding trolls. You agree with each other. Two woo woos in agreement. Big deal.

Your real problem is that the rest of the world sees you as a bunch of nutters and that you can't see that.

And since neither of you ever can mount an argument you two don't have much ground to stand off.

So just piss off trolls.

Ohhhhhhhh, spur.

I know you are hoping you got me mad, but I am not. You are just a troll. Slime. Goo.

Goo goo ga ga.

Good grief...

Nutter is such a cool harangue, leave it to the Brits.

This world was created from another world. Whether it was created by means of intelligence or turn of events is not known.

World creations is cyclic...those worlds that create other worlds also create the worlds that created them. Only that way can any universes have been created.

Cataclysms...intresting...

Keep your day job Ophi, your future is not in comedy.

I don't think he's playing to your demographic iac.

The thread opens with a question on the reality or falsehood of intelligent design. It is interesting to observe that while there is no proof of intelligent design there is equally no clear proof against it. I do not refer here to a God, or Gods, but to the possibility (no matter how remote) of alien intervention at some stage (or stages) of the evolutionary process, or the point of abiogenesis.
Sir Francis Crick and Sir Fred Hoyle both promoted that particular view of pan spermia, so the idea has some pedigree. Let us be clear, however, that such ideas have absolutely no relationship to the one line waffles of IAC, or the rambling, biblically based creationism of Saquist.

there is equally no clear proof against it.

Nor evidence in favour of it. Which in itself is proof against it.

Nor evidence in favour of it. Which in itself is proof against it.
will you stop jiggling those tits in my face?

I voted Yes.

will you stop jiggling those tits in my face?

Stop jiggling you feet. you are making me dizzy.

Stop jiggling you feet. you are making me dizzy.
i'm dancing on your tits.

I voted Yes.

Could you be so kind Sir to name an intelligently designed biological structure?

Could you be so kind Sir to name an intelligently designed biological structure?The breasts of many of the women appearing naked in Playboy magazine.

The breasts of many of the women appearing naked in Playboy magazine.

Dear other Sir! You are cheating! you cheeky Sir.

Could you be so kind Sir to name an intelligently designed biological structure?

http://angelinajolie.celebden.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/Angelina%20Jolie%20as%20lara%20croft.jpg

Unfortunately she seems to be the result of a rather messy cross between her father and her mother giving plenty of opportunity for chance to fuck things up during the ratrace from sperm to egg and during recombination events, rather than being designed intelligently.

Unfortunately she seems to be the result of a rather messy cross between her father and her mother giving plenty of opportunity for chance to fuck things up during the ratrace from sperm to egg and during recombination events, rather than being designed intelligently.

'May have', but did not. The past cannot endure two simultaneous and mutually-exclusive options. Historical hypotheticals such as you described are therefore irrational fantasy. Rebuttal refuted.

'May have', but did not. The past cannot endure two simultaneous and mutually-exclusive options. Historical hypotheticals such as you described are therefore irrational fantasy. Rebuttal refuted.

Excuse me Sir, you have provided no evidence contrary to my claim. Hence your rebuttal has been proven to be a mere waste of bandwidth.