Started By
Message
re: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution
Posted on 4/6/14 at 11:32 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Posted on 4/6/14 at 11:32 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
A Catholic who believes in Evolution but not ID.
If God ordered Evolution, then it is still some sort of ID.
1
Posted on 4/6/14 at 11:34 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:
So with all that has been said, does anyone believe that we are the only life forms in existence? And by we I mean the inhabitants of this planet
If the universe really is as big as we think it is, then there's life out there somewhere.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 11:37 pm to DCRebel
quote:
If the universe really is as big as we think it is, then there's life out there somewhere.
I'm inclined to agree.
I'm also inclined to believe that we have a very finite view of what "life" is, and that we may not comprehend other forms should we come across it.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 11:45 pm to MStevo
quote:
IMO we are too complex of creatures not to have a designer.
Watch Cosmos.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 11:46 pm to OMLandshark
I can't stop watching..
Posted on 4/6/14 at 11:47 pm to OMLandshark
quote:Well then who designed the designer. Cuase he is way to complex not to have a designer.
IMO we are too complex of creatures not to have a designer.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 11:48 pm to DirtyDawg
quote:
I'll wait until transitional fossils are found in droves, and only then will I begin to consider evolution somewhat valid. After all, Darwin him self said we should be tripping over these transitional fossils if his theory is true.
Everything is a transitional fossil. This is the dumbest fricking point ever that anti-evolutionists constantly bring up. What do you want them to name a newly found extinct animal? Could you imagine a museum opening up saying, "This is our newest exihibit, the 1/2 wolf, 1/3 Hyena, 1/8 Bear, and 1/20 Panda species"? Because that is the absolute debauchery you are demanding.
This post was edited on 4/6/14 at 11:52 pm
Posted on 4/6/14 at 11:51 pm to DirtyDawg
quote:
18. I had a class my junior year on Atheism and the theory of evolution (Christian School), and the evidence just weighs to far in the favor of intelligent design. I know most people would say, "Oh you learned this at a Christian School", but the teacher who taught the class actually worked under people like Ravi Zacharias and etc, and he knew both sides of the argument and presented it in an unbiased way.
If he mentioned transitional species, which is absolutely retarded from anyone's perspective who actually knows science, then yes your high school teacher is absolutely laughable.
And high school teachers aren't actually good references on this either. Mine didn't believe in evolution either, but taught it anyway, but it's laughable to think that there isn't evolution. Evolution just isn't a theory, but a scientific fact. We know how it works, unlike say gravity, which we don't have a clue about.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 11:52 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
What do you want them to name a newly found extinct animal?
That arch just keeps getting more and more crowded.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 11:54 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
We know how it works, unlike say gravity, which we don't have a clue about.
Wait... wut?
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:03 am to NATidefan
quote:
Wait... wut?
We know why random mutations occur. It's just an imperfect process where DNA has been messed up.
With gravity, yes we understand the principles behind it, but have you ever thought about why is there gravity in the first place? Why are other objects attracted to one another and do bigger objects attract smaller ones? Well, science doesn't even have a clue why this is. We know why the random mutations and thus evolution happens, but why gravity does, no one has a clue.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:14 am to OMLandshark
quote:
We know why random mutations occur. It's just an imperfect process where DNA has been messed up.
This is pretty unsatisfactory. I'm not hugely invested in the creation vs evolution debate. But to say that "mutation happen, the end" doesn't explain anything.
A mutation would not move a non-seeing organism to a seeing organism with one mutation. And a mutation which wasn't useful, we are told will disappear over time. So, how do you get large changes in an organism through random mutations assuming non-utilitarian mutations don't ultimately survive?
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:17 am to OMLandshark
quote:
With gravity, yes we understand the principles behind it, but have you ever thought about why is there gravity in the first place?
Oh ok, I see what you're saying...
quote:But the answer to this is gravity.
Why are other objects attracted to one another and do bigger objects attract smaller ones?
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:27 am to the808bass
quote:
So, how do you get large changes in an organism through random mutations assuming non-utilitarian mutations don't ultimately survive?
Because the useful ones survive.... Duh.
Sure you can't go from a "non-seeing organism" to a "seeing one" with one mutation.. but with one mutation you can have one develop very limited and minute form of vision. And believe me, it's easier to frick a girl if you can find them and also to grab a bite to eat afterwards... so it would be a mutation that would probably be useful and carry on. And over time mutate eventually into different forms of eyes. In areas where it is so dark you can't see... that mutation may not live on... which has been witnessed with animals in caves or in the deepest parts of the ocean. They've developed other sensory abilities...
This post was edited on 4/7/14 at 12:48 am
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:30 am to NATidefan
quote:
but with one mutation you can have one develop very limited and minute form of vision.
This seems more like a statement of faith than an actual scientific claim. Going from no vision to any sort of vision with one mutation isn't a rational claim, IMO.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:31 am to NATidefan
Here's a living transitional fossil.. Blind Mexican cave fish... used to have eyes, kinda still does... working towards not having them anymore. Boom ... Evolution.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:32 am to the808bass
quote:
This seems more like a statement of faith than an actual scientific claim
See blind mexican cave fish...
ETA.. you can also check out cave shrimp, crawfish, salamanders, bats...
This post was edited on 4/7/14 at 12:35 am
Posted on 4/7/14 at 12:36 am to NATidefan
Now is where someone comes along and brings up micro evolution again... 
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:09 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Everything is a transitional fossil. This is the dumbest fricking point ever that anti-evolutionists constantly bring up. What do you want them to name a newly found extinct animal? Could you imagine a museum opening up saying, "This is our newest exihibit, the 1/2 wolf, 1/3 Hyena, 1/8 Bear, and 1/20 Panda species"? Because that is the absolute debauchery you are demanding.
I'm still looking for the fossils that prove that bats and whales are related. After all that is what most people claim. That bats evolved into whales.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 1:15 am to DirtyDawg
quote:
After all that is what most people claim. That bats evolved into whales.
I hope you're just being facetious.
Page 6 of 49
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News