Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447  Of course it requires faith. You have to have faith in this little story that Darwin was the author of. Common sense would dictate towards ID not evolution, this is obviously where are views are different. The ID theory being compared to new-age Darwinists is ludicrous. ID was the main accepted theory of origin by almost every race, religion, culture until the beginning of the 20th century. The fact that you are still stating that ID has NO scientific backing, shows your partisanship, and your blind faith to the theory of evolution. Evolution is the cosmology of atheism. |
Have you ever heard of Anne Coulter? You should meet. I think you just quoted her actually.
Anyways - I have no problem accepting your theory. As soon as you provide some basis to back it up. In case you didnt know - when you try to discredit somebody elses work you have to have some work of your own to replace it with. Otherwise you sound like a derranged lunatic that is one step above scientologists. When you come up with a theory you have to test it, verify it, predict possible outcomes and maybe eve add some changes to it. As your theory has no outcome, can't be tested and is impossible to verify(unless you die of course in which case you'd only be proving what comes after life) it becomes what scientists call "junk science".
Quote:
|
Shown, experimented, or proven? Evolution can? Show me evolution and I will say it is ID. Prove evolution entirely and you will win the Nobel prize.
|
The Short Proof of Evolution
He pretty much sums it up for ya.
Quote:
|
I dont have to prove it to you the evidence
|
Of course you do. The burden of proof is on you. Not evolution. Otherwise you're nothing more then a bible thumper with no basis for your claims. I thought you didnt like being called a bible thumper.
Quote:
|
Of course it does. It falls under the ethic standard of Darwinism. Hitler believed that Jews (and other non-Aryan people) was a lesser inferior human race. He wanted to eradicate the weak and promote the strong following the law of natural selection.
|
But eradicating people out of your own free will is not natural selection :
Definition of natural selection :
Quote:
|
Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with unfavorable traits. It works on the whole individual, but only the heritable component of a trait will be passed on to the offspring, with the result that favorable, heritable traits become more common in the next generation. Given enough time, this passive process results in adaptations and speciation (see evolution).
|
Hitler trying to erradicate jews simply because he thought they were inferior can't be considered as natural selection since there is nothing natural about it. Had the jewish people been destroyed by the plague or some natural cause then you can say it's natural selection.
Quote:
|
But do you believe killing someone because you think you are better or "more fit" than them is right? This is why if you remove a higher moral law you sink into moral relativism.
|
If I kill somebody because I
think(keyword) they're weaker it would be murder. If I kill them because my survival is at risk and not because of a state of mind then of course I'd be in the right.
Quote:
|
Why are you not a supporter of bestiality? Why (morally) is it wrong to have sex with my German Shepherd? It doesn't matter how a carcass is used in nature, it is a matter of survival. If the animal does not adapt to us (the predator) it can't survive. According to you, we are just another animal anyway.
|
Strawman. I dont think "morality" has anything to do with having sex with a german shepard. Forcing an animal to have sex with you is not survival of the fittest in any way. Neither party is benefiting. You're not going to have offspring. The animal is going to in the end chose a partner it can have offspring with.
So other then the bible(or w/e book you use) you have absolutly nothing to back your claims of there being an intelligent designer.
Quote:
|
How is the age of the planet and universe relevant? What are you trying to prove? Darwin was never able to prove the creation of a new species due to evolution.
|
Ah but we were. As shown by the Africanized bee. A different species all on it's own.
Africanized bee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Quote:
|
Hundreds? For evolution to be true there would have to be an astronomical amount of imperfections in comparison to perfections. This is NOT what the fossil record shows, as I stated in my speech, evolution deviates more from the fossil record than Intelligent Design does. Yet there is no evidence for design.
|
I said there are hundreds of examples of unfit mutations(as in different kinds) in the animal kingdom that show you that if you posses a trait that is undesirable it wont help you survive.
Quote:
|
These bees (not an new animal on it's own) was bred by a Brazilian biologist. Another example of hybridization which was intelligently designed.
|
Incorrect
Quote:
|
In central and southern Africa, bees have had to defend themselves against other aggressive insects, as well as honey badgers, an animal that also will destroy hives if the bees are not sufficiently defensive. In addition, there was formerly no tradition of beekeeping, only bee robbing. When one wanted honey, one would seek out a bee tree and kill the colony, or at least steal its honey. The colony most likely to survive either animal or human attacks was the fiercest one. Thus the African bee has been naturally selected for ferocity.
|
Quote:
|
You want scientific evidence of God? Is that what you are trying to say?
|
Well since that is your theory - Yeah I guess. It would be nice.
Quote:
|
These sources hypothesize that major glaciers could have prevented animals prior to the Cambrian period to fossilize. In fact, Chinese paleontologists discovered fossils just preceding the Cambrian era, and it turned out the pre-Cambrian creatures were extraordinarily well preserved. Instead of a mass quantity of evolutionary ancestors, all we have at the outset of the Cambrian explosion are some little worms and sponges.
|
Quote:
|
No I asked how differing personalities and the human consciousness (and moral standard) could "evolve"
|
Your trying to connect survival of the fittest, natural selection and the human consciousness/personality with a string. It's not working. When Darwin talks about survival of the fittest and evolution he's talking from a physical standpoint. Not a psychological one.
Quote:
|
Considering I haven't quoted the Bible once... please.
|
Can't wait for that to happen.
Quote:
|
I never try to provide evidence for my God, once again you are asking me to scientifically prove God exists, don't make me laugh.
|
Well like I said - since your theory is that there is an intelligent designer - you have to atleast provide some basis for it. You have yet to understand that I have no problem beliving your theory. As long as you provide some proof of it.
Quote:
|
"To think that the eye could evolve by natural selection seems I freely confess absurd in the highest possible degree." - Charles Darwin.
|
Darwin wasn't disproving his theory he was simply admiting that he didnt have the capacity to prove exatcly how an organ evolved thus providing people with a potential way in which his hypothesis could be falsified. This however changes nothing to the fact that the people who propose the theory of ID provide no evidence to contradict Darwins theory.
Quote:
|
"The complete lack of fossil intermediates in all geological records is perhaps the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin.
|
Darwin said that and 2 years later they discovered the archaeopterix.
Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Quote:
|
"I have deluded myself and devoted myself to a fantasy." - Charles Darwin
|
If your going to debate - debate fairly and stop cutting off parts of phrases and taking them out of context : the entire phrase goes :
Quote:
|
Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy
|
Darwing never said he he had devoted himself to a fantasy - he like every good scientist simply questioned his own theory.
Quote:
And my favorite from the biggest Darwin Fan boy:
"As long as we can speculate freely about naturalistic explanations to nature and life, we shall keep ignoring all the evidence that points to intelligent design, no matter how strong this evidence is, and even if it takes engaging in scientific acrobatics.." - Richard Dawkins
|
lol the last one made me laugh. You're quoting from the same guy who said this about creationism :
Quote:
|
Dawkins is a prominent critic of creationism, describing it as a "preposterous, mind-shrinking falsehood".[28] His book The Blind Watchmaker is a critique of the argument from design, and his other popular-science works often touch on the topic. On the advice of his late colleague Stephen Jay Gould, Dawkins generally refuses to participate in debates with creationists because doing so would give them the "oxygen of respectability" that they want. He argues that creationists "don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters is that we give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public."[29] Dawkins did, however, take part in the Oxford Union's 1986 Huxley Memorial Debate, in which he and John Maynard Smith defeated their creationist counterparts
|
And then said this about evolution :
Quote:
|
In a December 2004 interview with Bill Moyers, Dawkins stated that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know." When Moyers later asked, "Is evolution a theory, not a fact?", Dawkins replied, "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." Dawkins went on to say, "It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue ...Circumstantial evidence, but masses of circumstantial evidence. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence
|