Evolution

Rhapsody1447 · 12-06-06, 06:18 PM

Test Test Test

Rhapsody1447 · 12-06-06, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Did you write this? It's pretty impresive. Fine vocabulary, an usage of the english language that surpases my own by a few school years but other then that - words on deaf ears. Like I said. I have no problem letting you belive that intelligent design is probably the most logical solution for how we went from being microscopic organisms to human beings - just let me belive that it happened because we needed to survive and not because math(to put it in crude words) made it happen. I highly doubt that everytime an animal faced natural extinction something would "click" and make incredibly complex calculations determining the best way for that particular species to survive if this was the case why doesnt every animal facing extinction today suddenly re-adapt to it's environement? Evolution is a time proven fact. Those that dont adapt. Die off. Those that do. Survive. These "intelligent agents" supporters of ID(if thats the case with you) rely on are nothing more then the imagination of people who try to give special meaning to their lives.

Yes, I did write it myself, it was for a persuasive speech in English class, appreciate the compliment. I am not trying to retrict you from believing in evolution, I just hate how the ACLU won't teach alternative methods to the Origin of Species because they don't want to bring faith into the classroom. In fact, evolution requires just as much faith as Intelligent Design does. Evolution is not a time proven fact it is a theory of how man came to be. Believers rely more than just their imagination, no one is trying to give special meaning to their lives. They just don't buy into the theory that we appeared out of chance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

And what is the mathematical probability of intelligent agents or some mathematical changing the biology of a certain animal and causing it to evolve?

Intelligent Design does not need to be validated by mathematical probabilities, evolution does. Intelligent Design simply states that there is intelligence behind the "evolution" of our species, not chance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

I really enjoyed the last part of your text but found it to be the most flawed - Hitler was not among the first people to commit genocide - Genocide has been commited throughout history many times over(thus the phrase - History has a funny way of repeating itself)

This was a mistake on my part, what I meant was MODERN history, not RECORDED history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Hitler was a demented mad man who was influenced by many different ideologies some of them darwinian in origin, others religious.

Hitler's religious beliefs and fanaticism

Those are extracts from Mein Kempf. I hope you enjoy reading them as much as I do. It gives me pleasure to know that hitler was as religious as your everyday redneck and that blaming his attrocities on Darwinism is pure bs.

I read the quotes from Mein Kempf you provided and I think it isn't relevant to my argument. My argument was that Hitler followed a set of Darwinian ethics derived from "natural selection."

In Mein Kempf, Hitler wrote:

Quote:

Everyone who believes in the higher evolution of living organisms must ad mit that every manifestation of the vital urge and struggle to live must have had a definite beginning in time and that one subject along must have menifested it for the first time. It was then repeated again and again; and the practice of it spread over a widening area, until finally it passed into the subconscious of every member of the species, where it manifested itself as "instinct."

Quote:

...to promote the victory of the better, the stronger, and to demand the submission of the worse and weaker."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

See I would agree with ya if we didnt have laws. You know, those little lines on paper that put you in jail for life if you decide to stab some random joe? I guess if we didnt have them and you went on a rampage following the basic principles of survival of the fittest to the T - I'd have no problem with slashing your throat if you posed any kind of threat to me but alas this is the reason we have laws. To separate us from the beasts and puts us one step above them.

So you are saying that federal laws are the only thing that makes murder morally wrong? If I could legally wipe out everyone who was mentally and physically defective, are you suggesting I would be in the right? Hitler legally could kill millions of Jews, which he deemed as "inferior", was there anything morally wrong with the acts committed by Hitler?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

In the animal kingdom those that have a physical or mental disadvantage when facing an enemy dont survive unless they adapt.

So why should humans be any different? Are you a supporter of bestiality and animal's rights?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

And who created him? Another intelligent designer? Look we can go up the ladder as much as you want - you'll always end up giving me the same awnser and we'll engage in silly mystisism based on nothing more then assumptions without any facts or evidence that contradict the massive stockpiles of evidence evolution has against your thesis.

The sense of God does not have to be entirely entwined with the theory of Intelligent Design. God always was and always will be. It goes the same with science. What created the universe? The Big Bang? Where did the Big Bang originate from? A speck? Where did that speck come from? You can go up and up the ladder both ways. You refer to massive stockpiles of evolution, but where are these massive stockpiles? Hypothesis' and theories?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Nobody in history ever witnessed ID but doesn't stop you from preaching it.

Ironically the belief that species progressed from a primitive form to a more complex species points more towards Intelligent Design than it does to evolution. In order for evolution to be correct, we would see thousands upon thousands of unfit mutations/progressions (eyes in the back of the head, legs coming out of your face etc.) but we see the opposite, it seems that every time a species "evolves" it happens the first time, no mistakes. That tends to lend itself towards design.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

So because evolution doesn't happen as quickly as you'd like it can instantly be discarded? There are new species of animals. Darwinism isn't restricted to survival of the fittest.

New animal species evolved in an instant - life - 27 July 2005 - New Scientist

You take this example of the finches way too heavy - have you forgotten the africanized bee?

New animal species evolved in an instant - life - 27 July 2005 - New Scientist

Both articles are the same.... did you copy and paste wrong? The species of maggots you are referring to are merely a result of hypridisation. Mating between do different types of maggots to create a new type. Just like mating between two different dogs produces a new breed of dog, not a new species. I point the finches example because it's an ironic example of how we have never seen natural evolution create a new animal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Where is the scientific backing for the ID? The Bible? Your assumptions? Dont make me laugh. Offer any scientific evidence accepted by the international scientific community that gives any credence to ID and then maybe you'll have something.

This is what happened last time an evolutionary biologist attempted to publish a paper refuting evolution.

Editor Explains Reasons for 'Intelligent Design' Article

To quote Richard Dawkins, "evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" Of course there would be extreme hysteria and hate against someone trying to disprove it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Actually the duration occurred over 10s of millions of years. not 5-10. And there are many different solutions scientists have offered for this period in history - oxygen levels, severe glaciation and ecological explanations - I admit that while neither of these is 100% certain - they're certainly much better then "an intelligent designer of which we have no evidence to back up his existence other then our words".

Evidence for your assertion that it took place of 10s of millions of years? 5-10 is the general consensus. Also I would like to add that the reason it is 5-10 is merely because that is the closest radiocarbon dating can pin it down to. For all we know it could have happened in a millisecond... (supporting design?). Are these scientists stating that these varying conditions would prevent fossilization of species prior to the Cambrian? I have evidence to disprove that claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/hbook/brain.htm

I read the article, this merely shows that as the cranium allowed the brain to expand, it grew in size. How does this show that evolution could produce a conscience or personalities?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Yup - because an intelligent designer works much better.

Your sarcasm supports my theory!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

The first part is simply not true. The second part is those that dont adapt and are weak are left behind - It is only because of our own values and convictions and not those of your mystical designer guy( which you have no scientific evidence of) that those who are weak within our species survive. Imagine a masai with spina bifida surviving in Serengeti for more then a day without help from his family and friends? Unheard of. As much as you want to deny it - the weak and those unable to adapt die off unless others help them. All we've done is interfere with nature. Nothing more.

How is it simply not true? Please debate the point. Our own values and convictions come from this "mystical designer guy" where else would they come from? Our ancestors, the apes? You want me to scientifically prove God exists? Too much to ask from a mere high schooler, haha.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

And back to square one. So how was it ignorant of me to say "God did it" is the solution people who propose ID offer? You're picking at a dead man completely disregarding the discoveries and changes that have been made and added to his studies in the past 100 years alone. All you offer is "A higher being" without any scientific evidence to back it up. Just assumptions. Good Game.

It was ignorant to say "God did it" because obviously you display no knowledge of any of the theories of scientist who do believe in a God, on how we came to be. There has never been a largely significant discovery or change that as been added to his studies in the past hundred years. Once again, you ask for scientific evidence of a higher being existing, all we have is scientific evidence of the effects of a higher being, not one himself. Good Game? We are just starting.

Hatuey · 12-06-06, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447

Yes, I did write it myself, it was for a persuasive speech in English class, appreciate the compliment. I am not trying to retrict you from believing in evolution, I just hate how the ACLU won't teach alternative methods to the Origin of Species because they don't want to bring faith into the classroom. In fact, evolution requires just as much faith as Intelligent Design does. Evolution is not a time proven fact it is a theory of how man came to be. Believers rely more than just their imagination, no one is trying to give special meaning to their lives. They just don't buy into the theory that we appeared out of chance.

Evolution doesn't require any faith just common sense. People who push the ID theory are the new-age Darwinists. The only difference between them and Darwin is that their theory about an intelligent designer is nothing more then junk that can't be proven, shown or even experimented on. They're nothing more then words with no other backing then the bible if they choose to use it and if they dont - they have nothing more then words with no scientific backing watsoever.

Quote:

Intelligent Design does not need to be validated by mathematical probabilities, evolution does. Intelligent Design simply states that there is intelligence behind the "evolution" of our species, not chance.

Intelligent Design simply states something that can't be shown, experimented on or proven. Evolution doesn't happen because of "chance" it happens because of every creature's need to survive.

Quote:

I read the quotes from Mein Kempf you provided and I think it isn't relevant to my argument. My argument was that Hitler followed a set of Darwinian ethics derived from "natural selection."

In Mein Kempf, Hitler wrote:

Engaging in a war to eradicate jews hardly qualifies as natural selection. The quotes from Mein Kempf are ment to show you that Hitler was influenced by different ideologies and it's unfair to put evolution as a front runner without including religion

Quote:

So you are saying that federal laws are the only thing that makes murder morally wrong? If I could legally wipe out everyone who was mentally and physically defective, are you suggesting I would be in the right? Hitler legally could kill millions of Jews, which he deemed as "inferior", was there anything morally wrong with the acts committed by Hitler?

Honestly? I belive that if we didnt have laws murder would be as normal as walking. Laws and human conviction are the only things that keep that from happening. In nature those that are weak dont survive. It's really that simple. I dont belive killing somebody for the sake of killing them is right - but if it came to my survival or yours. You die buddy. Hitler was a good orator, he fed off the success the jews had and blamed them for the conditions most germans were living in. Envy is a powerful weapon when used by the right men.

Quote:

So why should humans be any different? Are you a supporter of bestiality and animal's rights?

This is when people get absurd and take things to the ridiculous extent. No I'm not a suporter of bestiality and I am a supporter of animal right. Dont tell me that I'm contradicting myself by saying I supporting animals rights and then turn around and tell you that those that dont adapt, dont survive. I support animal rights because animals don't go through chemical testing in nature, they're not used for furr in nature and they're not used to make suitcases in nature. I belive that animals when threatened by natural circumstances either adapt or dont survive.

Quote:

The sense of God does not have to be entirely entwined with the theory of Intelligent Design. God always was and always will be. It goes the same with science. What created the universe? The Big Bang? Where did the Big Bang originate from? A speck? Where did that speck come from? You can go up and up the ladder both ways. You refer to massive stockpiles of evolution, but where are these massive stockpiles? Hypothesis' and theories?

Do you belive in God?

Look, the age of the universe has been calculated, the age of the earth has been calculated, the earth has been proven to be round, it's been assessed that a meteorite is responsible for erradicating earth 65 million years ago. While not all of these are 100% certain - they're backed by alot more evidence then "An intelligent designer did it". Evolution when first presented by Darwin had some evidence with it. What has ID provided? Nada, 0, Silch. Until you can show me a sign of this "Intelligent Designer"(why dont you cut the crap and call him god, I know you're craving to do it) I'll give your "theory" some credence.

Quote:

Ironically the belief that species progressed from a primitive form to a more complex species points more towards Intelligent Design than it does to evolution. In order for evolution to be correct, we would see thousands upon thousands of unfit mutations/progressions (eyes in the back of the head, legs coming out of your face etc.) but we see the opposite, it seems that every time a species "evolves" it happens the first time, no mistakes. That tends to lend itself towards design.

That lends itself towards design? Not survival? There are hundreds of examples of unfit mutations within the animal kingdom. Albinism, blue and two toned lobsters and animals with extra legs.

Antennapedia mutation

Man Finds Rare Yellow Lobster - Spotlight - local6.com | WKMG

Photo in the News: Lobster Caught "Half Cooked" in Maine

Quote:

Both articles are the same.... did you copy and paste wrong? The species of maggots you are referring to are merely a result of hypridisation. Mating between do different types of maggots to create a new type. Just like mating between two different dogs produces a new breed of dog, not a new species. I point the finches example because it's an ironic example of how we have never seen natural evolution create a new animal.

Yeah I did - sorry - The africanized bee is a perfect example of evolution - different species mating and creating a better, stronger and bigger bee.

Africanized bee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

different animal all on its own.

Quote:

This is what happened last time an evolutionary biologist attempted to publish a paper refuting evolution.

Editor Explains Reasons for 'Intelligent Design' Article

To quote Richard Dawkins, "evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" Of course there would be extreme hysteria and hate against someone trying to disprove it.

I think evolution brought out the same ire from people 150 years ago. Only difference was evolution had something to back it up. ID just has words.I have no problem with ID - I would just like to see some evidence that the intelligent designer spoken so highly of is for real and not just words on print.

Quote:

Evidence for your assertion that it took place of 10s of millions of years? 5-10 is the general consensus. Also I would like to add that the reason it is 5-10 is merely because that is the closest radiocarbon dating can pin it down to. For all we know it could have happened in a millisecond... (supporting design?). Are these scientists stating that these varying conditions would prevent fossilization of species prior to the Cambrian? I have evidence to disprove that claim.

Special Feature: The Cambrian "explosion": Slow-fuse or megatonnage? -- Conway Morris 97 (9): 4426 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Quote:

The Framework. Stratigraphic sections spanning the Vendian-Cambrian boundary show a broadly similar pattern whereby the key events are bracketed by the 600-million-year (Myr)-old Neoproterozoic glacial deposits (tillites) and in the succeeding Cambrian diverse metazoan assemblages, typified by abundant skeletons, diverse trace fossils, and Burgess Shale-type faunas (Fig. 1). One key development is a series of accurate radiometric determinations (1). The Vendian-Cambrian boundary is now placed at 543 Myr, and the duration (45 Myr) of the Cambrian is substantially shorter than once thought. The preceding Ediacaran faunas have an approximate age range of 565-545 Myr. Accordingly, the overall time-scale for discussion is a relatively protracted 65 Myr, although the principal events of evolutionary interest are probably more tightly bracketed (550-530 Myr) between the diverse Ediacaran faunas of latest Neoproterozoic age (2) and the Chengjiang Burgess Shale-type faunas (3). Correlations are also assisted by emerging schemes of chemostratigraphy (2, 4), notably with reference to strontium (87Sr) and carbon (13C).

Special Feature: The Cambrian "explosion": Slow-fuse or megatonnage? -- Conway Morris 97 (9): 4426 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Quote:

I read the article, this merely shows that as the cranium allowed the brain to expand, it grew in size. How does this show that evolution could produce a conscience or personalities?

You asked for evolution of the brain.

Quote:

Our own values and convictions come from this "mystical designer guy" where else would they come from? Our ancestors, the apes? You want me to scientifically prove God exists? Too much to ask from a mere high schooler, haha.

Oh so you do belive in god. Closet bible thumber posing as a scientists. And a teen at that.

Quote:

It was ignorant to say "God did it" because obviously you display no knowledge of any of the theories of scientist who do believe in a God, on how we came to be. There has never been a largely significant discovery or change that as been added to his studies in the past hundred years. Once again, you ask for scientific evidence of a higher being existing, all we have is scientific evidence of the effects of a higher being, not one himself. Good Game? We are just starting.

Who is this Intelligent Designer closet bible thumpers hide behind. Xenu? You're trying to turn all the evidence for evolution into evidence for your god. without even providing evidence that your god exists and it's not simply about survival when it comes down to 1. Good Game(egothing).

Rhapsody1447 · 12-07-06, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Oh so you do belive in god. Closet bible thumber posing as a scientists. And a teen at that.

I don't have time tonight to make a full response because I need my beauty sleep, but please cut this bigoted condescending bull****. Of course I believe in God read my other posts. I am hardly a "closeted" bible thumper (a ****ing bigoted term that is up there with kike), I am sorry if I find more truth in a book written by a loving God rather than a book written by a Christian hating scientist. I am no more posing as a scientist than you are, so cut that bull****. I am merely researching and posting evidence...which is exactly what you are doing. Don't bring my age into this either especially after being quoted saying:

Quote:

Did you write this? It's pretty impresive. Fine vocabulary, an usage of the english language that surpases my own by a few school years

Which in itself possesses 3 grammatical and spelling errors.

I am sick of my arguments with you atheist liberal degenerating into immature name-calling, anti-Christian, bigoted remarks. I respect your opinion, respect mine.

Hatuey · 12-07-06, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447

I don't have time tonight to make a full response because I need my beauty sleep, but please cut this bigoted condescending bull****. Of course I believe in God read my other posts. I am hardly a "closeted" bible thumper (a ****ing bigoted term that is up there with kike), I am sorry if I find more truth in a book written by a loving God rather than a book written by a Christian hating scientist. I am no more posing as a scientist than you are, so cut that bull****. I am merely researching and posting evidence...which is exactly what you are doing. Don't bring my age into this either especially after being quoted saying:

lol bible thumper is not biggoted it refers to a preacher thumping his hand hard down on the lectern and the Bible on it to emphasize a point during a sermon which is basically what you're doing - you read the opinions of 4-5 scientists that have been discredited by the international community because of their failure to provide any evidence or research to back up their theories and you preach them up and down like they're undisputable evidence that ID is a "theory" worth taking a second look at. ID deserves about as much credence as Scientology. It's made up. Based on nothing more then the opinions of a few scientists who have no evidence to back up their claims. End of story.

Quote:

Which in itself possesses 3 grammatical and spelling errors.

I am sick of my arguments with you atheist liberal degenerating into immature name-calling, anti-Christian, bigoted remarks. I respect your opinion, respect mine.

I actually ment those as compliments. I have never in my life said I can write better then anybody - I wont throw my grade or IQ around or try to tell you just how smart I am cause it wont prove anything - I simply noticed that for a teen you can write your thoughts down on paper better then I can. Geez take a chill pill thumpy.

Here is a tip : Until you provide some proof or experiment proving that this "intelligent designer" exists - I'll just keep telling you that you have no evidence.

Rhapsody1447 · 12-07-06, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Evolution doesn't require any faith just common sense. People who push the ID theory are the new-age Darwinists. The only difference between them and Darwin is that their theory about an intelligent designer is nothing more then junk that can't be proven, shown or even experimented on. They're nothing more then words with no other backing then the bible if they choose to use it and if they dont - they have nothing more then words with no scientific backing watsoever.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Intelligent Design simply states something that can't be shown, experimented on or proven. Evolution doesn't happen because of "chance" it happens because of every creature's need to survive.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Engaging in a war to eradicate jews hardly qualifies as natural selection. The quotes from Mein Kempf are ment to show you that Hitler was influenced by different ideologies and it's unfair to put evolution as a front runner without including religion

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Honestly? I belive that if we didnt have laws murder would be as normal as walking. Laws and human conviction are the only things that keep that from happening. In nature those that are weak dont survive. It's really that simple. I dont belive killing somebody for the sake of killing them is right - but if it came to my survival or yours. You die buddy. Hitler was a good orator, he fed off the success the jews had and blamed them for the conditions most germans were living in. Envy is a powerful weapon when used by the right men.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

This is when people get absurd and take things to the ridiculous extent. No I'm not a suporter of bestiality and I am a supporter of animal right. Dont tell me that I'm contradicting myself by saying I supporting animals rights and then turn around and tell you that those that dont adapt, dont survive. I support animal rights because animals don't go through chemical testing in nature, they're not used for furr in nature and they're not used to make suitcases in nature. I belive that animals when threatened by natural circumstances either adapt or dont survive.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Do you belive in God?

DUH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Look, the age of the universe has been calculated, the age of the earth has been calculated, the earth has been proven to be round, it's been assessed that a meteorite is responsible for erradicating earth 65 million years ago. While not all of these are 100% certain - they're backed by alot more evidence then "An intelligent designer did it". Evolution when first presented by Darwin had some evidence with it. What has ID provided? Nada, 0, Silch. Until you can show me a sign of this "Intelligent Designer"(why dont you cut the crap and call him god, I know you're craving to do it) I'll give your "theory" some credence.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

That lends itself towards design? Not survival? There are hundreds of examples of unfit mutations within the animal kingdom. Albinism, blue and two toned lobsters and animals with extra legs.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Yeah I did - sorry - The africanized bee is a perfect example of evolution - different species mating and creating a better, stronger and bigger bee.

Africanized bee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

different animal all on its own.

These bees (not an new animal on it's own) was bred by a Brazilian biologist. Another example of hybridization which was intelligently designed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

I think evolution brought out the same ire from people 150 years ago. Only difference was evolution had something to back it up. ID just has words.I have no problem with ID - I would just like to see some evidence that the intelligent designer spoken so highly of is for real and not just words on print.

You want scientific evidence of God? Is that what you are trying to say?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Special Feature: The Cambrian "explosion": Slow-fuse or megatonnage? -- Conway Morris 97 (9): 4426 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Special Feature: The Cambrian "explosion": Slow-fuse or megatonnage? -- Conway Morris 97 (9): 4426 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

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:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

You asked for evolution of the brain.

No I asked how differing personalities and the human consciousness (and moral standard) could "evolve"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Oh so you do belive in god. Closet bible thumber posing as a scientists. And a teen at that.

Considering I haven't quoted the Bible once... please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Who is this Intelligent Designer closet bible thumpers hide behind. Xenu? You're trying to turn all the evidence for evolution into evidence for your god. without even providing evidence that your god exists and it's not simply about survival when it comes down to 1. Good Game(egothing).

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.

Some quotes from the past that I enjoy:

"To think that the eye could evolve by natural selection seems I freely confess absurd in the highest possible degree." - Charles Darwin.

"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.

"I have deluded myself and devoted myself to a fantasy." - Charles Darwin.

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

Hatuey · 12-07-06, 11:25 PM

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.

Quote:

DUH

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

Rhapsody1447 · 12-09-06, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Have you ever heard of Anne Coulter? You should meet. I think you just quoted her actually.

I didn't quote her, but I appreciate the compliment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

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".

First of all, this argument initially originated from me proposing that evolution should not be taught as fact but as a theory. THat is also what my speech was about, I never tried to make an argument FOR Intelligent Design but AGAINST evolution. You keep asking for evidence of Intelligent Design but whatever I provide is deemed irrelevant and pseudo-science. You want me to scientifically prove God exists which is merely laughable. Michael Behe's arguments of "irreducibly complex" organisms, the Cambrian period, the support the fossil record lends towards Intelligent Design, the impossibility that enzymes rose to life through chance, and the fact that we don't have fossils for the millions of creatures that should have died out in the survival-of-the-fittest regime is all evidence supporting the theory of Intelligent Design. The only way you will be convinced that I have evidence for my theory is if I am able to put God in a test tube.