Intelligent design? or Evolution?

[DeletedUser]

My point being is most of us at some point beleived in a fairy tale, some of us still do and it may not be a fairy tale after all.

P.S. I am NOT referring to Santa Claus here.

Weak, really weak.
I guess I'll go orc-hunting next weekend.

Hey! They might not be a fairytale either!

But thanks for comparing your god to a jolly fat man.

 

[DeletedUser]

He is still GOD whether u beleive it or not , there is a church of the onion whether you beleive it or not.

 

[DeletedUser]

He is still GOD whether u beleive it or not , there is a church of the onion whether you beleive it or not.

I don't have to belive in the existence of The Church of The Onion.
I started it, I know it exists and heck, I could even give you the link.

There is no god, and repeating that there is like a mantra, using your ignorance as a creed, will not make it so.

The burden of proof lies upon you; you claim something is, so prove it.

 

[DeletedUser]

I would love to have u over for a barbeque and we can discuss whatever you want while eating kabobs w/ onion for sure, for its many layers of wisdom and I am being serious.

 

[DeletedUser]

I would love to have u over for a barbeque and we can discuss whatever you want while eating kabobs w/ onion for sure, for its many layers of wisdom and I am being serious.

Quit dodging.
Whilst I do love to discuss and booze, I hardly belive inviting me to a social event will get us anywhere in this discussion

 

[DeletedUser]

ok, here goes, no dodging .

I beleive darwin had an intelligent design when he came up w/ the theory of evolution.

 

[DeletedUser]

Maybe God had an intelligent design when he let Darwin figure out evolution. Evolution is the intelligent design.

 

[DeletedUser]

ok, here goes, no dodging .

I beleive darwin had an intelligent design when he came up w/ the theory of evolution.

I strongly belive you are mistaken.

Nwo back up your claim, or strike it.

 

[DeletedUser]

If I strike it can we be friends ???

 

[DeletedUser]

If I strike it can we be friends ???

Nah, you'd come off as spineless.
Seriously though, I love a good discussion, but don't just post a random comment like that without putting any reasoning in to back it up.

 

[DeletedUser]

darwins theory has had to be modified many times or be thrown out. Each time it was modified. It may some day be thrown out.

 

[DeletedUser]

darwins theory has had to be modified many times or be thrown out. Each time it was modified. It may some day be thrown out.

Just because something is proven to be inaccurate doesn't mean that it's completely basless. The very nature of science is to prove itself wrong and by doing so it does itself the great benefit of learning.

What science doesn't do is continue to insist that it's right in some strange mysterious way -- that's a task left to religion.

I suppose you could see religion as a science for stupid people, except for it's not a science at all. Get my meaning?

 

[DeletedUser]

(( This thread is about Intelligent Design & Evolution, not Noah's Ark or the Great Flood. If you wish to debate the Great Flood, take it to a different thread, as it has no bearing on this debate ))

 

[DeletedUser]

the LHC is trying to prove the big bang now.so,time will show if big bang was real.

Hi army man, they're actually not trying to prove. Their goal is to attempt to replicate certain prerequisites to the theory. This will not prove the big bang occurred, it will merely provide additional evidence in support of the theory.

and also i will bring up a new argument. evolution theorists belive in the big bang correct?

Excuse me, but the Big Bang theory is not a belief system. Also, those who research particulars associated with evolution (geneticists, archeologists, biologists, etc) are not likely to be participants in research on aspects pertaining to the Big Bang. These theories have different dependencies and, while some may overlap, different fields of study.

I get the distinct impression you think every person with a degree in science has studied the same things. There is such a thing as gross generalization, and that's pretty much what people do when use the label of "scientists" to describe anyone with a degree in a science.

and also as a second argument evolution violates the second law of thermo dynamics.

As was previously requested, I would like you to specifically indicate to me how any particular aspect of the theory of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Evolution fails as a framework because it violates several known laws of the universe we inhabit. In order for evolution and abiogenesis to occur, several “miracles” (violations of natural law) would had to have occurred, thus undermining the very premise of naturalism.
Laws that naturalism and evolution violate include the following:

• The law of biogenesis (life only comes from life)
• The uniformity of nature (uniformity cannot exist or be expected without a creator)
• The laws of physics (the big bang requires the suspension of the laws of physics, nor could those laws exist without a creator)
• The laws of probability (the fine tuning of the universe requires a creator)
• The laws of logic (logic requires a logical source)
• The laws of chemistry (the logical properties of the elements require intelligence)

• King david argued, "The law of biogenesis (life only comes from life)"

Ah yes, the discredited theory known as the "law of biogenesis". The theory by E.H. Haeckel, who admitted, before a university court in Jena, he doctored his evidence to support his theory. Modern geneticists have thoroughly disproven this theory, and biogenesis should not be confused with abiogenesis. King david, it would help if you did your own homework, instead of embarrassing yourself like this.

• King david argued, "The uniformity of nature (uniformity cannot exist or be expected without a creator)"

Uniformity of nature, which is more commonly known as the uniformity of law, has absolutely nothing to do with a Creator. It is a methodological assumption, a necessary axiom for scientific research, in which it is held that the laws of nature are constant across time and space. King david, your misunderstanding of this axiom simply demonstrates, once again, your gross ignorance.

• King david argued, "The laws of physics (the big bang requires the suspension of the laws of physics, nor could those laws exist without a creator)"

Every once in awhile, I find it refreshing to find such gross ignorance in a statement. King david, I want you to point out to me specifically which laws in physics must be suspended in order to accommodate the Big Bang theory (which, btw, has absolutely nothing to do with this debate on evolution). Good luck on that one.

• King david argued, "The laws of probability (the fine tuning of the universe requires a creator)"

By this comment, you demonstrate that you don't know what the laws of probability are and let me tell you, once again, they have absolutely nothing to do with a Creator.

Please watch this video and become edumacated --- http://www.associatedcontent.com/video/493718/laws_of_probability_rule_of_multiplication.html?cat=47

• King david argued, "The laws of logic (logic requires a logical source)"

Umm, no. The laws of logic, or more aptly referred to as the laws of thought, hold to four basic principles: contradiction, excluded middle, identity, and sufficient ground. Now, what I find funny is that those who argue intelligent design have a nasty habit of 'excluding' sufficient ground from the laws of thought. Why? I suppose it is because it interferes with that nasty thing called, "lack of evidence."

• King david argued, "The laws of chemistry (the logical properties of the elements require intelligence)"

Well then, I suppose there's no hope for you, is there? Seriously though, there is no law(s) of chemistry indicating/inferring that intelligence is a prerequisite. So I guess that means you're safe. *smirk*

 

[DeletedUser]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBoone333
and also as a second argument evolution violates the second law of thermo dynamics.

As was previously requested, I would like you to specifically indicate to me how any particular aspect of the theory of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

ok well the second law of thermo dynamics states that things get worse over time no matter what you may have seen my lego building example.


in evolution a series of good not bad mutations evolved different species. so in other words in evolution things always get better which is not true. and technology doesnt really count it didnt get better by itself we had to keep working on it.

 

[DeletedUser]

ok well the second law of thermo dynamics states that things get worse over time no matter what you may have seen my lego building example.


in evolution a series of good not bad mutations evolved different species. so in other words in evolution things always get better which is not true. and technology doesnt really count it didnt get better by itself we had to keep working on it.

You misquote the second law of thermodynamics.

It says:

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

Note that it is talking about an ISOLATED SYSTEM. The earth is not an isolated system, but receives energy from the sun. Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply and is not a valid criticism of evolution.

 

[DeletedUser]

where does it say that earth is not an isolated system? and wikipedia is not a good source of information as any one could go edit it. i mean i could just go right now and edit it to prove my point

 

[DeletedUser]

where does it say that earth is not an isolated system? and wikipedia is not a good source of information as any one could go edit it. i mean i could just go right now and edit it to prove my point

I'M saying that the earth is not an isolated system. Look up the definition of an isolated system (I linked it). It says:

In the natural sciences an isolated system, as contrasted with a open system, is a physical system that does not interact with its surroundings.

The earth gets a considerable amount of energy from the sun. When the sun burns out, all life on earth will cease to exist and enter into the state of entropy that the second law of thermodynamics refers to.

As for my source, fine...you provide a source for the second law of thermodynamics that doesn't include the qualification that it is talking about a closed or isolated system, then we'll talk.

 

[DeletedUser]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBoone333
and also as a second argument evolution violates the second law of thermo dynamics.

As was previously requested, I would like you to specifically indicate to me how any particular aspect of the theory of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.


ok well the second law of thermo dynamics states that things get worse over time no matter what you may have seen my lego building example.


in evolution a series of good not bad mutations evolved different species. so in other words in evolution things always get better which is not true. and technology doesnt really count it didnt get better by itself we had to keep working on it.

this happens when there is a closed system.earth gains energy from the sun.so its not a close system

 

[DeletedUser]

The biggest argument against intelligent design is the duck billed platypus. Who in their right mind would make something like that? Did god create it after creating marijuana? Smokin a bowl he turns to one of the angels. "I got a crazy idea man. Lets take the bill off that duck, the tail off that beaver, the feet off that otter, throw them all together and make it lay eggs."