Evolution suffers Kansas setback

[gunner154]

Just a passive question: What happened to our tails? We had a tailbone... Does that mean based on evolution theory, Man came about because monkeys mated with chimpanzees?

[GUNWOUNDS]

The tail bone is a myth. As well as us having "gill slits" in the womb.

this link will explain it.

[Acriku]

Gunwounds, evolution is just change, yes you're right. It's an unguided force due to random mutations. The guided part comes in during the course of millenia with natural selection - which brings out the best to survive and thus is seen as improving the species but not necessarily doing that.

And yes, the coccyx may have a minor function, but it remains vestigial and does show common descent. Look outside the human species - birds who have wings but can't fly. Animals who have eyes, but can't see. These are all vestigial organs, and support the fact of evolution happening.

[exatreide]

ev

[Anathema]

Ptolemaios was stupid because he counted differently? Or Euklides because he was able to work only in 2D?

I did not mean to imply Ptolemy (or anyone else) was stupid, just meant to point out that people had known the Earth was round for even longer then Edric seemed to suggest.

[Dude_Doc]

Sure, but where within religion can we find proof of creation? What tests must we do to counter-argue the evolutionary theory? There is none.

Look, I know that I'm not much of a scientist, but we can clearly state that the world is materialistic. It is physical. Everything people have experienced can be explained by seeing it, toutching it, smelling it, hearing and so on. Every material we know of is physical. Even our own feelings can be explained by the chemicals inside of us. Everything we have yet "experienced", in any recorded age so far, have never gone by unexplained as a great mystery - something not one theory could give a credible thinking to.

So - because people see that there does not seem to be anything more than just all these materials, people stop believeing in gods, they turn away from religion. I'm not saying evolution has been proven or disproven - which is my point. At this point, we just don't know, and we have not hit an "invisible wall" where no theory or experiment, or fact or anything at all can explain it (whatever it is). Are there black holes, or is it someting else? How big is the universe, what defines a universe (is it a huge bubble, or is it defined by the "collection of stars" within it)? Are there other organisms on other planets? These are the questions. Science says "it is possible, but we don't have proof yet", while religion (bluntly speaking) says "we know, but we don't have any proof, you just have to believe it".

And my question regarding evolution still stands:

Why couldn't/wouldn't God use evolution to create humans?

[GUNWOUNDS]

And yes, the coccyx may have a minor function, but it remains vestigial and does show common descent. Look outside the human species - birds who have wings but can't fly. Animals who have eyes, but can't see. These are all vestigial organs, and support the fact of evolution happening.

Actually the coccyx doesnt have just a "minor" function... it is quite important and therefore means it cannot truly be called vestigial.

[Dude_Doc]

Well look at it this way.... you say that it is far-fetched that a God would create everything mature and in its proper place in the begining...

Actually, I do think it is illogical that God would have created everything as it is, in place and then "gave it life". I very much do believe in "experience" or whatever you may call it. But this quote can be debated for all eternity - I was there yesterday, everybody knows it, the cameras have my picture, my name is on every list and so on - but in the end it's all a memory...

You see you got to step back and look at the whole picture Otherman... look at everything not just monkeys and humans... if you think evolution is true then you are saying that we are even related to plants and trees, and even the little scum that grows around the drain of your bathtub.

I disagree. I disagree not because of the "evidence" or all the theories about evolution, but because everything ever also was a part of something. We come from another human, we're not created out of the thin air. Same thing with animals and plants. I mean, are we really that special? We need the earth, we are - in the end - natural for it. The only real thing that doesn't fit into us is our intelligence. We're not special in any other way except for our high level of intelligence. We don't have a completely different DNA, or that we don't resemble anything at all on this world.

I rather believe that we are just like a whole lifetime is: we do evolve - not just physically, but in the mind and spirit too. First there were villages, then kingdoms, now countries - soon there will be one world, under one banner or the other. Then we'll go into space. We ourselves behave like cell-organisms. I believe that evolution could very well be used as a tool for God to create us in this universe.

But you are right: our... views differ.

[Andrew]

Intelligent design to be tought at University of Kansas as mythology

But I thought intelligent design was science? ;)

[Andrew]

Yes!

I found the image I have been looking for and wanted to put in my initial ID thread.

And here it is:

So true.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Yes!

I found the image I have been looking for and wanted to put in my initial ID thread.

And here it is:

So true.

There is nothing wrong with what you posted...  there are many times where murder investigators KNOW that Jack killed Bob (knowing the conclusion) but they have to find facts or "proof" in order to make a case to go to court in order to convict the guy.  Many times investigators will be very frustrated because they know that a particular guy killed someone due to indirect factors (maybe he was bragging in a bar) There is nothing wrong with "knowing the real story" and then trying to find the facts to support it.  Law enforcement does it all the time.  Yet we dont call law enforcement mythology.

[Acriku]

You're a joke of a scientist Gunwounds, if you really believe that. Law enforcement doesn't adhere to the strict objectivism that science requires. What ends up happening when you try to find facts to support your conclusion is that the facts end up being distorted because of the need to fit the conclusion. This has happened a lot in Intelligent Design, with the links that were given before on counter-arguing the "questions" brought up by IDers. It's bad science.

[Andrew]

That is the point.

Religion has to "find" proof that it is correct.

Science already has the proof and thus makes theories or whatever accordingly.

Newton found that an apple falls to the ground. With some testing he figured out what we know as gravity.

Religion would state that God created gravity (everything) and I have no idea how they could prove that.

Of course you could say how can scientists prove the big bang? Well they really can not, but if new evidence appears they will change the theory accordingly. I really don't think that the big bang is set in stone, and I am sure the theory will be changed lots or even replaced by another theory.

Whereas religion doesn't change its mind and says that "in x days universe was created". Could it be possible that maybe it was created in x+1 days?

Or will you read a bible and think, oh it says x days, therefore it was created in x days and it will never change because god told someone to write this book and it is all fact (and of course can be interpreted any way someone wants). Maybe a day in the bible represents 50 million years and not a day as we know it, God just calls 50 million years a day.

[GUNWOUNDS]

You're a joke of a scientist Gunwounds, if you really believe that. Law enforcement doesn't adhere to the strict objectivism that science requires. What ends up happening when you try to find facts to support your conclusion is that the facts end up being distorted because of the need to fit the conclusion. This has happened a lot in Intelligent Design, with the links that were given before on counter-arguing the "questions" brought up by IDers. It's bad science.

you can throw insults around acriku... but i will not be forced to believe something because somebody makes fun of me.  Thats probably most likely what happened to you.  YOu grew up as a christian child... you believed in God cause you were shy.... then you met some atheistic friends or peers and they laughed at you as you laugh at me.... it hurt you inside and now to appear "intellectual" you mock anything or anyone who tries to make a point contrary to what your atheistic friends have engrained in you.

Simply put... many times the DA cannot get a conviction because they dont have the proof or the facts but they KNOW that someone is guilty.  Perhaps even the killer will mock the detective saying "yea i did it but you cant prove it".  Simply put Law enforcement does have to work backwards in order to solve a case sometimes... dont sit there and say its never been done.  Let use another example...  my child brings me a drawing on a piece of paper that he says he made.  I conclude its reasonable that he did in fact make the drawing so i go and investigate and try to find proof... i go and try to locate stacks of paper with his  fingerprints on them... i go and find the crayons with his fingerprints on them... and then i see if there are any eye witness's.. did anyone see him draw it?... then i go and see if there is any videotape of him drawing it at daycare or whatever.... basically starting from a conclusion and then investigating backwards to find the proof.

One thing i notice is that the better my points get the more poisonous Acriku gets in his rebuttals.

[GUNWOUNDS]

That is the point.

Religion has to "find" proof that it is correct.

Science already has the proof and thus makes theories or whatever accordingly.

Newton found that an apple falls to the ground. With some testing he figured out what we know as gravity.

Religion would state that God created gravity (everything) and I have no idea how they could prove that.

Of course you could say how can scientists prove the big bang? Well they really can not, but if new evidence appears they will change the theory accordingly. I really don't think that the big bang is set in stone, and I am sure the theory will be changed lots or even replaced by another theory.

Whereas religion doesn't change its mind and says that "in x days universe was created". Could it be possible that maybe it was created in x+1 days?

Or will you read a bible and think, oh it says x days, therefore it was created in x days and it will never change because god told someone to write this book and it is all fact (and of course can be interpreted any way someone wants). Maybe a day in the bible represents 50 million years and not a day as we know it, God just calls 50 million years a day.

About the "days" interpretation... dont sit there and say "religion" is "unchanging"

[Acriku]

you can throw insults around acriku... but i will not be forced to believe something because somebody makes fun of me.  Thats probably most likely what happened to you.  YOu grew up as a christian child... you believed in God cause you were shy.... then you met some atheistic friends or peers and they laughed at you as you laugh at me.... it hurt you inside and now to appear "intellectual" you mock anything or anyone who tries to make a point contrary to what your atheistic friends have engrained in you.

Actually, I was raised Jewish and I've never met an atheist in person until the end of my high school years (being an atheist for three years then). Swing and a miss  ;)

Simply put... many times the DA cannot get a conviction because they dont have the proof or the facts but they KNOW that someone is guilty.  Perhaps even the killer will mock the detective saying "yea i did it but you cant prove it".  Simply put Law enforcement does have to work backwards in order to solve a case sometimes... dont sit there and say its never been done.  Let use another example...  my child brings me a drawing on a piece of paper that he says he made.  I conclude its reasonable that he did in fact make the drawing so i go and investigate and try to find proof... i go and try to locate stacks of paper with his  fingerprints on them... i go and find the crayons with his fingerprints on them... and then i see if there are any eye witness's.. did anyone see him draw it?... then i go and see if there is any videotape of him drawing it at daycare or whatever.... basically starting from a conclusion and then investigating backwards to find the proof.

SIMPLY PUT that is not science. Simply put you're wrong. You cannot bring up an analogy of law enforcement to go with science when they aren't even guided by the same critique and objectivism! The standards of science are far from the standards of law enforcement. Having a conclusion before the facts are found taints the facts and are seen with a biased mind. That is why science doesn't allow this in the first place. Yeesh, never thought I'd have to explain that to a "scientist."

One thing i notice is that the better my points get the more poisonous Acriku gets in his rebuttals.

If this is better than your other material, I may need to re-examine the other material because it seems I gave them too much credit.

[Edric O]

Breaking news from The Onion!

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

[gunner154]

Are you serious? :O

I've always thought it was due to electrostatic forces, flawed as that idea may be.

[GUNWOUNDS]

SIMPLY PUT that is not science.

As far as your continual harping about intelligent design not being science... sure... when did i ever say it WAS science?  I merely SAID that we DONT call law enforcement mythology.

Are you unable to read simple sentences? Go re-read my post Mr. Spastic.  Intelligent design may not be pure science like chemistry or physics... but it definately is a valid form of investigation which may or may not lead you in the right direction such as law enforcement investigation ...BUT when we are dealing with a GOD .. you take what you can get buddy.  Any form of investigation even if it has flaws should be used because even if it does make a flawed observation you will be able to discover it.

..... we all know that cryptologists... and car insurance fraud investigators, and law enforcement, and reverse engineers, and many other professions all work BACKWARDS.  A reverse engineer takes an object lets say a stradivarius violin... now he knows who made that violin... it was a human being and his name was stradivarius.  Its the best violin ever made yet craftsmen cannot duplicate it today.  So a reverse engineer can sit there and try to take it apart to understand its inner workings.  A cryptologist starts working on deciphering a code with the idea that there IS a freaking message there.  A car insurance fraud investigator starts examining a car with the idea that the car has been in an accident.  You can joke about whether i am really a scientist or not but it doesnt matter.... i am no longer a student so i dont have your kiddy obsession with the basic principles of the scientific method.  I have my book knowledge about DNA and cellullar biology and i get my paycheck from work and thats all the "scientist" i need or want to be.  I wont sit here and be all self-righteous and say because some method isnt PERFECT that i will ignore it.  Because if someday intelligent design does stumble across something profound then i dont want to know that i was one of the stubborn assholes blocking and suppressing it.

Regards,

Gunwounds

[GUNWOUNDS]

Actually, I was raised Jewish and I've never met an atheist in person until the end of my high school years (being an atheist for three years then). Swing and a miss  ;)

So you think you were an atheist at age 14-17?  Sure.... you might have had doubts growing up like we all do... but it didnt solidify until you met those buddies of yours that peer pressured you into atheism.  I am sure that pretty girl in that picture of yours is most likely an atheist and you probably would like to impress her to in order to not look "uncool" .... so you adopted your current values to be more flexible.  Lets be honest... atheism is so much "cooler" isnt it?  I remember growing up in highschool that believing in God was so uncool.  Yet i didnt fall prey to the peer pressure.  We know you were a shy child and overweight child who used God as a "friend" and in a way that is a little sad and i can see how the moment you made some "real" friends you abandoned God, (probably quite quickly) in order to achieve some sort of intellectual "coolness".... especially since you had low self esteem and would really desire some female courtship.  And how do you identify an teenage atheist?  I am sorry but i would not take a teenager's belief system seriously as at that age they only have their parents instruction and some peer pressure to account for their belief system.  Now i may be wrong about you specifically...and if so i apologize... but i wasnt born yesterday and you arent the first chubby low self esteem kid i have seen get pressured into doing stuff. However you are now much older, in college, have trimmed up, and have probably developed some self-esteem and your own belief system thru much study. So whatever you say you believe or identify with today i will accept as genuine...which i hope you will do the same for me instead of assuming "christian engrained". 

I was raised christian and became atheist in college, due to every single mystical thing about life being explained in my molecular biology classes.... every intricate process that went on inside oocyte (egg) during fertilization and the Hox development genes that we share with drosophila melanogaster.  IT blew my mind.  But then i sat down and thought about it... and read several books by C.S. Lewis as well as many other less known authors... and even a specific article called "Darwin's God". And of course the obvious Pascal's Wager.  And it made me realize that just because something is known ... doesnt mean it refutes God.  God doesnt have to live in the scientific shadows.  He can co-exist with science and it doesnt make a damn bit of difference.  I chose to believe that intelligence is the true first cause and not matter.  Therefore i believe that God was the first cause and that the Big Bang (or however God made the universe) is the secondary cause of our existance.  None of this has anything to do with my christian upbringing as a child and none of it has anything to do with my parents... i simply have chosen to believe that intelligence being the first cause makes more sense to me personally... and that logically it makes sense to align yourself with the one who gave you your existance. (Hence Pascal's Wager).  I can easily see how one could live one's life as an atheist... but the emptiness of it all is quite repugnant to me.  I desire more... and i think that some meatbag on a gigantic rock in the middle of the universe with such desires is a hint that there is more than meets the eye.

[Harkdawg]

One thing about Evolution ive been wanting to ask from Creatinoists that if God is Allknowing, then wouldnt he know exaclty how things would turn out ? Ive heard as Intelligent Design followers say that life cant be a result of numerous coincidents and natural selection, but if God is allknowing why do they respond in such a manner. God would know exactly that life would come, through Evolution ?????

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

now, things are going silly billy, seriously, thats getting really redicolous.

[GUNWOUNDS]

One thing about Evolution ive been wanting to ask from Creatinoists that if God is Allknowing, then wouldnt he know exaclty how things would turn out ? Ive heard as Intelligent Design followers say that life cant be a result of numerous coincidents and natural selection, but if God is allknowing why do they respond in such a manner. God would know exactly that life would come, through Evolution ??

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

now, things are going silly billy, seriously, thats getting really redicolous.

I think Edrico' post was a joke as it was from the onion webpage.

[Acriku]

A joke it may be, but that's what ID looks like to those who use reason.