A calm debate

[Acriku]

I know that, but just look at the link given by gob, it uses a biblical model to support that it can be a successful model, using the designer God.

[Andrew]

the truth is we were created, but it is unknown how exactly as we dont have a time machine ;). i only beleive what is a fact, like todays date, but also some otherthings like there were dinosaurs and stuff.

BTW - there are new avatars, based on miniseries in profile( or under your profile where you chose them)

[Gobalopper]

Well that link uses a biblical version because thats their viewpoint on the ID theory. There are others that use aliens or whatever other intelligent creator instead.

Oh and those points about Earth being unique had to do with the theory becoming better over time. For example the ID theory becomes more valid over time as we find that more and more planets are not just like Earth.

[Acriku]

Did YOU know THAT?...

Many scientists have early on in history used only deductive reasoning to prove anything, and then towards the turn of the century probably 18th (pure speculation just trying to sound smart as if I know the century ::)) scientists have found that they can use inductive reasoning to prove many things in the past. (I might have deductive and inductive backwards, doubt it but who knows, correct me if I do please :))

NOW you KNOW.

(I love Bill Nye)

Ok thanks for clearing that up Gob. So indeed that application of ID theory I refute, ok glad we got that covered.

[sneezer3]

Sneezer it may be a simple question, but by no means is the answer simple. If I'm wrong? I asked myself that a few times before, and this I had to reply to myself: Burn baby burn-burn-burn!

Hell is a lot worse then you think. The bible says there is weeping and welling and gnashing of teeth

<all the way to the point to where you actully moveing your teeth back and forth. wow.> No one in there right mind would want to go to a place like that.

Like i said. i'l be praying for you. and you know where to find me.

sneezer, lol, you are a funny guy. i actually like you. you even quote your scientific resources from J Chick. He is your theologian, astronomer, biologist, archaelogist, historian, mathematician, sports forecaster(?) all in one! I love it. lol ;)

lol.

as for my sports forecaster.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0057/0057_01.asp ;D

lol, actully he isn't. but he's mostly where i go to get most of my Info to post on online. i'm a fallower of Jesus more then any mortal humen being. When somebody brakes away from the word. i brake away from reading whatever studying there doing. more then anybody. but i like to listen to what people have to say about stuff. i like Dr Ruckman a lot. Don't listen to what you hear about him. people put words in his mouth more then you might think. He is an Artist Preacher. http://www.biblebelievers.com/ oh yeah. and he studys bible versions and constandly points out errors in other versions <non KJV> so don't be suprised if you see something. and he also does greek and hebrew. and i'm sort of a chip off the old block of you know what i mean ;)

but thanks. :)

[Acriku]

Judaism doesn't believe in hell neither do any other mainstream religions, what makes you so sure there is a hell? Maybe hell is another one of those not true but still in the bible with everything else ;) I'm surprised no one commented on my "Jesus will walk with me through it" comment, oh well I guess when you try to tell a joke everyone turns their head.

[sneezer3]

Judaism doesn't believe in hell neither do any other mainstream religions, what makes you so sure there is a hell? Maybe hell is another one of those not true but still in the bible with everything else ;) I'm surprised no one commented on my "Jesus will walk with me through it" comment, oh well I guess when you try to tell a joke everyone turns their head.

You know. i hear back in the 1600-1800 there where 350 cults that all claimed to belive the word of God. and suposedly belived everthing it said. and went by it. Must be hundreds now.

What other Religions/Denomenations belive is irrlenvent. Religion will not mean a thing on judgement day. Without Gods gift you will have to pay your on price for your sins.

You have my prayers. and you know where to find me.

[Acriku]

Well when you shove all arguments to the back of your mind and renounce your faith in God over and over, it gets to become an irrational obsession. Just a thought.

[sneezer3]

Well when you shove all arguments to the back of your mind and renounce your faith in God over and over, it gets to become an irrational obsession. Just a thought.

Are you kiding? what have we been doing the past 4 pages or so of this thread?

And i'm not exactly as quick to doubt it as some are. and i actully do cansider them. <wow look at the last 3 pages of this thread or so.> but evolution has more holes then swiss cheese like Emprworm said.

[Acriku]

Please, do tell me these holes and with proof that the information used to claim a hole is true. Don't just say it's a hole, say why and what proof led you to this hole. Or will you just look it up in a different forum and copy/paste it into here?

And while you are at it, prove how many holes swiss cheese has, and compare it to the holes you have found with proof that the information used to claim it a hole, and prove that it does in fact have more holes than swiss cheese. *scratches ass where pole sticks out of*

[TMA_1]

the problem acriku about the fish is. You said that if it had a mutation that grew lungs as wellas gills. The problem is these mutations dont happen by it not being able to do something. These mutations are random. How could millions of amino acids molecules be changed in exact coordinates in the D.N.A. make lung organ by chance? I mean peopel go, well... it just changes. like it is just bound to happen. These mutations you talk about are highly improbable. Then you have to show more growth of creatures through changing spieces with the same improbabilities. It is staggering how much faith macro evolution requires. Genes can change and mutate. They are almost always harmful though. Even if genes do mutate that creates something unharmful, it doesnt bring much that is beneficial.

[Acriku]

Pretty amazing eh? Highly improbably eh? Check out this analogy, it proves my point that I have made earlier. http://www.angelfire.com/journal/Philsviews/TreeEssay.html

[TMA_1]

That is a sign of simple micro evolution. It grew a limb in a different direction. That doesnt mean that it's genetics will be given to it's offspring. Flora and Fauna genetic altering at growth stage doesnt work like that. Also it is just simple change in direction of growth. Not complete organ change you talked about.lol

[Acriku]

TMA you completely missed the point of that link. Read it as a whole, and it should come to you. It explains it after the "story" of the tree.

[sneezer3]

Please, do tell me these holes and with proof that the information used to claim a hole is true. Don't just say it's a hole, say why and what proof led you to this hole. Or will you just look it up in a different forum and copy/paste it into here?

And while you are at it, prove how many holes swiss cheese has, and compare it to the holes you have found with proof that the information used to claim it a hole, and prove that it does in fact have more holes than swiss cheese. *scratches ass where pole sticks out of*

check out these links.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=28

also that poster i had. i don't tell me you weren't even noticeing the first two pages of this thread. and what about those protons?

[Gobalopper]

Maybe I'm just not reading that tree thing right but I don't see how it has anything to do with evolution?

"To deny the existence of the tree and its relationship with the leaf is to deny reality. Such is the story of evolution."

Err ok, how is that the story of evolution? Its like saying having A and B somehow automatically gives you C. First you complain about how ID is not scientific enough for you and now use this essay to prove your point?

[Acriku]

Gob what it is is saying, is that after all is done and grown, after the dog's annoyance, the shadowing of the branch, etc, there is a leaf and if you would look at the leaf you would think wow, it is amazing that a seed would turn into this beautiful leaf on the tree, but in reality the beautiful leaf is just a byproduct of all the factors involved, the dogs, weather, putting the branch out of the sun making it move, etc, and if anything happened differently say 10 years ago you would be looking at a different leaf on the tree and wondering its amazement. This is analogous to evolution because many opposed to evolution argue that how could a fish turn into something as complex as a human being, when the reality is that we are just a byproduct of all the factors that happened to the organisms, all the mutations, and if anything happened differently, different mutations, different environments, we would be wondering how a fish could turn into something else that is incredible. It just shows the fallacy of that argument that has been argued here in this thread.

Sneezer, that poster did not show holes, it showed past mistakes, or hoaxes, in no way does it reflect on evolution. And can you post the holes, since I am lazy to go to the links? You might learn them better if you memorize them and teach them to someone else, assuming they are true. And what about the protons? I think I made it clear, that it would take a physicist or someone with vast knowledge of electromagnetism, all particles, etc, to explain the strong force in detail, and even then we don't know everything. We aren't omniscient. We are still learning.

Gob I only said ID theory was not scientific because it involved supernature and no scientific method to test it, or prove it. And I explained the tree above ^^^.

[Anathema]

The best argument against evolution I can think off would be to show there is life in other solar systems nearby, because the chances that the required circumstances would develop in 2 adjecent systems is nearly negligable.

(note that this doesn't mean there can't be life within our own solar system, because it could have traveled through the void of space)

[emprworm]

LOL!

Guess what I realized? The very fact that we are having this debate among intelligent people is PROOF that Intelligent Design *IS* A SCIENTIFIC THEORY

Even Acriku, I don't think, would be so narrow as to label Gob, TMA, myself, Edric as a bunch of irrational idiots. This debate we are having is a GOOD THING and the things that are being brought up FOR Intelligent Design and AGAINST evolution.... need - to - be taught in school.

We are at the point now in this thread where Acriku and Gob are arguing fine details on each theory. This means we are long past the point of ID being at least a THEORY for other people to consider. The original point to the argument was whether or not ID contains even a modicum of scientific viability.

I think such is well established. What Acriku seems to forget is that teaching ID is not equivalent to saying it is absolutely true. Teaching ID is equivalent to saying "Oh, and here is an alternate theory to evolution that many scientists believe"

Not allowing for this says to me that people are afraid of ID. Weak, frail, and scared.

I have no fear...none whatsoever, of my kids learning evolutionary theory. Yet think about all those cowering atheists....shaking in their closets...eyes wide with gripping fear over the thought of their kids learning ID. rofl

[Edric O]

I have no fear...none whatsoever, of my kids learning evolutionary theory. Yet think about all those cowering atheists....shaking in their closets...eyes wide with gripping fear over the thought of their kids learning ID. rofl

Haven't you learned anything about the laws atheists are trying to impose, Emprworm? ;)

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

[emprworm]

well I read that entire tree story, and I fail to see at all how it proves evolution.

In fact, it says nothing about random chance at all. There are trillions of lines of code- like a gigantic megalithic computer program, that the elm tree follows.

Consider this code for a program I wrote yesterday to simulate random events generating intelligence:

Private Sub Button1_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Button1.Click

Dim a As String

Dim ct As Integer

Dim b As Integer

Dim c As Integer

Txt2.Text = Txt2.Text & vbCrLf & "......................." & vbCrLf

Do

Randomize()

a = ""

For ct = 1 To Len(Txt1.Text)

b = CInt(Int((27 * Rnd()) + 97))

If b = 123 Then b = 32

a = a + Chr(b)

Next

c = c + 1

Loop Until a = Txt1.Text

Txt2.Text = Txt2.Text + "Generated " & a & " after " & c & " iterations."

End Sub

The code tells the program what to do. At no time will the program work outside the code. When variable A = "tree" Variable C might equal 113,224. Or it might equal 432,331. Maybe it might equal 234,299. The point is...who cares. What we DO KNOW is that variable C will never equal -342,344 because the code does not allow for it.

Back to the tree.

The tree is obeying the code contained in its genetics. At no time will a branch generate a dog or a cow. At no time will it generate a maple leaf, or a fig leaf. It will always generate elm leaves. When the branches twist to find a spot in the sunlight- it is not doing this of its own accord- it is doing this according to its code. It is obeying a pre-determined set of commands. This behavior is predictable to a degree of 100%. The tree will awlays do this. This is a most weak demonstration of evolution. In fact, I propose it is the exact oppositte. This is a demonstration of life acting within the parameters of predetermined coding. The parameters of the tree were pre-determined, and its growth predetermined. Random events that go on within the tree are fully contained within specified coding- just like my program- "b = CInt(Int((27 * Rnd()) + 97))" means that B will always equal a random number between 97 and 123. I give it permission to be random, so its very randomness itself is in full obedience to the coding. Yet its randomness is limited to what the instructions allow for. Likewise, the tree as well. Show me an Elm Tree generating a maple leaf, else dont delude people into thinking your faith should be taught as fact. You have no proof. You have only faith and belief in evolution, like I have faith and belief in Intelligent Design.

I believe. You believe. All faith. Both should be taught in school.

[Anathema]

I believe. You believe. All faith. Both should be taught in school.

I agree.

Come to think of it, should Raelism (those alien guys) also be teached in school? ;D

[sneezer3]

Sneezer, that poster did not show holes, it showed past mistakes, or hoaxes, in no way does it reflect on evolution.

There teaching it now. i'd say that reflects on it. makes you wonder what all else they got up there sleve. ::)

[Acriku]

Earth, first prove that the probability would be near negligable. It's highly unlikely for someone to meet 8 other people who were born from the same mother and the same birth, never knowing them before, but can it happen? Yes. Just because something is highly improbable, doesn't mean it can't happen. And such is life on near planets. It would probably be (speculation) very very rare to find life on the planets, but I am not going to deny that there is a possibility of it, therefore evolution still stands.

It seems to me, some people (cough empr and sneezer) either have not read or have not desired to read my challenges in the previous posts, go back if you missed them, and please post your answer to the best of your ability.

Have you ever heard of, "for the sake of argument", empr? That is what was going on here, it does not mean because we are arguing about it, it must exist as a scientific theory. And it seems you are very intolerable of atheists, so please do not post in this thread anymore if you continue to belittle atheists because of your hate and prejudice. But since I am willing to give you a second, probably 5th by now, chance, I will reply to the end of your post.

What Acriku seems to forget is that teaching ID is not equivalent to saying it is absolutely true. Teaching ID is equivalent to saying "Oh, and here is an alternate theory to evolution that many scientists believe"

Not allowing for this says to me that people are afraid of ID. Weak, frail, and scared.

I have no fear...none whatsoever, of my kids learning evolutionary theory. Yet think about all those cowering atheists....shaking in their closets...eyes wide with gripping fear over the thought of their kids learning ID. rofl

Empr, what I do not want my children to listen to is a SCIENCE teacher teach them about ID theory, in the sense of a supernatural designer, as such is the foundation of the theory. It has no scientific basis, and thus should not be taught in a science class. And I want to make a point, that the very second teachers get the right to teach ID theory and supernature as a designer for us, they will not teach it simply as a theory, they will abuse it till the very end to impose creationism on others. Many teachers will do this, and I do not blame them. Go with whatever advantage you got, but they are the ones at war. And yes I admit it, I am in the closet right now, trying to hide from ID theory. It stalks my very soul ::)

Oh of course, but wait, christian land owners in the south thought freedom was slavery, guess it wasn't atheists :P

The fact is, I am an agnostic atheist. I cannot have all the knowledge of this universe to claim that there is no god, but I do lack a belief in any of the gods in any religion, or any gods at all. I support humanism, to the very fullest, and with the good that humanity can do we should channel it, not dilute it with religion. We can do all the good things religion gives us, with humanism, and with eachother.

So edric, no.

Does anybody understand a damn thing I have said since I posted that link? It does not prove, attempt to prove, disprove, attempt to disprove anything. It just shows the fallacy of the argument, that for amino acids to turn into us is unbelievable literally. It helps you understand the fact that it didn't go from amino acids to human beings, it went from amino acids to whatever the hell it turns into, which factors such as environment, other species interation, mutations, etc, have led it to human beings. It is not set path, it is a random path and we are random piles of protein specified by our past genetics.

I do not have faith and belief in evolution. I have belief. Faith is something to justify a belief, that nothing else can do, many other things justify my belief that evolution exists, especially the fact that it has been proven (rofl). Ask a biologist that "claims" evolution exists to prove it, and then you might understand. I don't know why you guys are all so uptight against evolution, it does not tell us where earth came from, or the universe, or the sun, it isn't an answer to the "beginning", it isn't abiogenesis, and it does not *to my knowledge* conflict God.

I have a little thing called logic and reasoning, I use it to accept that evolution exists, I don't have "faith" in it.

Sneezer, where are they teaching they have found the missing link? Last time I checked in my biology book, they say they are hoaxes, previous attempts to find the missing link. And why would they have something up their sleeves? Science teachers don't have to be atheist, a lot are creationists. And atheists are not fighting against creationism in every single chance they get, religious people are, and have been for longest of time. I am debating, but I am not at a war against creationists, but creationists go through their life doing anything that might "hurt" anything that hints atheism, or anything they misunderstand to contradict their beliefs, or anything that does contradict their beliefs. They are at war.

[Acriku]

Nobody has a reply to this? That's surprising...