Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Here we going again evolutionist drawing a conclusion based on what they see not what they tested.And your jumping to conclusions, I asked a question. Where do these traits come from?
Point one: I am a firm creationist.
Point two: Intelligent design is based on lack of knowledge from the statements you have made. We don't know, so intelligent design.
Point three: Conclusions based on what they see, not what they tested? Give me a break. Evolution happens, period. If God didn't use it, it still happens. It has been tested. The gray peppered moth is an example of simple evolution, observed and tested. Peter and rosemary Grant with the Finches showed simple forms of evolution as well. Measurements of the cavity in the skull are differing in size, significantly between ancient and modern skulls, tested. What type of testing is necessary?
Point four: Where do these traits come from? So you aren't asking if I know the origin of the traits then? You are committing argumentum ad ignorantiam. Lack of knowledge doesn't mean anything, that's what drives science.
Originally posted by Regret
Point one: I am a firm creationist.
Congrats!
Originally posted by Regret
Point two: Intelligent design is based on lack of knowledge from the statements you have made. We don't know, so intelligent design.
There are a ton of intelligent Design threads, if you want facts use the search function and look it up.
Originally posted by Regret
Point three: Conclusions based on what they see, not what they tested? Give me a break. Evolution happens, period. If God didn't use it, it still happens. It has been tested. The gray peppered moth is an example of simple evolution, observed and tested. Peter and rosemary Grant with the Finches showed simple forms of evolution as well. Measurements of the cavity in the skull are differing in size, significantly between ancient and modern skulls, tested. What type of testing is necessary?
The grey peppered moth is the my favorite example you flukist use, light tone moths were a majority of the grey peppered moth population while dark toned were the minority. soot from factories darkened the trees that they perched on causing the light ones to stand out and become easy prey. decades later dark tone moths become the majority because of they match the darkened tree's and because of that flukist draw a conclusion. problem is all that took place was natural selection one variation of grey peppered moths decreased while the other increased because it was less likely to be eaten ( Dark tone moth's) and that's evolution to you guy's it's ridicules.
Originally posted by RegretPoint four: Where do these traits come from? So you aren't asking if I know the origin of the traits then? You are committing argumentum ad ignorantiam. Lack of knowledge doesn't mean anything, that's what drives science.
I'm asking a question I didn't say it doesn't happen, your avoiding it( I'm not surprised)
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
There are a ton of intelligent Design threads, if you want facts use the search function and look it up.
I wasn't attacking those threads, I was attacking yours. I wasn't looking for other threads to define your position, I am using your first post as the statement of debate.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
The grey peppered moth is the my favorite example you flukist use, light tone moths were a majority of the grey peppered moth population while dark toned were the minority. soot from factories darkened the trees that they perched on causing the light ones to stand out and become easy prey. decades later dark tone moths become the majority because of they match the darkened tree's and because of that flukist draw a conclusion. problem is all that took place was natural selection one variation of grey peppered moths decreased while the other increased because it was less likely to be eaten ( Dark tone moth's) and that's evolution to you guy's it's ridicules.
Have your read the fox farm experiment? Trut N.L. (1999). Early canid domestication: The farm-fox experiment. They bred foxes based on dog-like behavior (i.e. least fearful or aggressive toward people.) Those that did not fit were taken out of this population. Over a several generations the foxes behaved more and more like dogs, and less like foxes. Also, the foxes became more dog-like in appearance, floppy ears, upturned tails, and mottled color patterns, not much like foxes. There are plenty of examples of evolution. There isn't strong support in the scientific community for the idea that evolution did not and does not happen, due to the evidence supporting it opposition is dying. The majority of opposition are religious individuals that have to stand against it just to hold their religion up. It happens, arguments against it are wasted any more, I won't bother defending it, do research and the evidence can support itself.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I'm asking a question I didn't say it doesn't happen, your avoiding it( I'm not surprised)
I didn't avoid it, I don't know. Your statement is that since we don't know, intelligent design. Due to our advances in biology thus far, it would follow that further advances will answer your question. Due to the pattern of advances, it would be illogical to assume that the fact that we don't know leads to intelligent design being a viable option.
Evolution is fact. Its Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection as the mechanism for evolution that might be in the slightest bit attackable.
Intlligent design is not a vailable alternative. Until it starts providing testable hypothesis, its a bunch of cockamanie priests and religious right-wingers trying to stamp out intelligent thought and reinstate relgion as the founding conscious of society.
Originally posted by Alliance
Evolution is fact. Its Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection as the mechanism for evolution that might be in the slightest bit attackable.Intlligent design is not a vailable alternative. Until it starts providing testable hypothesis, its a bunch of cockamamie priests and religious right-wingers trying to stamp out intelligent thought and reinstate relgion as the founding conscious of society.
I do agree with you to a point, but as a religious right-winger (OK, maybe not right-wing, but religious) I have to say that I figure evolution was just the means to creation. Intelligent design theorists are cockamamie crackpots who want to say "look your wrong, something actually did it, wasn't science that did." I figure God took a few somethings in a petri dish, we'll call it earth, and let them grow for a while, then he took and killed some off and let them grow, killed some more off, always being careful to kill off ones that didn't have the physiological aspects he was looking for, until he had a something he wanted on earth. He then repeated the process a few times, then let everything loose. Science isn't that big a deal to religion if your religion can accept the fact that God probably didn't waste power on big creations like "Bam! there's a creeping thing!", and then " BaBam!!!! there's a bigger creeping thing!" If it's possible God used science then science isn't a threat to religion. It's when science defies your beliefs about God that there's the crackpot saying "booo, bad science, booo" (and if you saw the Princess Bride, I'm hearing the old lady in Buttercups dream as the voice here 😉 )
Guess I'm just saying it doesn't have to be an alternative in my opinion 😉
I'd like to see anyone make an intelligent argument for Intelligent design. I'd be happy to invalidate every one of thier points.
here is my reply from a thread in the general discussion forum a few weeks back........start invalidating......
The idea of intelligent design is not irrational. The truth is......we simply do not know. The fallacy lies in the reasoning of those who are using the term "intelligent design" to justify a diety.....a belief, something that exists soly in a person's mind...not in our real/physical world.ID and evolution are not "against each other" at all. If the religious nuts could somehow miraculously show their diety was the intelligent designer, it in no way eliminates evolution as it's method to achieve present results.
The problem with these religous folk is that they do not approach this scientific subject from any stance that could be loosely concieved as scientific. Their agenda is not to answer a question.......but to impose the beliefs residing in their minds onto other people, which is basically what religion is about in the first place. They take illogical steps to do so.
There is no way to know how the universe came into existence. No way to ever know. What existed before the first particle? What existed before the first bit of energy? No way to answer these questions at all. Their lack of logic comes into focus by their assertions....
Okay....somehow our universe came to be and we don't know how because everything had to begin at some point, right? That's how they open the door for their god answer. Next they claim that god had to create the universe. Okay, who created god then? They will say god always existed. When you point out that they just said 4 lines up that everything in existence had to have a beginning (including a god), they will just pretend they have gone deaf all of a sudden.
That's one far-fetched fantastical step that is unnecissary. If we are to say something could have always existed, as they proclaim god, isn't it more logical to simply state the universe always existed? That's cutting out one highly illogical middle man.......who happens to be invisible...living in the sky.
As for intelligence....we humans have barely begun to scrape the surface on the subject. Out of the vast, un-imaginable size of our universe......we have only yet encountered one kind of complex intelligence, ourselves......and none greater. The highest pinnicle of intelligence we human can understand at this point is our own......and some humans never figured out how to program their VCRs. We humans could be at the bottom of the heap relative to intelligence in our universe. Our intelligence compared to that of other forms could be the equivelant of a flea's intelligence compared to our own. We ourselves may not be intelligent enough to understand the intelligence at work in our natural world.
This is where REAL intelligent design comes in........not some fake stuff about invisible people who watch and judge you. Human beings have been around what, a few hundred thousand years in various forms? In this relatively short period of time....we have gained intelligence to some as of yet unknown degree. We are not even sure how our intelligence came to be......we believe it to be attributed to some interactions between electro-chemical impulses and matter (tissue) in our brains. It has only taken a few hundred thousand years to attain this. Our universe is 14 billion years old........and most certainly contain electrical impulses, chemicals and matter in abundance. As we know, all interact with each other.......just as in our brain. Why not believe the universe itself has evolved a form of intelligence over the 14 billion year time scale given........galaxies or even clusters of galaxies could be to the universe what one receptor cell is to our brain. It's not religous hokus pokus......but is intelligent design none the less......a universal intelligence guiding the physiology of the universe, functions and interactions........even if through millions or billions of years of trial and error/natural selection.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
here is my reply from a thread in the general discussion forum a few weeks back........start invalidating......
Great post...
I agree with you 110%, however, the ID people will either ignore your post or make some stupid insulting remark showing that they didn't even read it. ID has nothing to do with what you described; it has nothing to do with intelligent design. ID is a way to get Christianity into the schools, but you already knew that; I'm just agreeing with you.
Originally posted by Regret
I wasn't attacking those threads, I was attacking yours. I wasn't looking for other threads to define your position, I am using your first post as the statement of debate.
Turning this into a debate is a worst case scenario in this community.
Originally posted by Regret
Have your read the fox farm experiment? Trut N.L. (1999). Early canid domestication: The farm-fox experiment. They bred foxes based on dog-like behavior (i.e. least fearful or aggressive toward people.) Those that did not fit were taken out of this population. Over a several generations the foxes behaved more and more like dogs, and less like foxes. Also, the foxes became more dog-like in appearance, floppy ears, upturned tails, and mottled color patterns, not much like foxes. There are plenty of examples of evolution. There isn't strong support in the scientific community for the idea that evolution did not and does not happen, due to the evidence supporting it opposition is dying. The majority of opposition are religious individuals that have to stand against it just to hold their religion up. It happens, arguments against it are wasted any more, I won't bother defending it, do research and the evidence can support itself..
I've done research, evolution is riddled with in doctrine and hoaxes ( piltdownman, pig toe, etc)
Originally posted by Regret
I didn't avoid it, I don't know. Your statement is that since we don't know, intelligent design. Due to our advances in biology thus far, it would follow that further advances will answer your question. Due to the pattern of advances, it would be illogical to assume that the fact that we don't know leads to intelligent design being a viable option.
Here comes another one , don't ASS-U-ME that I just ask you a question.
The idea of intelligent design is not irrational. The truth is......we simply do not know. The fallacy lies in the reasoning of those who are using the term "intelligent design" to justify a diety.....a belief, something that exists soly in a person's mind...not in our real/physical world.
Not all advocates of ID try to justify a diety, I dunno how many times I've said this.
ID and evolution are not "against each other" at all. If the religious nuts could somehow miraculously show their diety was the intelligent designer, it in no way eliminates evolution as it's method to achieve present results.
Again ignorance, I've showed you that the origin of ID does not stem from religion, it's philosophy.
The problem with these religous folk is that they do not approach this scientific subject from any stance that could be loosely concieved as scientific. Their agenda is not to answer a question.......but to impose the beliefs residing in their minds onto other people, which is basically what religion is about in the first place. They take illogical steps to do so.
You flukist love to be on your high horse, everytime I post eveidence of ID you can't even offer a rebuttal. you just throw it off.
There is no way to know how the universe came into existence. No way to ever know. What existed before the first particle? What existed before the first bit of energy? No way to answer these questions at all. Their lack of logic comes into focus by their assertions.....
It's improbable not impossible.
Okay....somehow our universe came to be and we don't know how because everything had to begin at some point, right? That's how they open the door for their god answer. Next they claim that god had to create the universe. Okay, who created god then? They will say god always existed. When you point out that they just said 4 lines up that everything in existence had to have a beginning (including a god), they will just pretend they have gone deaf all of a sudden.
ID doesn't focus on the designer rather the design. and not all theist belive the universe was created.
That's one far-fetched fantastical step that is unnecissary. If we are to say something could have always existed, as they proclaim god, isn't it more logical to simply state the universe always existed? That's cutting out one highly illogical middle man.......who happens to be invisible...living in the sky..
Like I said before. not all IDers believe the universe was created.