Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Intelligent design vs Evolution
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444568 is a reply to message #444566] |
Wed, 02 March 2011 22:05   |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but evolution is an accepted scientific theory. it has happened, though there are questions about how.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444580 is a reply to message #444568] |
Thu, 03 March 2011 09:42 |
 |
GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605
Registered: March 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 02 March 2011 22:05 |
they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive
|
this
why do they always have to be considered mutually exclusive? why is it so hard to think "hey, maybe we were created by evolution, and there was a lot of skipped time in the Bible... after all, God's sense of time seems to be quite different than ours". But no, religious enthusiasts refuse progress.
Toggle Spoiler| Scrin wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 13:22 |
| cAmpa wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 12:45 |
Scrin, stop pming people to get the building bars.
|
FUCK YOU AND THIS SHIT GAME WITH YOUR SCRIPTS!!! I HAVE ASKING YOU AND ANOTHER NOOBS HERE ABOUT HELP WITH THAT BUILDING ICONS FEATURES FOR YEARS, BUT YOU KEEP IGNORING ME AND KEEP WRITE SHIT, SO BURN YOU AND YOUR ASSLICKERS FRIENDS, THIS TIME I'M NOT COME BACK!!!!!!!!!   
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444589 is a reply to message #444581] |
Thu, 03 March 2011 20:09 |
 |
HaTe
Messages: 923
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
There's more proof (imo) supporting evolution. In my mind it's sort of like Global warming.....it's an accepted scientific fact (by the majority), yet it still has it's skeptics. Though there are many more people believing in god then that who don't believe in global warming...but the point is the same.
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ - Edmund Burke
[Updated on: Thu, 03 March 2011 20:09] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444592 is a reply to message #444589] |
Thu, 03 March 2011 22:27 |
 |
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| HaTe wrote on Thu, 03 March 2011 22:09 |
There's more proof (imo) supporting evolution.
|
Well, two things. First, factual proof can't be in the form of an opinion. Secondly, no, there is no proof to support evolution. That's why it's called the "Theory of Evolution."
However, various scientific evidence does infer that the theory of evolution is highly plausible. It's just not factually proven so.
Also, funny comic strip. 
[Updated on: Thu, 03 March 2011 22:27] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444607 is a reply to message #444592] |
Fri, 04 March 2011 09:32 |
|
GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605
Registered: March 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 03 March 2011 22:27 |
| HaTe wrote on Thu, 03 March 2011 22:09 |
There's more proof (imo) supporting evolution.
|
Well, two things. First, factual proof can't be in the form of an opinion. Secondly, no, there is no proof to support evolution. That's why it's called the "Theory of Evolution."
|
THERE'S NO PROOF TO INDICATE THAT DINOSAURS EXISTED AT ALL
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ONE? I THOUGHT NOT! GAME OVER, YOUR DINOSAUR "THEORY" IS PROVEN WRONG ONCE AGAIN!
Toggle Spoiler| Scrin wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 13:22 |
| cAmpa wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 12:45 |
Scrin, stop pming people to get the building bars.
|
FUCK YOU AND THIS SHIT GAME WITH YOUR SCRIPTS!!! I HAVE ASKING YOU AND ANOTHER NOOBS HERE ABOUT HELP WITH THAT BUILDING ICONS FEATURES FOR YEARS, BUT YOU KEEP IGNORING ME AND KEEP WRITE SHIT, SO BURN YOU AND YOUR ASSLICKERS FRIENDS, THIS TIME I'M NOT COME BACK!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444613 is a reply to message #444592] |
Fri, 04 March 2011 14:13 |
 |
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 03 March 2011 21:27 |
Secondly, no, there is no proof to support evolution. That's why it's called the "Theory of Evolution."
|
Every time I think I've become acclimated to the bullshit your spew, you go ahead and raise (lower?) the bar. I guess there's no proof to support the Theory of Gravity either? God damn shit popping fucks, you're stupid. >:[
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
[Updated on: Fri, 04 March 2011 14:13] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444616 is a reply to message #444566] |
Fri, 04 March 2011 15:47 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
I'm under the impression that a "theory" is merely a proposed explanation of some phenomena. It may be agreed upon, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still considered conjecture.
You wouldn't have to theorize something if there is definitive proof of fact that it is indeed the way it works.
Something that is a theory can be changed if there is evidence to support the new development. That's why it's called the theory of evolution; because it isn't definitively proven and a new development can happen at any time that could change our understanding of how it works.
In comparison, and until further factual proof, the theory of a creationist is just as valid as the theory of evolution.
Personally, I believe in evolution if it's any consolation.
[Updated on: Fri, 04 March 2011 15:49] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444617 is a reply to message #444611] |
Fri, 04 March 2011 15:59 |
 |
shippo
Messages: 65
Registered: August 2009
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| CarrierII wrote on Fri, 04 March 2011 13:22 |
Go study anatomy, that will disprove intelligent design...
Apparently, four nerves to innervate the eyeball and surrounding musclature is intelligent...
|
lol funny you should say that. (studding anatomy I mean)
Since you brought up the eyeball, the eyeball can focus instantly, capture millions of pictures to send to our brain so we can see movement, sees in color, and cleans its self.
Now a camera or movie recorder can do this as well (except for the cleaning of its self lol) but a camera was defiantly designed for capturing images. Would it not be accurate to assume that the eye was designed for the same purpose?
@WubWub funny commic 
[Updated on: Fri, 04 March 2011 16:13] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444618 is a reply to message #444617] |
Fri, 04 March 2011 16:02 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| shippo wrote on Fri, 04 March 2011 14:59 |
| CarrierII wrote on Fri, 04 March 2011 13:22 |
Go study anatomy, that will disprove intelligent design...
Apparently, four nerves to innervate the eyeball and surrounding musclature is intelligent...
|
I'm glad you brought that up. Let me respond to you by completely ignoring what you said and flying off on some tagent based on pure speculation. After all, just because the invisible purple flying unicorn is invisible, would it not be accurate to assume that it is also purple?
|
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444620 is a reply to message #444616] |
Fri, 04 March 2011 16:33 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Fri, 04 March 2011 14:47 |
I'm under the impression that a "theory" is merely a proposed explanation of some phenomena. It may be agreed upon, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still considered conjecture.
You wouldn't have to theorize something if there is definitive proof of fact that it is indeed the way it works.
Something that is a theory can be changed if there is evidence to support the new development. That's why it's called the theory of evolution; because it isn't definitively proven and a new development can happen at any time that could change our understanding of how it works.
In comparison, and until further factual proof, the theory of a creationist is just as valid as the theory of evolution.
Personally, I believe in evolution if it's any consolation.
|
Right before you posted this, Surth told you that "theory" doesn't mean what you think it does. I can only assume that you posted this to give everyone a public example of what "wrong" looks like.
Let me know when they find some factual proof to support Music Theory, or the Theory of Gravity. It'd be nice if all that stuff could move beyond being just conjecture.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
[Updated on: Fri, 04 March 2011 16:34] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444621 is a reply to message #444620] |
Fri, 04 March 2011 16:45 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Dover wrote on Fri, 04 March 2011 18:33 |
Right before you posted this, Surth told you that "theory" doesn't mean what you think it does. I can only assume that you posted this to give everyone a public example of what "wrong" looks like.
Let me know when they find some factual proof to support Music Theory, or the Theory of Gravity. It'd be nice if all that stuff could move beyond being just conjecture.
|
Right, which is why I second guessed myself when I read what he said about me using the wrong definition of a theory. I then looked up the definition of theory and confirmed what I had thought it to be. That's when I made my second post.
So, yes, I am exemplifying my "wrong" definition of it. Which, apparently, isn't necessarily as "wrong" as you are making it sound. The meaning I put behind the word theory was correct, just not under the context used in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444623 is a reply to message #444617] |
Fri, 04 March 2011 21:30 |
 |
snpr1101
Messages: 425
Registered: June 2007
Location: Australia
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
| shippo wrote on Fri, 04 March 2011 15:59 |
| CarrierII wrote on Fri, 04 March 2011 13:22 |
Go study anatomy, that will disprove intelligent design...
Apparently, four nerves to innervate the eyeball and surrounding musclature is intelligent...
|
lol funny you should say that. (studding anatomy I mean)
Since you brought up the eyeball, the eyeball can focus instantly, capture millions of pictures to send to our brain so we can see movement, sees in color, and cleans its self.
Now a camera or movie recorder can do this as well (except for the cleaning of its self lol) but a camera was defiantly designed for capturing images. Would it not be accurate to assume that the eye was designed for the same purpose?
@WubWub funny commic
|
So your argument is: A Camera was designed and has a use. The human eye has a use, therefore it was designed.
Do you realize how bad of an argument this is? I would type an accompanying explanation as to why it is bad, yet as Dover pointed out - you either can't comprehend what somebody is saying to you, or just completely skirt the main points or the entire argument itself and give some half-assed reply supporting your PoV.
Who am I kidding, you probably won't even read this.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444628 is a reply to message #444623] |
Sat, 05 March 2011 08:01 |
|
shippo
Messages: 65
Registered: August 2009
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
@ snpr and dover
I was trying to get accross the idea that it is easier to believe in the the idea that someing is created with a purpose as to something just randmoly coming together, especially with something as complicated as the eye.
According to evolution, in order for a genetic trait to be caried over from one animal to another, it must exibit some sort of benifit to that animal that alows it to survive better than those who do not have it. (this is very closely related to Natural selection)
now with my eye example. the eye is made up of many parts that all must be there together for the eye to work. You need an optic nerve to cary the light to the brain for interpretation, you need a lense to focus the light, you need atlest rods to see in black and white, you need the ciliary muscles that control the amount of light into and out of the eye, and may more.
now, if you had the lense but not the ciliary muscle, you could not focuse on things or zoom in or out.(this is assuming you were lucky in developing an optic nerve and a retina both at the same time) Also this is assuming your brain has the ability to interpret vission. Now anyone care to give me the odds of geting all of this together at the same time? and that is just the eye
|
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444629 is a reply to message #444566] |
Sat, 05 March 2011 09:18 |
 |
wubwub
Messages: 142
Registered: May 2009
Location: Ontario
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
When you work out, it creates tiny rips in your muscles that heal over time. When you keep working out, the rips heal over and over again eventualy making the muscle bigger to adapt to your lifestyle i.e. working out.
I beleive that with use over long periods of time, you can adapt anything. Wether it takes a couple of weeks or millions of years.
So yes, i beleive in evolution, not this bullshit about design...
When renegade goes Wub, it never goes back
(or at least until I re-install renegade anyways)
[Updated on: Sat, 05 March 2011 09:19] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444630 is a reply to message #444628] |
Sat, 05 March 2011 14:03 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| shippo wrote on Sat, 05 March 2011 07:01 |
@ snpr and dover
I was trying to get accross the idea that it is easier to believe in the the idea that someing is created with a purpose as to something just randmoly coming together, especially with something as complicated as the eye.
According to evolution, in order for a genetic trait to be caried over from one animal to another, it must exibit some sort of benifit to that animal that alows it to survive better than those who do not have it. (this is very closely related to Natural selection)
now with my eye example. the eye is made up of many parts that all must be there together for the eye to work. You need an optic nerve to cary the light to the brain for interpretation, you need a lense to focus the light, you need atlest rods to see in black and white, you need the ciliary muscles that control the amount of light into and out of the eye, and may more.
now, if you had the lense but not the ciliary muscle, you could not focuse on things or zoom in or out.(this is assuming you were lucky in developing an optic nerve and a retina both at the same time) Also this is assuming your brain has the ability to interpret vission. Now anyone care to give me the odds of geting all of this together at the same time? and that is just the eye
|
So you're entire argument is "But it's so unlikely!"? You said it yourself, natural selection. You don't see the overwhelming odds of failure because most creatures without working eyes would be extinct at their species' formative period. It's not that unlikely at all. It would only take one or two beings with any given trait to pass it on, especially if it's something as undeniably advantageous as having the ability to see.
You know, I bet that if you put some effort into it, you could probably trace the development of the eye through the fossil record. Human knowledge has sort of gotten past the point of "I don't believe it! What are the odds?!"
Basically, even though it might be easier to believe that something was created with a purpose, it doesn't make it any less wrong to believe that. For proof, consider that the eye took eons to reach the state that it is in now, and if it were designed with purpose it would be much more efficient to do it all at once rather than leave the designer's work to the whims of fate. There are too many risks for an intelligent designer to take; A lucky predator or natural disaster at the wrong moment.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444631 is a reply to message #444566] |
Sat, 05 March 2011 14:47 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Eyes evolved from much more primitive light sensing organs, which many simpler organisms still have because their other senses are adequate to their purposes... whereas the creatures we evolved from came to rely more on what became eyes.
Proof of evolution is all over the human body- our tailbone (which very rarely manifests as a vestigal tail), body hair, and... can I get a drumroll here?
...nipples.
Why nipples? I'm not talking about male nipples here; those are leftovers from the womb when the fetus becomes one sex instead of the other (or in some very rare cases both or neither). What I'm talking about are vestigal nipples... a second or even a third set located below the proper nipples on the torso. They manifest as little spots, and are sometimes mistaken for warts or moles... not everybody even has them.
These are an evolutionary atavism- something left over from a much earlier creature that did, in fact, have more than two nipples. They constitute evidence of common ancestry with other mammals such as dogs, cats, cows, etc.
And here you thought there was no way to pass looking at nipples off as science. 
Earth has been around for a stupendously long time. There has been life on Earth for a stupendously long time. Human life spans are measured in decades; we do not find it easy to comprehend the concept of billions of years and we do not have the ability to observe the changes in our world beyond our own lifetime. Evolution sounds inconceivably crazy because you've failed to take into account just how much time life has had to evolve.
Most mutations are dead ends. The creatures that receive them are either shunned by others of their species or weakened in some way and their genes are never passed on. However, statistical probability guarantees that some mutations will be passed on... so much time passes for so many generations of so many different organisms and you're bound to see significant, noticeable changes. That's evolution.
We are the product of millions upon millions, possibly even billions of generations starting with a single cell and culminating in what we are today. Not one feature of our bodies just suddenly popped in one generation and stuck around. The slightest of changes, even a single cell's difference at a time, over so much time- first a simple organ to sense the presence of light. Next the ability to determine which direction the light is coming from. Then the ability to sense changes in light intensity. Then simple pattern recognition, resulting in the ability to recognize shapes. Then color recognition, beginning with black and white and ultimately including the entire spectrum... perhaps another few hundred thousand generations or so will yield the ability to see infrared and ultraviolet light.
Tiny little changes add up.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444639 is a reply to message #444630] |
Sun, 06 March 2011 08:23 |
|
shippo
Messages: 65
Registered: August 2009
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Dover wrote on Sat, 05 March 2011 14:03 |
So you're entire argument is "But it's so unlikely!"?
|
That's part of it, but mainly that there are quite a few pieces that must be there all at the same time for it to work, but any one or two piece can't evolve just by its self due to the fact that there must be a valid purpose for it to be there.
| Dover wrote on Sat, 05 March 2011 14:03 |
You said it yourself, natural selection. You don't see the overwhelming odds of failure because most creatures without working eyes would be extinct at their species' formative period. It's not that unlikely at all. It would only take one or two beings with any given trait to pass it on, especially if it's something as undeniably advantageous as having the ability to see.
|
note that it is not natural selection (micro evolution) that I am tring to debate, it is Macro evolution. Natural selection (micro evolution) is nothing more that the modification of certian features with in a specie that alows it to survive better (ex. bird with pointed beek can get to a certian food sort better that one that has a curved stumpy one). Macro evolution on the other had is the change of of one specie to another (ex. ape changes into a man). Unfortunately the problem with both sides is you can't prove either of them scientificly. aka you can't recreate it, observe it now (see God creat it), or
find difinitive proof of it in the past(missing links).
| Dover wrote on Sat, 05 March 2011 14:03 |
You know, I bet that if you put some effort into it, you could probably trace the development of the eye through the fossil record.
|
the problem there is there have been no fossils (as of yet, there could be some not yet descovered) to prove this.
| Dover wrote on Sat, 05 March 2011 14:03 |
Basically, even though it might be easier to believe that something was created with a purpose, it doesn't make it any less wrong to believe that. For proof, consider that the eye took eons to reach the state that it is in now, and if it were designed with purpose it would be much more efficient to do it all at once rather than leave the designer's work to the whims of fate. There are too many risks for an intelligent designer to take; A lucky predator or natural disaster at the wrong moment.
|
I could go with that. I think it was R315r4z0r, made a good comment earlier in the thread saying that their is no real definitive prove for either side. However on the same note I don't believe it wise to teach the Theory of evolution as 100% fact and then say all other ideas or theories are false.
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Nov 22 15:12:04 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01355 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
