Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Intelligent design vs Evolution
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444641 is a reply to message #444566] |
Sun, 06 March 2011 09:36   |
|
|
You missed the point entirely, ask any engineer if they'd have designed a camera with 4 different sets of leads (nerves) to control it, they'll say no - because one set can do it just fine. This disproves that, if a designer exists, they are intelligent. (Unless you now posit that said designer is also a troll, which is unlikely, and requires proof)
Renguard is a wonderful initiative
Toggle Spoiler
| BBC news, quoting... |
Supporters of Proposition 8 will argue California does not discriminate against gays, as the current law allows them to get married - as long as they wed a partner of the opposite sex.
|
| halokid wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 08:46 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 15:35 |
|
the hell is that?
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444642 is a reply to message #444641] |
Sun, 06 March 2011 10:01 |
 |
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| CarrierII wrote on Sun, 06 March 2011 09:36 |
Unless you now posit that said designer is also a troll, which is unlikely
|
I actually think that a 'designer' being a troll is extremely likely, given some of the things it has supposedly commanded people to do, and has done itself.
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444645 is a reply to message #444641] |
Sun, 06 March 2011 12:14 |
 |
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| CarrierII wrote on Sun, 06 March 2011 09:36 |
You missed the point entirely, ask any engineer if they'd have designed a camera with 4 different sets of leads (nerves) to control it, they'll say no - because one set can do it just fine. This disproves that, if a designer exists, they are intelligent. (Unless you now posit that said designer is also a troll, which is unlikely, and requires proof)
|
What rule says something made isn't intelligently made if it's not in its simplest form?
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444648 is a reply to message #444645] |
Sun, 06 March 2011 14:24 |
 |
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 06 March 2011 11:14 |
| CarrierII wrote on Sun, 06 March 2011 09:36 |
You missed the point entirely, ask any engineer if they'd have designed a camera with 4 different sets of leads (nerves) to control it, they'll say no - because one set can do it just fine. This disproves that, if a designer exists, they are intelligent. (Unless you now posit that said designer is also a troll, which is unlikely, and requires proof)
|
What rule says something made isn't intelligently made if it's not in its simplest form?
|
Not necessarily simplest, but with thoughtfulness. Having random shit that serves no purpose (Four nerves, just cuz) cobbled together is not intelligent.
You could say that the designer operates on a level of intelligence far beyond our understanding ("God moves in mysterious ways", or whatever), but that's a pretty big supposition without any evidence to support it. To that, you could say it's all a matter of faith. But that's not what the Intelligent Design idea is all about (I almost called it a theory, but that would confuse poor R3)
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
[Updated on: Sun, 06 March 2011 14:24] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444653 is a reply to message #444639] |
Sun, 06 March 2011 16:39 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| shippo wrote on Sun, 06 March 2011 07:23 |
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).
|
I'm not sure I understand the distinction between the two. How are they different if the process is the exact same? Are you saying evolution is only possible within a species, so one breed of dog evolving into another is okay, but a dog evolving into a wolf is not? I don't see your reasoning for putting arbitrary boundaries on a process you apparently agree with. I can drive from home to the store, I can drive from the store to the edge of the city. From the edge of the city I can drive out of town, and from there I can get to San Fransisco. The same process that takes me one step can take me the entire way, given enough time. In your mind, why is evolution any different? So if you agree a bird can evolve a different beak to get its food better, wouldn't it make sense that it could alson later have a change in wingspan to adapt to new air currents or something, and then grow thicker feathers to adapt in a change in climate, and then adapt new feet for a better kind of tree to nest in? How many of these changes can it take before it goes too far and becomes "macroevolution"?
Your shit just doesn't make any sense. At all.
| snpr1101 wrote on Sun, 06 March 2011 15:27 |
I have come to the conclusion that Shippo is trolling.
|
You're probably right. I should have seen it coming really, with him starting a thread like this.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
[Updated on: Sun, 06 March 2011 16:41] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444655 is a reply to message #444653] |
Sun, 06 March 2011 18:37 |
 |
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
It's amusing (and sad) to see Christianity hijack the ID movement in the U.S. The question raised is a very valid one; but from what I see, Christian intrusion and claims by theists that the designer is the "Christian God" (are they out of their minds?) have reduced the entire ID movement to a lame laughingstock. The only people worth taking about Intelligence Design is to agnostics who suspect intelligence interference and are able to accept without compromise both "god" AND "alien civilizations" pending identification.
Otherwise, your average ID advocate (such as OP, sorry mate) are Christian intruders into the Intelligence Design movement who have subverted a beautiful question of human curiosity as to our origins and tarnished it with the dark cloak of a vicious man-made religion.
The original question itself is a dead-end. ID advocates and creationists (huge difference) always reach such dead-ends with the question. And then what? OK, you "believe" we are intelligently designed! Great w00t! You win! Awesome now what? Need a cookie naow?
In all seriousness, what will be your next step? So you are convinced and/or managed to convince others we are intelligently designed. So what's next? What is next? Are you seeing the massive void I am seeing? Or are you completely oblivious to it? Where will you go next from then? What's your next progressive step to get confirmation? And most imporantly, how will you deal with the consequences? Please spell it out in writing.
I would wager the next step is to gather as much rationale for the claims...all of which revolve around missing DNA and advanced cellular engineering. Fair enough. And then what? What about the big important questions that would need to be asked?
Who made us then? (citing current gods won't do, what about Ancient Astronauts? Imagine humans going to another planet and dropping off a batch of young humans and cutting off contact. And we show up decades later to find them; what response will we get? Hopefully not a arrow or rock in the head.)
Why exactly did they make us? (to have fun? to mine gold? to kiss their ass to their satisfaction?)
What were their original intentions for their actions? (largescale planetary life experimentation?)
What were their moral standards compared to our own? (considering how barbaric morals were in the past, I would say the moral standard of any Intelligent Designer was shit plus I will add in incompetency and poor forecasting).
What were their expectations for life on earth? (that their creation become powerful enough to kick their asses?)
What was the entire point of them terra-forming Earth (lol) in the first place and engineering life upon it? (were they playing with life?)
Pretty sure many haven't asked themselves these questions; and I am missing many more. Being atheist, I found, is a much more advantageous position to be when in the receiving end of these questions as you don't assume anything. Secondly, atheism (or the humanist stance) prepares us to better defend humanity and our interests to take care of our own.
From what we cleanly gleaned from our recorded history, we used to be barbarians (we still are). Whatever made us, gave no thought about our well-being, loaded us up with shitty morals, ghastly irresponsibility, and in many cases, have exhibited ruthless genocidal tendencies. And if we consider several ancient texts (and take them literally) dating back to ancient Sumer, the so called "gods" used humans to fuel conflict in blatant power-mongerism and pure bloodlust. They were shit and if they showed up again in orbit, need to be killed on sight.
That being said, we are a thousands times better off now than we were then. Firstly, we can think for ourselves, we have a far wider knowledge of our place in the observable Universe, our advanced transportion and communication advances has closely knit our species together that despite our nationalist-tribe-like differences, the potential for a future human unification is now a possibility. Our morals are so much more advanced now and outright superior to what any ancient texts state. And this can only get better. We have come a long way and a good future awaits us as we have realized how vulnerable we are on this planet. Our consicous has expanded and we are a species that no doubt has the stars as our future destinations.
In addition, we have thousands of years of history on this planet. We have made great strides in our journey of self-discovery. We have, firstly, beaten a billion odds of survival by surviving countless natural catastrophes and massive diseases. Of every shit that came flinging our way, we have survived so far despite taking huge losses to both natural disasters and man-made folly. We have learned about the Universe and about ourselves more. We have studied our own bodies quiet well and out of our own ingenuity have increased lifespans and have made life so much easier for ourselves through medicine. We deserve every pat in the back for our accomplishments and we should be extremely proud of accomplishing all these despite the great odds against us when compared to the dangerous brutish lives of our earliest of ancestors.
While we still have barbaric differences and are divided and have plently of in-fighting, driven by greed and a tyrant infalliable thirst for power, we also generally have a self-worth that we ourselves gained all by our own work. We increased our collective "value" as a species and set a standard for life. As such, anything or anyone trying to come in and change shit up and treat us again like slaves just cos they can claim they made us will get a ass kicking war. It's a question of incredible dimensions to our existence; the creationists and ID folks better think about what exactly they are wishing for.
That's the amazing beauty of evolution. It allows for life to flourish where ever the ingredients are present and it also, much to our excitement, adds the unknown factor of our early days; did advanced alien civilizations visit and tamper with Earth and life? As for spirit entities from other dimensions, well we don't know jackshit about them; it's a queer Universe.
Ofcourse, this entire retarded mental exercise wasn't necessary if some of us here have made an effort to understand evolution further.
Finally, someone please tell me why we are obligated to take a stand on this issue? We are still making discoveries, no? Why are we then asked to belong to a group? It comes down to egotism and bandwagons. People want to be right rather than being wrong; this attitude hurts us so much as we get nowhere to the truth. Ordinary folks as ourselves can bicker all we want; atleast the scientific community that drives our quest for discovery are relentless in the pursuit of truth.
We don't have anything to lose by staying vigilant for the answer instead of prematurely jumping to take a side in a divisive debate.
Thousands of years have past since the last time any of those "Ancient Astronauts" (if you choose to give them some credibility) would have appeared and the dumb ancient humans adopted the cargo cult approach. Or we have evolved and have developed our ideas accordingly (most likely); thousands of religions have come and gone. The leading religion today is embarrasingly changing its own lines because of how ridiculous its dogmatic claims are starting to sound (lol), and it's apparent all of them are wrong. So despite our difference of opinions and stance, we really have only one choice: to find the answer and confirm it and then deal with the consequences of the truth without sacrificing our dignity and self-worth we have earned thru thousands of years of cumulative hard work spanning countless generations.
In a related note, this is why I can never see myself leaving atheism and becoming agnostic cos it will get me absolutely nowhere and I already tried that approach before.
Here's some fun: Can you imagine if the ID folks were right? That some aliens did create us and that the aliens turned out to be highly advanced but downright murderous like the Predators? Being right won't matter for shit then. So I will repeat, be careful what you wish for.
edit: typos
[Updated on: Sun, 06 March 2011 19:14] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444656 is a reply to message #444655] |
Sun, 06 March 2011 18:51 |
|
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 06 March 2011 18:37 |
I
Otherwise, your average ID advocate (such as OP, sorry mate) are Christian intruders into the Intelligence Design movement who have subverted a beautiful question of human curiosity as to our origins and tarnished it with the dark cloak of a vicious man-made religion.
|
ID was never really a different movement. It's merely a rebrand of Creationism, albeit trying to claim that evolution was God's plan all along. Religion is adaptable that way. Plus, 'Intelligent Design' sounds all sciencey and legitimate, as opposed to 'Creationism.'
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444661 is a reply to message #444656] |
Sun, 06 March 2011 21:15 |
|
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| nikki6ixx wrote on Sun, 06 March 2011 18:51 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 06 March 2011 18:37 |
I
Otherwise, your average ID advocate (such as OP, sorry mate) are Christian intruders into the Intelligence Design movement who have subverted a beautiful question of human curiosity as to our origins and tarnished it with the dark cloak of a vicious man-made religion.
|
ID was never really a different movement. It's merely a rebrand of Creationism, albeit trying to claim that evolution was God's plan all along. Religion is adaptable that way. Plus, 'Intelligent Design' sounds all sciencey and legitimate, as opposed to 'Creationism.'
|
that's extremely disappointing. Years back, I began thinking ID was a seperate group in America that were independent of religion and were approaching the idea from a secular POV. I was Christian at the time but I found it really interesting because it allowed for multiple possibilities for gods/aliens but most importantly a chance that people of other religions were also right and not simply damned to hell for not being Christian.
I had always felt there were way too much Christian involvement in ID that I felt shouldn't really belong in a secular movement (especially after Ben Stein expelled his rotten crap...pun intended). Sorry to hear that though.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444666 is a reply to message #444566] |
Sun, 06 March 2011 21:50 |
|
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
So far, everyone I've met who espouses Intelligent Design wears their religion on their sleeve.
From Wikipedia:
| Quote: |
Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of "creation science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state.
|
Really, ID is a cynical attempt to get Creationism back into the schools, by trying to portray it as a science.
Aside from its religious overtones, design cannot really be 'intelligent,' as many evolutions are merely due to chance. If it were truly 'intelligent,' humans likely wouldn't have their innate, undesirable tendencies.
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444674 is a reply to message #444655] |
Mon, 07 March 2011 06:42 |
 |
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 06 March 2011 18:37 |
We don't have anything to lose by staying vigilant for the answer instead of prematurely jumping to take a side in a divisive debate.
|
It makes sense to take this stance on Predator aliens planting humans, but it gets absurd once God is involved.  
lol
[Updated on: Mon, 07 March 2011 06:43] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444676 is a reply to message #444674] |
Mon, 07 March 2011 07:13 |
|
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 07 March 2011 06:42 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 06 March 2011 18:37 |
We don't have anything to lose by staying vigilant for the answer instead of prematurely jumping to take a side in a divisive debate.
|
It makes sense to take this stance on Predator aliens planting humans, but it gets absurd once God is involved.
|
I don't think it does in the least. What do we have to lose (and gain) when it is indeed a "God?" Which "God" do you mean by that? How do you know who that is? If you see "God" as an ambiguous benevolent being that actually cares for humanity, he/she/it has to realize that by hiding, it is not helping humans find the truth. Unless ofcourse you want me to take a leap of faith and make the assumption. The statement holds within the framework of all rational evidence we have now; for a deity to expect anything more isn't fair.
Compared to the Predators though, if a spiritual force shows up, well, we don't have a chance do we? It still raises the same exact questions.
[Updated on: Mon, 07 March 2011 08:26] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444679 is a reply to message #444566] |
Mon, 07 March 2011 10:22 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Aliens planting humans is just as far detached from scientific evidence as the world being 5000 years old.
We have a much better understanding of our planet's history than of the universe's, so don't you feel silly when giving a definite answer on a force that goes beyond the universe, while at the same time going off on weird, long alien planting tangents?
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444682 is a reply to message #444655] |
Mon, 07 March 2011 11:33 |
|
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I don't believe any of it, ofcourse. That's why I included this bit before:
| Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 06 March 2011 18:37 |
Ofcourse, this entire retarded mental exercise wasn't necessary if some of us here have made an effort to understand evolution further.
|
Eitherway, I am confused as to who among us two is giving a definite answer on the "force that goes beyond the universe?" As for such a force existing as you imply, are you sure you aren't plugging the unknown gaps with "God?"
Honestly, I don't even see a reason to give myself the benefit of the doubt. There are far too many things that we depend on based on pure chance; our survival is outstandingly dependent on the whims of the Universe that I fail to see where the involvement of any super being fits in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444684 is a reply to message #444679] |
Mon, 07 March 2011 12:45 |
|
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
The mental exercise was pointless given the lack of facts supporting aliens. However, I raised some questions that are appropriate, i.e, what will it make us humans if it was found there was a designer? What position will we be in? If there is a "God" then who are we? slaves? equals?
| JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 07 March 2011 12:02 |
I have no idea what you're trying to tell me with the rest of your post.
|
I was replying to this:
| JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 07 March 2011 10:22 |
We have a much better understanding of our planet's history than of the universe's, so don't you feel silly when giving a definite answer on a force that goes beyond the universe,
|
[Updated on: Mon, 07 March 2011 12:57] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444685 is a reply to message #444684] |
Mon, 07 March 2011 17:16 |
 |
shippo
Messages: 65
Registered: August 2009
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Dover wrote on Sun, 06 March 2011 16:39 |
I'm not sure I understand the distinction between the two. How are they different if the process is the exact same? Are you saying evolution is only possible within a species, so one breed of dog evolving into another is okay, but a dog evolving into a wolf is not? I don't see your reasoning for putting arbitrary boundaries on a process you apparently agree with. I can drive from home to the store, I can drive from the store to the edge of the city. From the edge of the city I can drive out of town, and from there I can get to San Fransisco. The same process that takes me one step can take me the entire way, given enough time. In your mind, why is evolution any different? So if you agree a bird can evolve a different beak to get its food better, wouldn't it make sense that it could alson later have a change in wingspan to adapt to new air currents or something, and then grow thicker feathers to adapt in a change in climate, and then adapt new feet for a better kind of tree to nest in? How many of these changes can it take before it goes too far and becomes "macroevolution"?
Your shit just doesn't make any sense. At all.
|
A wolf is the same specie as a dog, they can interbread. 
According to Genetics the animal changes certian features based on what genes it already has not a brand new one.
With the example of the bird, the bird has both a gene for a small beak and a large beak. Lets say the large beak is a dominant gene and the small beak recessive. Now, if for some reason in the environment the birds with small beaks can get to food beter, those birds will survive and pass on the resesive gene. The other birds with the dominant gene will die out. the only gene then seen here would be the small beak gene. However no new gene was created.
To get an new gene, a gene must get mutated by either transcription errors or by some sort of viral infection. The statistic for transcription errors is 10-100 million the majority being harmful or non efective. Is it plausable to get a "good" mutation, yes but this takes more faith in my opinion than "creationism"
[Updated on: Mon, 07 March 2011 17:19] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444687 is a reply to message #444685] |
Mon, 07 March 2011 18:31 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| shippo wrote on Mon, 07 March 2011 16:16 |
A wolf is the same specie as a dog, they can interbread.
|
I don't think you understand what the word "species" means. There are plenty of animals that can interbreed. In most cases all it means is that they have the same number of chromosomes and share a (relatively) recent common ancestry.
| shippo wrote on Mon, 07 March 2011 16:16 |
According to Genetics the animal changes certian features based on what genes it already has not a brand new one.
With the example of the bird, the bird has both a gene for a small beak and a large beak. Lets say the large beak is a dominant gene and the small beak recessive. Now, if for some reason in the environment the birds with small beaks can get to food beter, those birds will survive and pass on the resesive gene. The other birds with the dominant gene will die out. the only gene then seen here would be the small beak gene. However no new gene was created.
To get an new gene, a gene must get mutated by either transcription errors or by some sort of viral infection. The statistic for transcription errors is 10-100 million the majority being harmful or non efective. Is it plausable to get a "good" mutation, yes but this takes more faith in my opinion than "creationism"
|
So your problem is you're not comprehending the absurdly long incommunicatably vast amount of time that the process takes. It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of statistics. But I'm going to assume math isn't your strong suit.
A dice is rolled on that 10-100 million chance every time any creature anywhere reproduces another gamete. Multiplied by the number of creatures alive on earth, multiplied by time. How unlikely is it really?
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444700 is a reply to message #444687] |
Mon, 07 March 2011 21:57 |
|
shippo
Messages: 65
Registered: August 2009
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species specie in most cases = the interbreading and production of fertil offspring 
| Dover wrote on Mon, 07 March 2011 18:31 |
So your problem is you're not comprehending the absurdly long incommunicatably vast amount of time that the process takes. It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of statistics. But I'm going to assume math isn't your strong suit.
A dice is rolled on that 10-100 million chance every time any creature anywhere reproduces another gamete. Multiplied by the number of creatures alive on earth, multiplied by time. How unlikely is it really?
|
Well I will have to admit that one statistics is not one of my best subjects
still though awful long time.
I would like to ask one question, (know this one is kinda a sore topic) if we did evolve why is it that we have not found many "missing links"? 99% of fossals are of compleated animals with no transitions. shouldn't we find more that are inbetween, so to speak?
[Updated on: Mon, 07 March 2011 22:01] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444703 is a reply to message #444700] |
Tue, 08 March 2011 01:11 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
at least you accept that we've found some, which is more than most proponents of creationism dare to admit.
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 #444707 is a reply to message #444703] |
Tue, 08 March 2011 07:53 |
|
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
If that's what they really are, I wonder why we haven't found more than just "some". You'd think there would be more of fossils in transition than fossils that aren't, yet that ratio is reversed to the extreme.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: Intelligent design vs Evolution [message #444708 is a reply to message #444566] |
Tue, 08 March 2011 08:17 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
I've yet to hear a plausible alternative. If species don't evolve from other species, that would mean every species that exists now has always existed for Earth's history. Can you imagine puppy dogs dodging volcanic rock in the time of the primordial soup? I wonder how sheep and cows survived being hunted by dinosaurs? Sounds more than a little silly.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Dec 22 21:40:27 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01492 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
