Remove this Banner Ad

Intelligent Design or Evolution?

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

It never happened. Just as my m,ouse trap never turned into a tv, so a 'simple' organism never turned into something else for no reason.


Who made my mouse trap by the way? Nobody of course. It happened by chance.


Just like a 'simple organism' evolving which science already know is mathamatically imposibble.
 
Hodge2Franklin said:
We cannot completely dismiss University graduates as like Einstein did, some will make sure they pass so they can practice their passion, but the vast majority will spit out the other end like most academics.
Click to expand...

I didn't know Einstein completely dismissed University graduates.
 
Fire Storm said:
It never happened. Just as my m,ouse trap never turned into a tv, so a 'simple' organism never turned into something else for no reason.


Who made my mouse trap by the way? Nobody of course. It happened by chance.


Just like a 'simple organism' evolving which science already know is mathamatically imposibble.
Click to expand...

They just keep getting dumber and dumber...
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Only two forms of evidence.


The 'simple organsim which hase never been proven and is a mathatmatical impossilbility.

And finches that are...well......still finches but with variety like all of us.





And that's it?




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simple organisms?

Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.
Click to expand...
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler and Adler, 1985, 261.

Odd's that a free-living, single-celled organism (a bacterium, for example) could result from a chance combining of life building blocks (amino acids, for example)? Harold Morowitz, from Yale University puts the odds or any kind of spontaneous generation were one chance in 10 -100,000,000,000.

Whats the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747? About 10 - 40,000. Remember thats 10 with 40,000 zeros after it!


All more then the "Impossibility Standard".

Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate George Wald : One has to only contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.


yep. Impossible.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What about evolving species? Where are the transitional fossils that show it to be so? Well.......there is none.

BomberGal said because of the lack of fosill record.

Scientist Porter Kier from the Smithsonian Institution: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.”

Ooops, BomberGal.


And what does the fossil record show?


A study made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England with 120 scientist using about the fossill record of about 2500 plants and animal showed what?

Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record.


The conclusion? “No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred".



oooops again.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Do I need to go on?


Maybe I'll just finish with one more quote.


I. L. Cohen is a mathematician, researcher and author. Also a member of the New York Academy of Sciences and officer of the Archaeological Institute of America.

In a certain sense, the debate transcends the confrontation between evolutionists and creationists. We now have a debate within the scientific community itself; it is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction. 1

...In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail -- no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honored idols have to be discarded in the process. 2

...after all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end -- no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers... if in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside superintelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back. 3

…every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary and it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. 4

...The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science.
Click to expand...




Pretty obvious to me. But I'm a realist.
 
Being one of those dumb mothers who made the mistake of attending a university, my limited, undeveloped intellect sees only two arguments arising from this debate.

1)What are the ramifications for your life if either theory is proven true? In other words, who gives a toss, and if we do give a toss, what does it matter? With the establishment of either theory as being unassailably 'truth', how will your life change?

2) Why would anybody think there is an answer to this question? If, as I contend, there isn't, isn't this a waste of time, emotion and bandwidth? I must concede there may be some who would foresee a resolution of the dilemma presented. Of those people I ask in what manner they imagine such a resolution may be achieved. From the posts on this board, I wouldn't hold out much hope of it being through a discourse such as this. Others may think that if we post another 500 times an answer will emerge from the mist. On what basis would you have confidence in this occuring?

P.S. The answer to neither argument is: "We can't help ourselves. It's hardwired into us to ask these questions." Both of these statements are an assertion that we aren't living our lives, but are merely blobs of determinism. If you must take this route, the far more interesting question addresses the fact that we are unable to discern when we are asking questions which never will yield answers.

Edit: I think this pursuit of the unknowable must be sheeted home to Socrates, or more likely, to his biographer Plato. There never has been any evidence of the talking being the inevitable path to 'truth'. It should be noted that even Plato had the grace to blush at the misappropriation of his thought by barrow-pushers.
 
luthor said:
Where are the myriads of "links" in the fossil record that should exist?
...but just don't
Click to expand...
There are a number of links in the fossil record, but naturally there is a lot missing.

Do you sincerely believe that human beings and other mammals and even other complex life forms "evolved" from single cell organisms that originally "came to life " in some primordial soup?
Click to expand...
It is the best explanation we have seen. Also, I should add that in the bolded part you are confusing abiogenesis (the origin of life) with evolution. These are two separate issues, often conflated by the misinformed creationist lobby, which is why I said earlier it was irrelevant to the discussion.

Why do you unquestionably accept that "evolution" magically advances forward.....why don't species regress at least half the time?
Click to expand...
Instantly you highlight one of your many misunderstandings of evolution, or natural selection. If a species regressed, it would become less effective at surviving and thus become extinct.

Surely the adaption process doesn't necessarily always make species "smarter", or have to grow more legs, or stand upright instead of remaining quadrupeds?
Click to expand...
By definition it makes it more effective at survival in its environment.

I can think of many other problems with the Theory of Evolution, which to my mind is just that...a theory...with huge holes in it.
Click to expand...
Another that doesn't understand scientific theory. Of course it's a theory - so is gravity. It doesn't actually have huge holes - they are the huge holes of your lack of education in this area.

And before anyone stereotypes me as a Creationist, or some kind of religious nutter...I'm not...in my own mind I'm agnostic.

It's just that when weighing up the arguments of ID v Evolution, I inevitably end up asking myself the same question:

WHICH IS THE BIGGER FAIRY STORY?
Click to expand...
So what do you believe is the best explanation?

luthor said:
See, that's my problem.

Organisms are indeed "born" of organisms...the same organisms.

If the organisms are happily surviving in their environment, they spawn like organisms and have no reason whatsoever to do anything else.

If the environment turns hostile, the organisms have three choices....die, move to a friendlier environment, or "adapt"

Now somewhere eons ago, there were these aquatic organisms (fish) swimming around in a pond or a lake or a sea or an ocean...which started to "dry up"....and let's say, got very short of water.

Easy...let's just grow some lungs so we can breathe on dry land.????

What?..did they get advance warning of running out of water?

And even if they didn't...and still managed to "evolve" these magic breathing abilities out of water....what the hell did they do about mobility???....

...how long were they floundering around on dry land without arms and legs?

Big blob-fish lying on dry land...thinking to themselves..."Shit....what are we going to eat?"

OK ...an any case let's test the theory....if all the billions of marine animals in all the oceans were tomorrow pulled out of their environment and plonked on solid ground, how many of them would "evolve" the ability to survive even a few hours?
Click to expand...
****ing ****ing ****ing stupid comment borne out of massive ignorance. Evolution doesn't take place in hours or days or weeks or a years. It takes place over thousands and millions of years.

How do you explain walking fish that can breathe out of water?
How do you explain amphibians that are related to fish?
How do you explain vestigial limbs?

How do you explain what organisms do to adapt to their changing environment? We know for a fact that the earth has changed dramatically over its life. What do the animals do to cope with that change? How do you
explain major differences in creatures from common ancestors but live in different environments?
 
Fire Storm said:
It never happened. Just as my m,ouse trap never turned into a tv, so a 'simple' organism never turned into something else for no reason.


Who made my mouse trap by the way? Nobody of course. It happened by chance.


Just like a 'simple organism' evolving which science already know is mathamatically imposibble.
Click to expand...
Idiotic ****ing creationist bullshit.

What mouse traps occur in nature? What TVs occur in nature?

How is it "mathematically impossible"?

What is the relevance of the mouse trap? Ah, you've gone for irreducible complexity. So give us some examples in nature.
 
Fire Storm said:
Simple organisms?

Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler and Adler, 1985, 261.

Odd's that a free-living, single-celled organism (a bacterium, for example) could result from a chance combining of life building blocks (amino acids, for example)? Harold Morowitz, from Yale University puts the odds or any kind of spontaneous generation were one chance in 10 -100,000,000,000.

Whats the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747? About 10 - 40,000. Remember thats 10 with 40,000 zeros after it!
Click to expand...
This is an absurd and totally spurious argument that has been completely discredited. It is starting with the end point and working back to the beginning. But the end point doesn't have to be what we have now. It is just one of a enormous multitude of possibilities (as the maths shows).

A simple example for you. Play a game of cards. Work out the probability that the cards would have been dealt out and played based upon a deck that has been well shuffled. The probability of the hand occurring exactly the way it did it phenomenally small. So small that you'd say that hand could not have occurred.

But it did - it just happened to be the one of the multitude that could have. Same with evolution. The world we have now was not a foregone conclusion (which is what the mathematicians are insinuating), but it is the outcome.
 
The Bloods you are a champion. :thumbsu:

By the way Fire Storm, I am most impressed by the name dropping of scientists who challenge evolution. :rolleyes: In addition, have you not read anything by Darwin, Dawkins, Wallace, Huxley, Grant, Gould?

Where is the evidence for this alternative theory (ID/creationism)?
 
Ian Plimer in "Telling Lies for God"

"In creationist writings, Satan is everywhere, cleverly disguised as the normal rational person."

"The main reason creationism is rejected and opposed by the major churches is that it makes mockery of religion."

"The followers are given simple authoritative dogmatic solutions to complex problems and a feeling of living in the warm world of Voltaire's Dr Pangloss. Like all cults, the creationist cult give spiritually lost people a sense of belonging."

"The one test of truth and knowledge of a creationist is to ask them to explain, without changing any of the fundamental laws of science for sake of convenience, why fossiferous limestone occurs at the peak of Mt Everest...No creationist passes this test."

* I am aware of Plimer's position on climate change.
 
skilts said:
1)What are the ramifications for your life if either theory is proven true? In other words, who gives a toss, and if we do give a toss, what does it matter? With the establishment of either theory as being unassailably 'truth', how will your life change?.
Click to expand...

Perhaps your understanding will be enhanced when creationism becomes the prevailing view and the religious police drag you out of your house and nail your sorry arse to a stake and set fire to it because they've found on your person a copy of that kraut satanist's The Gay Science. Perhaps before you succumbed to the heat and smoke you may be overcome by an epiphany concerning the nature of being which for some reason you seem to think is important.

This is not just about a well-researched yet tentatively-held scientific theory versus the rabid belief in a particularly nasty god, it's a battle between knowledge and ignorance, freedom and the straight-jacket, love and hate.

And it fills in a few hours before the footy kicks off.


skilts said:
2) Why would anybody think there is an answer to this question? .
Click to expand...

There already is an answer, its just the creationists haven't got it yet.
 
TheBloods said:
The 'blahs' weren't meant to be derogatory to the participants of that conversation. I've seen many of their discussions on such topics before and they are often interesting, but not really relevant to this particular topic.
Click to expand...
It's all about the dialogue mate,happy to go where it takes me.Ive got no interest in 'winning', as I'm sure Fig doesn't either.

Fair enough if you find it boring or irrelevant. Just scroll through.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Firstly, I'd like to say that bloods is a legend but also Java has made some fantastic points.

Luthor presents two main questions:

1. What started all this creation? As I said to firestorm, many people who believe in evolution also believe in god. Two mainstream views is that god planted the first seed and then watched it develop. The second is that god planted the first seed, managed it, shaped it, watered it into his want. It's called theistic evolution and it's quite common for people who believe in god to also believe in evolution. My Christian sister teaches biology which includes evolution at a high school here in Geelong for instance.

2. Why didn't they stay in their original structures, or why did they evolve? Every organism has an inbuilt sense of survival. Environmental factors create situations in which animals need to react, in which either the animal does, or doesn't. There are many species who have died out due to a lack of ability to adapt. If you look at evolution, it presents development which either just generally improves the organism improving their chance of survival and or presents development which is a reaction to situations which require adaption.

Luthor, you ask why can't you see evolution take place... now. Evolution doesn't work that way and you're presenting strawman arguments. Fact is, evolutionary theory of the development (not starting) of organisms is the best and most likely theory we have. It is also a theory which is supported by evidence, lots of evidence. People can dismiss evolution but they also have to dismiss the masses of evidence and masses of scientific evidence which supports it. Evolution is called a theory, so is gravity. Yet gravity is accepted by pretty much every scientific community and pretty much every man with a brain. That's not to say that evolution is absolute fact but to say that "oh it's called a theory, therefore it's just a guess" is a little silly since the same word is used to describe gravity which is commonly accepted by all as true.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Richo83 said:
Fair point that, we wont see the evolution of main species but we will in smaller things such as bacteria and viruses. Evolution is all about the development and change of organisms, since that example fits under that that's a pretty good example IMO.
Click to expand...

I mainly posted it to placate those who whine about the fact that we cannot personally witness evolution. As you suggest, most macroevolution occurs on a much larger time scale, but some forms of macroevolution and most microevolution can be observed. 'Evolution in the laboratory'.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18313895
 
Richo83 said:
Does discussion need a specified end? If it did, man would hardly talk.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Although, I suppose we could save a little more bandwidth for the really important questions in life.






PS : Voss
 
Pawtucket Patriot said:
I mainly posted it to placate those who whine about the fact that we cannot personally witness evolution. As you suggest, most macroevolution occurs on a much larger time scale, but some forms of macroevolution and most microevolution can be observed. 'Evolution in the laboratory'.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18313895
Click to expand...

It's a good rebuttal, luthor asks for chimps to evolve into humans today, yet evolution doesn't work like that on the macro scale. As you have said though, it does on the mirco, and that's where they get stuck.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

MrsBlueSky
Politics Local government - love them, loathe them or get rid of them
Replies
5
Views
792
MrsBlueSky
MrsBlueSky

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom