Intelligent Design or Evolution?

[Wahooti Fandango]

Guess I should have been more clear. I was referring more to abiogenesis as being a chance occurrence. Theistic evolution I don't discount.

Theistic evolution is a most acceptable position to maintain, particularly compared to the dribble that Fire Storm is espousing.

 

[Niximus]

I get it all right. Real good.

You really don't, your ranting only portrays you as an ignorant child throwing a tantrum.

 

[TheBloods]

Um....no. Yes scientists support evolution. But based on ASSUMPTIONS. Not facts. Like the facts on the law of gravity. etc. Aerodynamic facts. We know why an aircraft will fly. Its been studied. And tested. Not assumed.


I've post the scientific facts from those that have STUDIED 'simple' organisms.


I've posted the facts of those that have STUDIED the fossil record.



From scientists. Evolusionists.


Yet YOU have ingnored them. And can't refute them. I'v asked you too. Yet you won't. Won't? Can't?


There not from me, The Bloods. They're documented scientific facts. Maybe you should write to all those scientists - INCLUDING EVOLUSIONISTS - who studied, tested and documented their finds.


Like I said, you're the expret right?

You've posted nothing but some comments from mathematicians, which have been refuted.

 

[Fire Storm]

Scientific fact is dribble?



Interesting.



Like I said in my original post. The evolutionary theory is just that. A thoery with no spporting evidence.


Only asumptions and wishful dreaming.

 

[Niximus]

Scientific fact is dribble?



Interesting.



Like I said in my original post. The evolutionary theory is just that. A thoery with no spporting evidence.


Only asumptions and wishful dreaming.

Only if you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about...oh, you don't.

Your literacy skills are a window into your lack of education, your comments just confirm it.

 

[Fire Storm]

You really don't, your ranting only portrays you as an ignorant child throwing a tantrum.

Another 'expert'. Where's YOUR attempt to refute scientific fact?

You've posted nothing but some comments from mathematicians, which have been refuted.

Um...no, The Bloods. Scientists inlcuding evolutionists who have shown that evolution is and always will be a fanciful theory.

 

[Niximus]

Another 'expert'. Where's YOUR attempt to refute scientific fact?

What scientific 'fact' would I be refuting?

 

[Fire Storm]

So i cant spell, who cares. Must be natural selection at play huh!

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Nick85 has taken the gloves off.

 

[Fire Storm]

What scientific 'fact' would I be refuting?

Aye currumba.



What, do you read with your eyes closed? Let me guess, your evolving into a new species?

 

[TheBloods]

Surely then there are scientists across the world trying to simulate the conditions of the primordial soup? If abiogenesis did occur, then there's no reason that we can't "create" simple organisms, right?

Maybe there is a reason because not all the circumstances have been created. Maybe it was unlikely and that it occurred was pure chance. In any case, abiogenesis is not directly relevant to evolution.

And Pawtucket Patriot, how can you prove or disprove a believe in a higher being? So long as science cannot answer some questions, then the idea of a higher being remains plausible. Myself - I don't buy into the theory that life came from a chance mix of chemicals.

So scientific evidence of evolution is not good enough, but a fantastical belief in a higher power is perfectly reasonable.

And if you are going to take the arguments about 'why can't scientists do it', how do explain what God is up to since the first creation and how does that fit with the fossil record, and why did he create simple organisms rather than something more complex? Why did he create so many organisms and organs that could have been designed much better?

I find it hard to believe that the process started by a chance arrangement of chemicals, resulting in the manifestation of life.

This is the argument of incredulity, often used by creationists, but quite weak.

 

[Fire Storm]

Like i said, NO evidence of evolution. None.

 

[Niximus]

Aye currumba.



What, do you read with your eyes closed? Let me guess, your evolving into a new species?

All I have read from you has been nonsensical claims of 'fact' based on the supposed opinions of some scientists.

I have no doubt that there are some scientists with different views, it's quite normal. There are however, far more that are against you.

 

[Niximus]

Like i said, NO evidence of evolution. None.

Again, only if you have never picked up a biology textbook.

 

[TheBloods]

Theistic evolution is a most acceptable position to maintain, particularly compared to the dribble that Fire Storm is espousing.

Yep, I have no real issue with the argument evolution after the initial creation of something simple. It is a bizarre thing to explain though.

 

[Fire Storm]

The Bloods? the WHOLE argument IS based on their being nothing and then somethind and that little old 'simple' organism you keep talking about turing into life.


It cant happen. Ever. I've shown evidence from science that say it cant. And doesn't.



It can't happen in a soup. It didn't happen then and doesnt happen now with EVERYTHING already that we have to support life.


By the way? When is the last time you were at the beach and have seen a fish walk out of water and turn into a reptile? Please tell me which zoo I can go too to see these kinda creatures?


Anyone?

 

[TheBloods]

Another 'expert'. Where's YOUR attempt to refute scientific fact?

Um...no, The Bloods. Scientists inlcuding evolutionists who have shown that evolution is and always will be a fanciful theory.

No one has done that. You have demonstrated nothing to that effect (because there is nothing to that effect).

Evolution has a strong level of scientific evidence to support it.

The Bloods? the WHOLE argument IS based on their being nothing and then somethind and that little old 'simple' organism you keep talking about turing into life.

No it's not based on that - evolution is not about the creation of life!
Are you really that stupid or are you a troll?

It cant happen. Ever. I've shown evidence from science that say it cant. And doesn't.

You may keep saying you've shown evidence, but it doesn't make it so.

It can't happen in a soup. It didn't happen then and doesnt happen now with EVERYTHING already that we have to support life.

Abiogenesis is irrelevant to evolution.

By the way? When is the last time you were at the beach and have seen a fish walk out of water and turn into a reptile? Please tell me which zoo I can go too to see these kinda creatures?

Anyone?

Ambulocetus - a walking whale.

 

[Niximus]

No matter how unlikely the beginning of life was it obviously occurred. Imagine for a moment that I rolled a dice one trillion times and recorded the result as so:

2, 4, 1, 5, 5, 3, 2 etc

The one trillion digit long number that you would end up with would have been so unlikely to be the result that it would have been almost impossible, if that's what you were aiming for and yet, it occurred.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

The Bloods? the WHOLE argument IS based on their being nothing and then somethind and that little old 'simple' organism you keep talking about turing into life.


It cant happen. Ever. I've shown evidence from science that say it cant. And doesn't.



It can't happen in a soup. It didn't happen then and doesnt happen now with EVERYTHING already that we have to support life.


By the way? When is the last time you were at the beach and have seen a fish walk out of water and turn into a reptile? Please tell me which zoo I can go too to see these kinda creatures?


Anyone?

Have you read anything in this thread? In addition, the more you say something (e.g. there is no evidence for evolution) does not make it come true.

 

[Theeighthhamster]

Like i said, NO evidence of evolution. None.

There are tons of threads on this site where Abrahamic nutjobs try this little song and dance that you are doing. In the end you will get too abusive and be banned or someone patient enough will post page after page refuting all your ill-conceived, uneducated ideas and you'll give up with some "you're going to hell" sign-off. Happens every few months without fail.

 

[TheBloods]

Like i said, NO evidence of evolution. None.

There is a massive amount of evidence. You constantly demonstrate your ignorance Cletus with such comments.

 

[Niximus]

Have you read anything in this thread? In addition, the more you say something (e.g. there is no evidence for evolution) does not make it come true.

I picture him putting on his red slippers and clicking his heels three times and saying "There's no evidence for evolution, There's no evidence for evolution, There's no evidence for evolution".

 

[blues4flag]

No matter how unlikely the beginning of life was it obviously occurred. Imagine for a moment that I rolled a dice one trillion times and recorded the result as so:

2, 4, 1, 5, 5, 3, 2 etc

The one trillion digit long number that you would end up with would have been so unlikely to be the result that it would have been almost impossible, if that's what you were aiming for and yet, it occurred.

Weak argument as far as I'm concerned. You roll dice one trillion times and you're going to end up with a number, irrespective of what it might be. I could mix elements a hundred trillion ways and where's the proof that I'll get a living organism of some sort?

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Weak argument as far as I'm concerned. You roll dice one trillion times and you're going to end up with a number, irrespective of what it might be. I could mix elements a hundred trillion ways and where's the proof that I'll get a living organism of some sort?

No proof, but rather the laws of probability.

 

[Chief]

It did before it was proven that it can't happen.

What the hell are you talking about?

That's resulted in organisims that turned into fish then reptiles then apes then humans? Let me guess, it happended in Tasmania?

Again with the ignorance... and bad spelling.

People like you carry on with wildly inaccurate statements, never backing down even in the face of evidence (yes - evidence). Finally the rest of us give up or start mocking you. You go away telling people that nobody could refute anything you said and that they resorted to name calling to shut you up.

You are still wrong.

Theory : proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

I get it all right. Real good.

How do you feel about the germ theory of disease? Do you think there is any doubt that germs can cause sickness in people?

The word theory has many distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion. Definitively speaking, a theory is a unifying principle that explains a body of facts and the laws based on them. In other words, it is an explanation to a set of observations. Additionally, in contrast with a theorem the statement of the theory is generally accepted only in some tentative fashion as opposed to regarding it as having been conclusively established. This may merely indicate, as it does in the sciences, that the theory was arrived at using potentially faulty inferences (scientific induction) as opposed to the necessary inferences used in mathematical proofs. In these cases the term theory does not suggest a low confidence in the claim and many uses of the term in the sciences require just the opposite.

You're using the term 'theory' incorrectly. Try reading something other than biblical fairy tales and pseudo-science junk.