Originally posted by amannionThe Natural verses Supernatural issue I need to revisit. Of course I believe in natural causes.
Sorry,you don't get out of it that easily.
Intelligent Design is code for supernatural creator.
How can it be otherwise?
If you focus on the intelligence, I would ask what is the nature of this intelligence? If not God, what? Intelligent aliens? All that would do is set us back a bit - we still need an explanation for the existence of the intelligent ali ...[text shortened]... l development of life?
If that's the case I would hardly call that overwhelming evidence ...
Tell me though, if ID is "nonsense" why did Albert Einstien make the comment quoted at this website?
http://www.y-origins.com/pdf_links/Einstein.htm
Does this quotation of Einstien suggest that he would have agreed that ID was nonsense? Please don't come back with "Yea, but there is nothing there about the Christian God." I know that and am not asking about his views on that.
Anyway, debunk Einstien for me if you think "ID is nonsense" makes more sense then his opinion expressed in the quotation.
1 edit
Originally posted by amanniondouble posted accident.
Sorry,you don't get out of it that easily.
Intelligent Design is code for supernatural creator.
How can it be otherwise?
If you focus on the intelligence, I would ask what is the nature of this intelligence? If not God, what? Intelligent aliens? All that would do is set us back a bit - we still need an explanation for the existence of the intelligent ali l development of life?
If that's the case I would hardly call that overwhelming evidence ...
Originally posted by jaywillI don't think the quote really tells us what Einstein would have though about ID. As far as I know he accepted evolution as fact, so it is quite likely he would have rejected ID.
Tell me though, if ID is "nonsense" why did Albert Einstien make the comment quoted at this website?
http://www.y-origins.com/pdf_links/Einstein.htm
Does this quotation of Einstien suggest that he would have agreed that ID was nonsense? Please don't come back with "Yea, but there is nothing there about the Christian God." I know that and am not asking about his views on that.
I hear that Einstein did reject the idea that certain things in the universe happened at random and I believe this caused him many problems as the evidence was against him.
Anyway, debunk Einstien for me if you think "ID is nonsense" makes more sense then his opinion expressed in the quotation.
It unnecessary to debunk Einstein as he does not support ID with the quotes given.
He does however seem to have similar ideas, which are easy to debunk.
Essentially he appears to be saying that patterns are evidence for intelligence - an obvious and easily disproved fallacy.
Originally posted by jaywillYes there is a graduated genetic lineage, as well as a physiological one.
Is there an apparent graduated genetic lineage between all kinds of apes leading to human beings?
I mean could you line up all the different kinds of apes and arrive at a clear graduated lineage culminating in a human being?
If not to what would you attribute the difficulty in doing this? Has anyone shown a continous scaler ascent of all kinds of apes to a human being (even allowing for gaps due to possible extinction )?
You do have to be careful though, when one mentions apes, we do not mean modern apes, but if you trace back the lineage of chimps and man, you do find a point where they were the same thing, orangutans a little before that, so on so forth.
So your second sentence is your own invention, it is not evolution, to get teh graduated link between a chimp and a human for instance, we would have to follow a chimps lineage back in time until the split and then go forward in time towards humans again, or vice versa.
The genetic record shows that, the fossil record show the physiological changes in the same way. Get all apes, we can trace them back to where they split off. There is still some debate with certain specimens whether this was number 43 or 44 for instance, but we know that the two concerned were after 42 and before 45. That is just a matter of those gaps you mentioned. Another problem is that for molecular clocks we have to set a calibration point. This does not change the order of the splittings, but only the timescale over which those splittings happened, the question would still be answered in the positive. Here's a link which explains it in a bit more detail...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics
1 edit
Originally posted by realeyezTo respond to your statements in turn...
Man did not evolve. If so man would still be evolving and so would everything else. That also takes God out of exsistance. Why say God made man if man evolved. trust in God not evolution.
Yes, man did evolve.
Yes, man and everything else IS still evolving (for instance, it has recently been found that blue eyes are a single mutation from ~10,000 years ago which spread through the population; furthermore, bacteria, moths, squirrels, fish, viruses (whether they fit definition of life is arguable) all domestic animals including dogs and cats, many forms of plant life including agrigultural crops... have all been seen to evolve within the scale of human history alone, and of course the list goes on).
No this does not necessarily take god out of existence but it certainly does give him more time for his other hobbies.
Indeed, why do people say god existed if man evolved and gods "miracles" have other more rational explanations?
No, don't see god and evolution as two sides of the same coin, the vast majority of theists can quite happily reconcile the belief in a god with their conviction of the evolutionary models truth.
Originally posted by jaywillWhat a load of rubbish.
The Natural verses Supernatural issue I need to revisit. Of course I believe in natural causes.
Tell me though, if ID is "nonsense" why did Albert Einstien make the comment quoted at this website?
http://www.y-origins.com/pdf_links/Einstein.htm
Does this quotation of Einstien suggest that he would have agreed that ID was nonsense? Please d ...[text shortened]... you think "ID is nonsense" makes more sense then his opinion expressed in the quotation.
Einstein made no contribution at all to evolutionary theory so why would I consider his religious ramblings? I don't deify any scientist - all humans are equally prone to spout crap (I do it all the time).
All the quotes show is that this highly respected scientist was also religious - there's nothing particularly startling about that: many scientists are also religious.
The quotes have no direct correspondence to the ID issue at all.
And you accuse me of building straw men ...
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionActually Einstein was quite clear that he was neither religious nor theistic, he was however spiritual. I know the poster of this link doesn't want to hear it (they specifically stated that) but the fact of the matter is that the quote is a spiritual reference so Einsteins spiritual opinions are very relevant and discounting arguments before they're made is intellectual cowardice.
What a load of rubbish.
Einstein made no contribution at all to evolutionary theory so why would I consider his religious ramblings? I don't deify any scientist - all humans are equally prone to spout crap (I do it all the time).
All the quotes show is that this highly respected scientist was also religious - there's nothing particularly startling about t ...[text shortened]... o direct correspondence to the ID issue at all.
And you accuse me of building straw men ...
Einstein, being a deist, saw the universe and its governing laws and so forth as a spiritual thing. Not as a god or a religious entity (he stated this explicitly, excerpts from these speeches can be found in an excellent podcast from a radio show called "Speaking of Faith" ).
The quote is not relevant to the evolution issue in light of his quite specific and explicitly stated beliefs about theism, desim and religiosity.
Also, regardless of all of this, a scientist should be judged on their scientific achievements when discussing science, not their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Mendel was a clergyman and he developed the first models of genetics, we don't quotemine him on his views about god because they are not relevant to the substance of his work in science.
Originally posted by realeyezhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7339508.stm
Man did not evolve. If so man would still be evolving and so would everything else. That also takes God out of exsistance. Why say God made man if man evolved. trust in God not evolution.
snakes with legs?
- Joined
- 01 Jun 09
- Moves
- 4256
Originally posted by scottishinnzI wonder where my wings are...I mean if evolution is, indeed, fact. Where are my sixteen arms, my five eyes, my brand spankin new seven ears, my eight feet, and (of course) my wings? Where is all of this stuff???? If you take on evolution (like you guys seem to be doing) and apply it to humans....why are we not evolving? Yes you can say we are evolving into a more stupider race of humans. But our physical characteristics are not changing! I've read a lot of books on evolution, and all of them point to one thing: creation! It's a God thing. One of the books I've read is the Bible. The Bible shows more proof of creation that a cheesy little theory like evolution is...JUST A THEORY NO MORE NO LESS. Guys, you have to deal with this! Some of you have put it very well that God created the world. Guys, scientists, etc. You have to realize your audience. Some of these chess players are kids! I'm going on 50..ooops...evolving to 50 LOL LOL LOL The kids are who you should be worried about...they are our future. They need to know the CREATION STORY!!
Well, I suppose if you mean fact as "something real" then I'd agree. However, ... well, even then, all that really happens is mutation, mating and death - no evolution. Evolution is an emergent property of the system, it wouldn't even amount to a process, I guess....
However, I'd appreciate your thoughts...
Originally posted by winkYou say you've read a lot of books on evolution, but it seems you have read the wrong books. Can you cite a single one of those books that was not written by someone who was promoting creationism that states or implies that humans should have evolved wings or more limbs due to evolution. If you did not get it from a book but deduced it yourself from your understanding of evolution, can you explain how you made that deduction?
I wonder where my wings are...I mean if evolution is, indeed, fact. Where are my sixteen arms, my five eyes, my brand spankin new seven ears, my eight feet, and (of course) my wings? Where is all of this stuff???? If you take on evolution (like you guys seem to be doing) and apply it to humans....why are we not evolving?
1 edit
Originally posted by winkIf wings would be good for you, then god would have created you with wings.
I wonder where my wings are...I mean if evolution is, indeed, fact.
If not even god thought that wings would be good for you, then why would humans evolve wings?
After all - evolution is a part of the creation, isn't it? To deny evolution, you deny the most miraculous part of the creation.
1 edit
Originally posted by winkWhich books on evolution did you read?
I wonder where my wings are...I mean if evolution is, indeed, fact. Where are my sixteen arms, my five eyes, my brand spankin new seven ears, my eight feet, and (of course) my wings? Where is all of this stuff???? If you take on evolution (like you guys seem to be doing) and apply it to humans....why are we not evolving? Yes you can say we are evolving into o you should be worried about...they are our future. They need to know the CREATION STORY!!
Yes you can say we are evolving into a more stupider race of humans.
Hey, that's mean. You should be more nicer!
Originally posted by winkThe bible shows no proof at all. Proof? Then prove to me the most basic fact there is in the bible: The existance of god. Do that, and we can talk about proof of creation later.
The Bible shows more proof of creation that a cheesy little theory like evolution is...JUST A THEORY NO MORE NO LESS.
Yet another creationist that thinks that a scientific theory is just a guessing. Is the theory of gravitation also a guessing? Or the atomic theory?
Educate yourself instead of showing your ignorance.