or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism - Page 4  

post #121 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
Religion MAKES UP answers to squelch any curiosity humans might have. Religion tries to be THE answer. The end of all questioning. FAITH replaces reasoning and deduction and observation. Do NOT question OR ELSE.

Religion co-opts skills and byproducts of science (everything from architecture, masonry, math, astronomy, color theory, writing, musical theory...) for its own usage, to solidify and communicate its own propaganda.

Not the people I am associated with.

Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
If there's any BIGOTRY around here it is from those religious extremists that want to prevent entire generations of schoolchildren from being curious about the world and universe around them and silence any questions their new minds might create so that they can become soldiers for their antiquated dogmatism.

Or...maybe...those talking about "INBRED American Southerners".

Look, your whole post is rife with its own kind of bigotry or at least ignorant, ill-informed, pre-conceived ideas about people of religious faith, perhaps Christians in particular.

I know a lot of very intelligent, very thoughtful (as in, given to thinking hard about important issues), well-educated, critical-thinking people that are deeply faithful Christians and also deeply skeptical of evolution as an explantion for what it attempts to explain.

The majority of Christians I know are not the close-minded, un-thinking, bigotted, backwards Neanderthals that you suppose them to be. Not perfect mind you. But not the dreck you have attempted to portray. In fact, you demonstrate your very own close-minded, un-thinking, bigotted, backwards mindset by these simplistic caricatures you fabricate.

To segue back to topic, there are also some very intelligent and educated people that are raising legitimate questions about evolution.
post #122 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
To segue back to topic, there are also some very intelligent and educated people that are raising legitimate questions about evolution.

As should be done. Only through the examination and reexamination of possible weaknesses will an idea prove to ultimately hold water or be exposed as erroneous. Now I ask you this: When speaking of evolution versus intelligent design and/or creationism, which line of thought encourages examinations of it's shortcomings as well as constant scrutiny of those things already heavily considered and predominantly agreed upon by those who profess to subscribe to said thoughts?

What you have is a debate amongst people trying to reach conclusions via endless research and people trying to reach conclusions via endless research begat by preconceived beliefs that they insist can not be concluded upon by man to begin with.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #123 of 430
Chris,

Discussing such things as Evolution with you and dmz is almost identical to discussing why Battlefield Earth was such an atrocious movie to a bunch of Scientologists. Endless, dissatisfying, baffling and saddening. They defend it to their dying breaths despite evidence of near-plagiarism and inept production. Why? Because they "believe" in LRH blindly and nothing based on his works can possibly be bad or laughable.

You are cultists. The cult of Christ. The cults may well be very large, but regardless. You endlessly defy anything that goes against your chosen dogma, or "teachings" (i.e. programming). You question only that which threatens to undermine your beliefs, whereas scientists NEED those questions specifically to whittle down the possible alternative explanations.

The former props up a system that is deemed "true" by an elite, the latter exposes truth through experimentation, analysis, discussion, observation...

Good luck. Asia/E.U will dominate the 21st century in every way because of your pathetic syncretism of Christian dogma and intentionally crafted ignorance in the various fields of science.

What is happening in the U.S. school system at the hands of Christian Supremists (hey, let's just call it what it is), with regard to science/Evolution is a travesty.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
post #124 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
Chris,

...... Endless, dissatisfying, baffling and saddening.........

I think that should the tag line for all of Political Outsider!
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #125 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
...

Enough of the unloading on people with personal gut punches. He is entitled to his thoughts and views just as much as you are.

Feel free to debate. Do not feel free to level attacks on people.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #126 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
How utterly scientific and open-minded of you to let hundreds of other (un-vetted) opinions make your mind up for you. Oh...and it isn't my book.

I expected that reply. Thing is I listened to that stuff 25 years ago and I made my mind up then. The evidience for evolution is tremendous. You are left with either the option to beleive it happened on its own or that some gods put everything in place to make it look like it happened. Answer #1 is the simplest.
post #127 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla

To segue back to topic, there are also some very intelligent and educated people that are raising legitimate questions about evolution.

And if they believe in a young earth they are wrong, in the same way I am wrong if I say that water is made from three atoms of oxygen and one of crisco.

Edit: I'd just like to add, Chris, that when Christian fundamentalists say 'Heavens, you're so angry and intolerant', it's because what are you are proposing is on the same level as claiming that water is made from crisco. It's the same staggering blindness to the facts, and if you insist on it in the face of all the evidence it's no surprise that those of us who live in the Real World eventually get exasperated.
post #128 of 430
You have no designer.
You were not created with a design in mind.
You will die. That is the end of it.


The above is a lie.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #129 of 430
You shouldn't lie, Fellows.
post #130 of 430
Where is the living proof of evolution in the past 200 or so years?

What are the chances that every species just stopped evolving all of the sudden?

Shouldn't eskimos now have fur?

Shouldn't more fish be developing lungs and legs?

Are we to believe that all life on this planet has evolved to it's fullest extent?

Just asking?
post #131 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Where is the living proof of evolution in the past 200 or so years?

Punctuated equilibrium.

Quote:
What are the chances that every species just stopped evolving all of the sudden?

Pretty good. Punctuated equilibrium.

Quote:
Shouldn't eskimos now have fur?

Why? Evolution isn't teleological.

Quote:
Shouldn't more fish be developing lungs and legs?

Why? Evolution isin't teleological.

Quote:
Are we to believe that all life on this planet has evolved to it's fullest extent?

No. Evolution isn't teleological.

Cheers
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #132 of 430
With the price of airline tickets costing as much as they do, I'm working on evolving a pair of wings.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
post #133 of 430
I would love for a believer in evolution to explain how the eye evolved into being.

Human, fish, whatever.

Just show me fact by fact, slide by slide how this came to be

It is just a little hard for me to "buy" that one day there was this lifeoid that had no eye. Over eons of time it realized it needed an eye to better suit and provide for itself. Not only did this lifeoid "realize" it needed an eye, it proceeded to manufacture eyes for itself via magical DNA anomalies, mutations, accidents

Nor do I buy that natural selection explains the eye. Natural selection is indeed a real phenomenon however it CANNOT explain the advent of something. Just preference or the skipping over of something.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #134 of 430
double post
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #135 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Punctuated equilibrium.



Pretty good. Punctuated equilibrium.



Why? Evolution isn't teleological.



Why? Evolution isin't teleological.



No. Evolution isn't teleological.

Cheers

Look theories about theories by Niles Eldredge to explain what evolutionists can't explain.

So basically , any day now we should see some global shift in the evolutionary ladder.

I can't wait.
post #136 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Punctuated equilibrium.

Which is really basically just a hypothesis to explain the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record and the apparent absence of evolutionary change for long periods of time (or maybe ever). It is an idea. A thought.

Does punk eek have supportable evidence (and don't say the lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record and the apparent absence of evolutionary change for long periods of time...because that it simply tautilogical).

In fact, according to punk eek we ought to be seeing some rapid evolutionary progress in some things right now, simply because it would stand to reason that while some things are evolving very slowly or not at all (the "equilibrium" part)...others would be evolving very rapidly (the "punctuated" part)...so rapidly that we ought to be able to plainly see it...at least over hundreds of years anyway.

Furthermore there wouldn't be any reason to assume that all species are in "equilibrium" at the same time or "punctuating" at the same time. Well...if this were the case it would make an argument for a great deal more order than might have been thought.
post #137 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Which is really basically just a hypothesis to explain the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record and the apparent absence of evolutionary change for long periods of time (or maybe ever). It is an idea. A thought.

Does punk eek have supportable evidence (and don't say the lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record and the apparent absence of evolutionary change for long periods of time...because that it simply tautilogical).

In fact, according to punk eek we ought to be seeing some rapid evolutionary progress in some things right now, simply because it would stand to reason that while some things are evolving very slowly or not at all (the "equilibrium" part)...others would be evolving very rapidly (the "punctuated" part)...so rapidly that we ought to be able to plainly see it...at least over hundreds of years anyway.

Furthermore there wouldn't be any reason to assume that all species are in "equilibrium" at the same time or "punctuating" at the same time. Well...if this were the case it would make an argument for a great deal more order than might have been thought.

Ohh man Are you basically saying you are not so quick to fall for the "There are WMD in Iraq" ooops I mean "evolution" BS?

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #138 of 430
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
You have no designer.
You were not created with a design in mind.
You will die. That is the end of it.

The above is a lie.

That's completely fine, but it has no place in science. The issue is not whether or not ID is true or not, it's whether non-scientific beliefs should be tacked onto real scientific efforts/theories just because people want to believe they are true.

I have non-scientific beliefs about natural order and greater meaning in the world, but I also am able to recognize that they don't currently belong in the realm of science because they are not verifiable. However, I guess it's probably a little easier for me than a creationist because I'm not dependent on a creation myth that contradicts observations.
post #139 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
No. Evolution isn't teleological.

Cheers

Mid...

If the theory of evolution isn't predictive, isn't teleological and isn't a tauntalogy when it claims that the fittest survive because they are the fittest... then exactly what the hell is it?

A belief system?

I mean evolution is something easy to want to believe. However the reality is that scientific theories are supposed to explain and also be falsifiable. People don't have to be religious to have doubts about evolution.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #140 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
a creation myth that contradicts observations.

First, which creation account are you referring to, and, second, in what specific ways does it contradict (which) observations?
post #141 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Mid...

If the theory of evolution isn't predictive, isn't teleological and isn't a tauntalogy when it claims that the fittest survive because they are the fittest... then exactly what the hell is it?

A belief system?

I mean evolution is something easy to want to believe. However the reality is that scientific theories are supposed to explain and also be falsifiable. People don't have to be religious to have doubts about evolution.

Nick

Very well said Nick

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #142 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
I would love for a believer in evolution to explain how the eye evolved into being.

Human, fish, whatever.

Just show me fact by fact, slide by slide how this came to be

It is just a little hard for me to "buy" that one day there was this lifeoid that had no eye. Over eons of time it realized it needed an eye to better suit and provide for itself. Not only did this lifeoid "realize" it needed an eye, it proceeded to manufacture eyes for itself via magical DNA anomalies, mutations, accidents

Nor do I buy that natural selection explains the eye. Natural selection is indeed a real phenomenon however it CANNOT explain the advent of something. Just preference or the skipping over of something.

Fellows

I would love my earlier post to be explained by a believer in evolution.
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #143 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman

If the theory of evolution isn't predictive, isn't teleological and isn't a tauntalogy when it claims that the fittest survive because they are the fittest... then exactly what the hell is it?

Lord. It's a theory describing variation and adaptations among species over time. If a mutation happens in an individual critter that helps that critter to get a mate, get food, or defend itself, the chances are that that mutation will be passed on.

Radical idea, I know.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #144 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
If a mutation happens in an individual critter that helps that critter to get a mate, get food, or defend itself, the chances are that that mutation will be passed on.

Clearly this is intended to be predictive.

You did not explain how this is not tautilogical.

You are saying that a beneficial variation/mutation is one which enables something to continue living and re-produce.

How do we determine the most beneficial variations/mutations? They exist in the populations that continue to live and reproduce.

How do they continue to live and reproduce (while others do not)? Because they have the most beneficial variations/mutations.

( Whew...I feel like I am talking in circles...oh...wait... )
post #145 of 430
God is eternal.
this means it took him an eternity to have the idea to create the univers.
I wonder what he was doing before that?
And if he had all this time to think about it, why do we stink?
post #146 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Clearly this is intended to be predictive.

Why? We can't be sure what variations will be beneficial and which won't until after they've been successfully identified.

Quote:
You did not explain how this is not tautilogical.

No, I didn't. Because it's not.

Quote:
You are saying that a beneficial variation/mutation is one which enables something to continue living and re-produce.

How do we determine the most beneficial variations/mutations? They exist in the populations that continue to live and reproduce.

We don't "determine" them. And what is beneficial is likely to change over time as various other factors come into play.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #147 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Why? We can't be sure what variations will be beneficial and which won't until after they've been successfully identified.

It attempts to be predictive about what happens with variations/mutations, natural selection and reproduction, as well as the emergence of new species. Now it has not attempted to be specifically predictive about what variations/mutations will occur (and/or be beneficial) nor what new species will emerge. That much is true.

Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
No, I didn't. Because it's not.

Well, actually, it is. You just aren't seeing (or won't) it.

Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
And what is beneficial is likely to change over time as various other factors come into play.

What defines something as being a beneficial variation/mutation?
post #148 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
I would love for a believer in evolution to explain how the eye evolved into being.

Human, fish, whatever.

Just show me fact by fact, slide by slide how this came to be

It is just a little hard for me to "buy" that one day there was this lifeoid that had no eye. Over eons of time it realized it needed an eye to better suit and provide for itself. Not only did this lifeoid "realize" it needed an eye, it proceeded to manufacture eyes for itself via magical DNA anomalies, mutations, accidents

Nor do I buy that natural selection explains the eye. Natural selection is indeed a real phenomenon however it CANNOT explain the advent of something. Just preference or the skipping over of something.

Fellows

funny, I dont forget things, I seem to remember that you and I had this conversation, about the very same thing 4 years ago, at which time, I could only speculate how eyes developed because I didn't really understand the theory of Evolution.

Funny thing is now I do, and guess what, I hit the nail square on the head with my 'guess' all that time ago. During those 4 years, I've got a sound understanding of Evolution, and several other things i'm sure you're aware of.

What have YOU been doing in this time?

I would say that IF you really wanted to understand 'how' Evolution is supposed to work, you have had plenty of time to find out. But lets be honest. You have actually done nothing of the sort, and you are the one who has lately been preaching "Integrity is something everyone should strive for"

I say YES YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT. And those of us who do value integrity, actually get off our asses and do the research.

I could, and most others could quite easily lay out a framework of 'how' an eye evolved. I havn't got every God damn Slide, because that is the nature of Science. But IM NOT GOING TO, BECAUSE IF YOU GENUINELY WANTED TO KNOW, YOU COULD HAVE DONE IT YOURSELF. And to see if you really believe in Integrity, I want to see if in another 4 years time, you are still shouting your mouth off about something you clearly dont have the slightest clue of understanding - as your post (and NaplesX) clearly demonstrates.

Respect, peace, & Love
Marc of Integrity.
post #149 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Lord. It's a theory describing variation and adaptations among species over time. If a mutation happens in an individual critter that helps that critter to get a mate, get food, or defend itself, the chances are that that mutation will be passed on.

Radical idea, I know.

The problem is that describe isn't the same as explain. Looking at the horizon would likely cause one to describe the earth as flat.

That description wouldn't predict or explain anything.

This is the problem with evolution. It should be able to explain and it doesn't. That is why I find it lacking. Punctuated equilibrium is again, something that is a nice description but it doesn't explain.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #150 of 430
You'd like an example of evolution taking place over the last 200 years?

How about Africanized honey bees wiping out European bee populations in the Americas? They reproduce faster, are more agressive, and hijack foreign colonies. Survival of the fittest.

Then you have the feral pig problem on the Australian continent. An animal introduced into the wild with no natural predator now wreaking havoc with the ecology. Survival of the fittest.

There are many more examples.

Evolution does not have to mean that tomorrow bees and pigs start walking erect with apposable thumbs.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #151 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
You'd like an example of evolution taking place over the last 200 years?

How about Africanized honey bees wiping out European bee populations in the Americas? They reproduce faster, are more agressive, and hijack foreign colonies. Survival of the fittest.

Then you have the feral pig problem on the Australian continent. An animal introduced into the wild with no natural predator now wreaking havoc with the ecology. Survival of the fittest.

There are many more examples.

Evolution does not have to mean that tomorrow bees and pigs start walking erect with apposable thumbs.

Yes but these are only examples of existing populations of some species surviving better than others...even to the point of one's extinction. I would not dispute that this occurs and is readily observable. In fact this is what Darwin observed with the birds in the Galapagos...and the scientists in England with the pepper moths.

But these, in fact, are NOT examples that demonstrate variations occuring in a specie which is passed on over time to create another specie. It is merely war between existign species. Furthermore just because this does happen doesn't ALSO mean that variations/mutations work to evolve new species. It doesnt' eliminate that possibility either...but it is not a proof or even a necessary logical conclusion in anyway.
post #152 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK


I would say that IF you really wanted to understand 'how' Evolution is supposed to work, you have had plenty of time to find out. But lets be honest. You have actually done nothing of the sort, and you are the one who has lately been preaching "Integrity is something everyone should strive for"

I say YES YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT. And those of us who do value integrity, actually get off our asses and do the research.



This Film fails to explain how the eye was evolved. The scientist supposes that it could have evolved from many slight changes over time. There is no evidence of this however. Just faith that it is so.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #153 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Yes but these are only examples of existing populations of some species surviving better than others...even to the point of one's extinction. I would not dispute that this occurs and is readily observable. In fact this is what Darwin observed with the birds in the Galapagos...and the scientists in England with the pepper moths.

But these, in fact, are NOT examples that demonstrate variations occuring in a specie which is passed on over time to create another specie. It is merely war between existign species. Furthermore just because this does happen doesn't ALSO mean that variations/mutations work to evolve new species. It doesnt' eliminate that possibility either...but it is not a proof or even a necessary logical conclusion in anyway.

so you're asking why frogs don't turn into Cows?
post #154 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Yes but these are only examples of existing populations of some species surviving better than others...even to the point of one's extinction. I would not dispute that this occurs and is readily observable. In fact this is what Darwin observed with the birds in the Galapagos...and the scientists in England with the pepper moths.

But these, in fact, are NOT examples that demonstrate variations occuring in a specie which is passed on over time to create another specie. It is merely war between existign species. Furthermore just because this does happen doesn't ALSO mean that variations/mutations work to evolve new species. It doesnt' eliminate that possibility either...but it is not a proof or even a necessary logical conclusion in anyway.

Natural selection is a fact. I think Chris and I agree on this. What is missing is the creation of the original species to begin with in the way of "how they evolved"

Just to point out that one species is stronger and thus displaced or drove another into extinction is not an indicator of what created the species in the first place.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #155 of 430
You are operating under the assumption that evolutionary scientists are actively seeking the origin of every species. It's a step by step process in a relatively young scientific field. Why is it necessary to have every answer to all questions at this point? A strong case is being made, and it's getting stronger all the time, particularly since the DNA breakthrough.

But one unintended side effect of using DNA is that IDs have latched onto it and made claims such as that since different species share the same DNA, they must have been made some via Intelligent Design, without offering ANY supporting evidence other than pure theologically based speculation. So they attempt to undermine the investigation into DNA relationships amongst different species by claiming that it must be a sign of intelligent design because scientists have yet to uncover the original entity that spawned all these varying offspring.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #156 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
This Film failes to explain how the eye was evolved. The scientist supposes that it could have evolved from many slight changes over time. There is no evidence of this however. Just faith that it is so.

Fellows

Tell me exactly how that short clip does not explain how an eye could have evolved.
post #157 of 430
Tell me why God 'designed' EVERYTHING using 'fragile' DNA which 'mutates' and 'evolves' and is 'naturally selected' and made us all appear to come from the same common ancestor, when he could have in his infinite wisdom clicked his fingers and created all life to look completely differently (biologically) from itself - to really ram home the point that he really did 'design' it?

Then tell me why, if ID is correct, that it proves 'your' God did it, and not Osiris, Mithra, Allah, or the queen of Sheeba.
post #158 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Where is the living proof of evolution in the past 200 or so years?

What are the chances that every species just stopped evolving all of the sudden?

Shouldn't eskimos now have fur?

Shouldn't more fish be developing lungs and legs?

Are we to believe that all life on this planet has evolved to it's fullest extent?

Just asking?

It's willful ignorance like this that results in scientists throwing up their arms and writing mocking editorials in SA.
post #159 of 430
There are plenty of rational theories involving the evolution of the eye, and the nervous system, and clotting factors and any number of evolution-theory quandries. That's why it's a theory. It is a theory with evidence. It's not a law. It isn't fully plotted out, but there are varying amounts of evidence.
This requires no faith at all. It's an open question and answers are brought in using evidence and fact-based guesswork.

There is no evidence to even start a divine creation theory, there's nothing. Nothing at all. Poking holes in evolutionary theory doesn't make divine creation any more likely.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #160 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
What is missing is the creation of the original species to begin with in the way of "how they evolved"


Fellows

Are you talking about a multitude of individual species, or the very first 'thing'?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism