We Did Not Evolve

[Mens Rea**]

1. Common designer arguments are crushed by the panda's thumb.


2. If creationists wish to posit a limit to micro-evolution, they should identify the genetic mechanisms which limit it.

 

[Idolmindz]

How about I just send you this link: www.google.com?


Regarding life in the lab, if a team of scientists were to create life from non-life in a lab, would this prove to you that the original life on earth was created by a a team of scientists in a lab?

No, not all, but if life as we know it or civilization as we know it could produce life with the limited knowledge and technologies we have today it would only lead me to conclude that
with enough time, energy, knowledge creating your own universe isn't at all impossible(as crazy as that sounds). Our universe is estimated to be somewhere around 15 billions years old, since 1980 looks at the rate of our technelogical advances, who knows what in we'll be able to do in a 100, 500, 1000 years. Have you even hear of fermi's paradox imagine when our civilization reaches that point anything will be possible. I think ruling out ID because there's something that looks at the present time to be more acurate doesn't mean it's entirely true.

 

[Idolmindz]

Not to butt in, but that's a weird question. Of course intelligent design is possible.
Humans intelligently design things all the time, indestructible tomatoes, glow in the dark frogs, Jenna Jameson, etc...

Yea see, Jenna Jameson that's design there's nothing intelligent about her. As far as indestructible tomatoes i wouldn't want to be a bad comedian up on stage. Zing

 

[Idolmindz]

1. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Nor does Abiogenesis purport an ex nihilo step.

2. If such an experiment were possible, then it would show that given the right conditions, life can naturally occur.

Well then so wait a minute what are we agruing then? Are you saying that god could have single handedly came down from where ever planted a single cell organism and then everything else just happened by evolution. Your not debating whether god exists or not or if evolution disproves god? Your strictly talking about biological evolution?

 

[eworden78]

No, not all, but if life as we know it or civilization as we know it could produce life with the limited knowledge and technologies we have today it would only lead me to conclude that
with enough time, energy, knowledge creating your own universe isn't at all impossible(as crazy as that sounds). Our universe is estimated to be somewhere around 15 billions years old, since 1980 looks at the rate of our technelogical advances, who knows what in we'll be able to do in a 100, 500, 1000 years. Have you even hear of fermi's paradox imagine when our civilization reaches that point anything will be possible. I think ruling out ID because there's something that looks at the present time to be more acurate doesn't mean it's entirely true.

Issac Asimov wrote a great short story addressing that concept. Can't remember the name.

 

[Idolmindz]

Issac Asimov wrote a great short story addressing that concept. Can't remember the name.

Oh yea, i'll have to look him up.

 

[eworden78]

Oh yea, i'll have to look him up.

Found it.

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

 

[eworden78]

Well then so wait a minute what are we agruing then? Are you saying that god could have single handedly came down from where ever planted a single cell organism and then everything else just happened by evolution. Your not debating whether god exists or not or if evolution disproves god? Your strictly talking about biological evolution?

Thats one of the difficulties in this debate.

Many creationist argue that biological evolution is not sufficient to create the speciation of life we see today.
They feel that this alone is an adequate reason to look to the alternate concept of Intelligent design.

In order to debate properly one must debate one concept at a time.

 

[SideofKO]

Well then so wait a minute what are we agruing then? Your strictly talking about biological evolution?

I was responding to your question to Mens Rea.

2)Let's take this senario for moment, a team of scientists in a lab somewhere figures out how to make single cell organisms from nothing and then multiple cell organisms (dogs, cats, fish, whatever...) would you not agree that they were made by intelligent design???

Are you saying that god could have single handedly came down from where ever planted a single cell organism and then everything else just happened by evolution.

I'm not arguing this, but evolution doesn't negate the existence of God. Neither does abiogenesis for that matter. It may show the unlikeliness of a type of God to some however.

Your not debating whether god exists or not or if evolution disproves god?

Again I thought that we were discussing biological evolution.

 

[Idolmindz]

Found it.

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

I am gonna have to read this tonight. For now tho I have training to tend to

 

[eworden78]

I am gonna have to read this tonight. For now tho I have training to tend to

BJJ?

 

[Xenu**]

Well then so wait a minute what are we agruing then? Are you saying that god could have single handedly came down from where ever planted a single cell organism and then everything else just happened by evolution. Your not debating whether god exists or not or if evolution disproves god? Your strictly talking about biological evolution?

Theoretically, God could have intervened at any point throughout history. In fact, God could have created the entire universe 1 month ago. He could have implanted in every individual's mind false memories and created nature with the appearance of age. You can do this at any point in history, right up until the very last instant.

There are a couple problems with that type of idea. Creationism lacks the empirical rigor necessary for scientific hypotheses. There's no way to possibly check, verify, or falsify it. In short, it's not at all scientific. Second, the evidence that we have overwhelmingly points toward evolution of life over billions of years. Because the evidence points toward a slow descent of life, we have to reject creationism on theological grounds.

 

[Idolmindz]

BJJ?

Yea BBJ, and that short story was good I am glad i got a chance to read it

 

[Idolmindz]

Theoretically, God could have intervened at any point throughout history. In fact, God could have created the entire universe 1 month ago. He could have implanted in every individual's mind false memories and created nature with the appearance of age. You can do this at any point in history, right up until the very last instant.

There are a couple problems with that type of idea. Creationism lacks the empirical rigor necessary for scientific hypotheses. There's no way to possibly check, verify, or falsify it. In short, it's not at all scientific. Second, the evidence that we have overwhelmingly points toward evolution of life over billions of years. Because the evidence points toward a slow descent of life, we have to reject creationism on theological grounds.

Yea but that theory really only leaves you with more questions than awnsers. I remember when i was younger trying to think of how god viewed existance, I always thought every fraction of time was like a photo one after another he'd just flip through. It was weird too cause I remember having this vivid image of that senario when i was like 3, had never been to a church, was never told by anyone that there was a god. Then one day someone asked me if i knew about god i was like yea that's the dude that flips through the book, i explained and then they told me about the theory you were talking about but i didn't really buy. I guess that's a little off topic

 

[The Lizard]

I get what you're arguing but I make the effort to specify which concept I'm arguing.
While you continue to write ambiguous statements.

You said comparing gravity to evolution was "retarded" and then attempted to support your assertion by stating that evolution was was a belief.

In my previous post I was very clear in delineating between the evolution as a theory and the evolution as a fact.

Read the opening post of this thread and let's start again shall we?
Why is it that one of the main tactics for arguing evolution is to swerve off and divert the conversation using arguments about something else to try and back up the points you attempt to make?

You know full well I believe in God and that he created us with the ability to adapt amazingly to certain conditions and environments (it is obvious that God would do this if he were our creator) so why oh why do you all keep using arguments that do nothing to refute what I am saying?
You are forever saying that the point you are making supports evolution and you seem to find it unfair and start to get insulting when I say "So what? That is how God would have made it".
Your only answer to that then always seems to be "Wah wah wah! That's not science!!!".

 

[Kiyashin]

You can't refute a scientific theory without another scientific hypothesis. Science requires hypotheses and then experimentation to test said hypotheses. Science is real and as much as what secondhand knowledge I've gotten from textbooks, science does evolve. New theories are met with criticism (and they have to be) but if the evidence is undeniable, science will adapt to it. The earth revolves around the sun, Einstein replacing Newton, the earth is round, and, of course evolution and etc. If a better theory than evolution can be proven, then the textbook will be rewritten. Evolution has a mountain of evidence to support it and the onus is on competing hypotheses to develop their own evidence that would negate evolution. Intelligent design can stay out of my Biology textbook until it can come up with something other than that can be explained as coincidence.

 

[eworden78]

Read the opening post of this thread and let's start again shall we?
Why is it that one of the main tactics for arguing evolution is to swerve off and divert the conversation using arguments about something else to try and back up the points you attempt to make?

You know full well I believe in God and that he created us with the ability to adapt amazingly to certain conditions and environments (it is obvious that God would do this if he were our creator) so why oh why do you all keep using arguments that do nothing to refute what I am saying?
You are forever saying that the point you are making supports evolution and you seem to find it unfair and start to get insulting when I say "So what? That is how God would have made it".
Your only answer to that then always seems to be "Wah wah wah! That's not science!!!".

I'm absolutely sure I've never done the thing you describe.

 

[The Pink Panthe]

Because if our DNA was 100% different to other primates it would be strong evidence AGAINST evolution. Being so similar, it is strong evidence FOR evolution. (I somehow feel that if our DNA was 100% different to primates, you would claim that as evidence for a designer, aswell.)

I just have a bad feeling he thinks along these lines:
If the DNA is:
99.9% similar .... evidence for design not evolution
95% similar .... evidence for design not evolution
73% similar .... evidence for design not evolution
21% similar .... evidence for design not evolution
0.0% similar .... evidence for design not evolution
Any perceived evidence for evolution, is actually evidence for design not evolution.

Yep you guessed it. So what if you know that particular argument? Does that instantly make it wrong? No it does not. So what is your point?

Let us reach a compromise on this point. You say it is evidence for a common ancestor. I say it could be the same for a a common designer (BTW, I fail to see why you think your version has more merit but hey). Your argument contradicts mine but in no way disproves or even slightly discredits it. It is simply the opposite interpretation.
So let the compromise be that you no longer use that stupid argument, and I won't need to respond to it. Deal?

 

[Mens Rea**]

Did lizard bump the thread again?

 

[The Pink Panthe]

Did lizard bump the thread again?

Looks like you just did.
This thread covers all aspects of the discussion. And it was also the thread that started it all on these forums. See if you can find one older than this one.