Evolution

[Rhapsody1447]

Test Test Test

 

[Rhapsody1447]

Did you write this? It's pretty impresive. Fine vocabulary, an usage of the english language that surpases my own by a few school years but other then that - words on deaf ears. Like I said. I have no problem letting you belive that intelligent design is probably the most logical solution for how we went from being microscopic organisms to human beings - just let me belive that it happened because we needed to survive and not because math(to put it in crude words) made it happen. I highly doubt that everytime an animal faced natural extinction something would "click" and make incredibly complex calculations determining the best way for that particular species to survive if this was the case why doesnt every animal facing extinction today suddenly re-adapt to it's environement? Evolution is a time proven fact. Those that dont adapt. Die off. Those that do. Survive. These "intelligent agents" supporters of ID(if thats the case with you) rely on are nothing more then the imagination of people who try to give special meaning to their lives.

Yes, I did write it myself, it was for a persuasive speech in English class, appreciate the compliment. I am not trying to retrict you from believing in evolution, I just hate how the ACLU won't teach alternative methods to the Origin of Species because they don't want to bring faith into the classroom. In fact, evolution requires just as much faith as Intelligent Design does. Evolution is not a time proven fact it is a theory of how man came to be. Believers rely more than just their imagination, no one is trying to give special meaning to their lives. They just don't buy into the theory that we appeared out of chance.

And what is the mathematical probability of intelligent agents or some mathematical changing the biology of a certain animal and causing it to evolve?

Intelligent Design does not need to be validated by mathematical probabilities, evolution does. Intelligent Design simply states that there is intelligence behind the "evolution" of our species, not chance.

I really enjoyed the last part of your text but found it to be the most flawed - Hitler was not among the first people to commit genocide - Genocide has been commited throughout history many times over(thus the phrase - History has a funny way of repeating itself)

This was a mistake on my part, what I meant was MODERN history, not RECORDED history.

Hitler was a demented mad man who was influenced by many different ideologies some of them darwinian in origin, others religious.

Hitler's religious beliefs and fanaticism

Those are extracts from Mein Kempf. I hope you enjoy reading them as much as I do. It gives me pleasure to know that hitler was as religious as your everyday redneck and that blaming his attrocities on Darwinism is pure bs.

I read the quotes from Mein Kempf you provided and I think it isn't relevant to my argument. My argument was that Hitler followed a set of Darwinian ethics derived from "natural selection."

In Mein Kempf, Hitler wrote:

Everyone who believes in the higher evolution of living organisms must ad mit that every manifestation of the vital urge and struggle to live must have had a definite beginning in time and that one subject along must have menifested it for the first time. It was then repeated again and again; and the practice of it spread over a widening area, until finally it passed into the subconscious of every member of the species, where it manifested itself as "instinct."

...to promote the victory of the better, the stronger, and to demand the submission of the worse and weaker."

See I would agree with ya if we didnt have laws. You know, those little lines on paper that put you in jail for life if you decide to stab some random joe? I guess if we didnt have them and you went on a rampage following the basic principles of survival of the fittest to the T - I'd have no problem with slashing your throat if you posed any kind of threat to me but alas this is the reason we have laws. To separate us from the beasts and puts us one step above them.

So you are saying that federal laws are the only thing that makes murder morally wrong? If I could legally wipe out everyone who was mentally and physically defective, are you suggesting I would be in the right? Hitler legally could kill millions of Jews, which he deemed as "inferior", was there anything morally wrong with the acts committed by Hitler?

In the animal kingdom those that have a physical or mental disadvantage when facing an enemy dont survive unless they adapt.

So why should humans be any different? Are you a supporter of bestiality and animal's rights?

And who created him? Another intelligent designer? Look we can go up the ladder as much as you want - you'll always end up giving me the same awnser and we'll engage in silly mystisism based on nothing more then assumptions without any facts or evidence that contradict the massive stockpiles of evidence evolution has against your thesis.

The sense of God does not have to be entirely entwined with the theory of Intelligent Design. God always was and always will be. It goes the same with science. What created the universe? The Big Bang? Where did the Big Bang originate from? A speck? Where did that speck come from? You can go up and up the ladder both ways. You refer to massive stockpiles of evolution, but where are these massive stockpiles? Hypothesis' and theories?

Nobody in history ever witnessed ID but doesn't stop you from preaching it.

Ironically the belief that species progressed from a primitive form to a more complex species points more towards Intelligent Design than it does to evolution. In order for evolution to be correct, we would see thousands upon thousands of unfit mutations/progressions (eyes in the back of the head, legs coming out of your face etc.) but we see the opposite, it seems that every time a species "evolves" it happens the first time, no mistakes. That tends to lend itself towards design.

So because evolution doesn't happen as quickly as you'd like it can instantly be discarded? There are new species of animals. Darwinism isn't restricted to survival of the fittest.

New animal species evolved in an instant - life - 27 July 2005 - New Scientist

You take this example of the finches way too heavy - have you forgotten the africanized bee?

New animal species evolved in an instant - life - 27 July 2005 - New Scientist

Both articles are the same.... did you copy and paste wrong? The species of maggots you are referring to are merely a result of hypridisation. Mating between do different types of maggots to create a new type. Just like mating between two different dogs produces a new breed of dog, not a new species. I point the finches example because it's an ironic example of how we have never seen natural evolution create a new animal.

Where is the scientific backing for the ID? The Bible? Your assumptions? Dont make me laugh. Offer any scientific evidence accepted by the international scientific community that gives any credence to ID and then maybe you'll have something.

This is what happened last time an evolutionary biologist attempted to publish a paper refuting evolution.

Editor Explains Reasons for 'Intelligent Design' Article

To quote Richard Dawkins, "evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" Of course there would be extreme hysteria and hate against someone trying to disprove it.

Actually the duration occurred over 10s of millions of years. not 5-10. And there are many different solutions scientists have offered for this period in history - oxygen levels, severe glaciation and ecological explanations - I admit that while neither of these is 100% certain - they're certainly much better then "an intelligent designer of which we have no evidence to back up his existence other then our words".

Evidence for your assertion that it took place of 10s of millions of years? 5-10 is the general consensus. Also I would like to add that the reason it is 5-10 is merely because that is the closest radiocarbon dating can pin it down to. For all we know it could have happened in a millisecond... (supporting design?). Are these scientists stating that these varying conditions would prevent fossilization of species prior to the Cambrian? I have evidence to disprove that claim.

http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/hbook/brain.htm

I read the article, this merely shows that as the cranium allowed the brain to expand, it grew in size. How does this show that evolution could produce a conscience or personalities?

Yup - because an intelligent designer works much better.

Your sarcasm supports my theory!

The first part is simply not true. The second part is those that dont adapt and are weak are left behind - It is only because of our own values and convictions and not those of your mystical designer guy( which you have no scientific evidence of) that those who are weak within our species survive. Imagine a masai with spina bifida surviving in Serengeti for more then a day without help from his family and friends? Unheard of. As much as you want to deny it - the weak and those unable to adapt die off unless others help them. All we've done is interfere with nature. Nothing more.

How is it simply not true? Please debate the point. Our own values and convictions come from this "mystical designer guy" where else would they come from? Our ancestors, the apes? You want me to scientifically prove God exists? Too much to ask from a mere high schooler, haha.

And back to square one. So how was it ignorant of me to say "God did it" is the solution people who propose ID offer? You're picking at a dead man completely disregarding the discoveries and changes that have been made and added to his studies in the past 100 years alone. All you offer is "A higher being" without any scientific evidence to back it up. Just assumptions. Good Game.

It was ignorant to say "God did it" because obviously you display no knowledge of any of the theories of scientist who do believe in a God, on how we came to be. There has never been a largely significant discovery or change that as been added to his studies in the past hundred years. Once again, you ask for scientific evidence of a higher being existing, all we have is scientific evidence of the effects of a higher being, not one himself. Good Game? We are just starting.

 

[Hatuey]

Yes, I did write it myself, it was for a persuasive speech in English class, appreciate the compliment. I am not trying to retrict you from believing in evolution, I just hate how the ACLU won't teach alternative methods to the Origin of Species because they don't want to bring faith into the classroom. In fact, evolution requires just as much faith as Intelligent Design does. Evolution is not a time proven fact it is a theory of how man came to be. Believers rely more than just their imagination, no one is trying to give special meaning to their lives. They just don't buy into the theory that we appeared out of chance.

Evolution doesn't require any faith just common sense. People who push the ID theory are the new-age Darwinists. The only difference between them and Darwin is that their theory about an intelligent designer is nothing more then junk that can't be proven, shown or even experimented on. They're nothing more then words with no other backing then the bible if they choose to use it and if they dont - they have nothing more then words with no scientific backing watsoever.

Intelligent Design does not need to be validated by mathematical probabilities, evolution does. Intelligent Design simply states that there is intelligence behind the "evolution" of our species, not chance.

Intelligent Design simply states something that can't be shown, experimented on or proven. Evolution doesn't happen because of "chance" it happens because of every creature's need to survive.

I read the quotes from Mein Kempf you provided and I think it isn't relevant to my argument. My argument was that Hitler followed a set of Darwinian ethics derived from "natural selection."

In Mein Kempf, Hitler wrote:

Engaging in a war to eradicate jews hardly qualifies as natural selection. The quotes from Mein Kempf are ment to show you that Hitler was influenced by different ideologies and it's unfair to put evolution as a front runner without including religion

So you are saying that federal laws are the only thing that makes murder morally wrong? If I could legally wipe out everyone who was mentally and physically defective, are you suggesting I would be in the right? Hitler legally could kill millions of Jews, which he deemed as "inferior", was there anything morally wrong with the acts committed by Hitler?

Honestly? I belive that if we didnt have laws murder would be as normal as walking. Laws and human conviction are the only things that keep that from happening. In nature those that are weak dont survive. It's really that simple. I dont belive killing somebody for the sake of killing them is right - but if it came to my survival or yours. You die buddy. Hitler was a good orator, he fed off the success the jews had and blamed them for the conditions most germans were living in. Envy is a powerful weapon when used by the right men.

So why should humans be any different? Are you a supporter of bestiality and animal's rights?

This is when people get absurd and take things to the ridiculous extent. No I'm not a suporter of bestiality and I am a supporter of animal right. Dont tell me that I'm contradicting myself by saying I supporting animals rights and then turn around and tell you that those that dont adapt, dont survive. I support animal rights because animals don't go through chemical testing in nature, they're not used for furr in nature and they're not used to make suitcases in nature. I belive that animals when threatened by natural circumstances either adapt or dont survive.

The sense of God does not have to be entirely entwined with the theory of Intelligent Design. God always was and always will be. It goes the same with science. What created the universe? The Big Bang? Where did the Big Bang originate from? A speck? Where did that speck come from? You can go up and up the ladder both ways. You refer to massive stockpiles of evolution, but where are these massive stockpiles? Hypothesis' and theories?

Do you belive in God?

Look, the age of the universe has been calculated, the age of the earth has been calculated, the earth has been proven to be round, it's been assessed that a meteorite is responsible for erradicating earth 65 million years ago. While not all of these are 100% certain - they're backed by alot more evidence then "An intelligent designer did it". Evolution when first presented by Darwin had some evidence with it. What has ID provided? Nada, 0, Silch. Until you can show me a sign of this "Intelligent Designer"(why dont you cut the crap and call him god, I know you're craving to do it) I'll give your "theory" some credence.

Ironically the belief that species progressed from a primitive form to a more complex species points more towards Intelligent Design than it does to evolution. In order for evolution to be correct, we would see thousands upon thousands of unfit mutations/progressions (eyes in the back of the head, legs coming out of your face etc.) but we see the opposite, it seems that every time a species "evolves" it happens the first time, no mistakes. That tends to lend itself towards design.

That lends itself towards design? Not survival? There are hundreds of examples of unfit mutations within the animal kingdom. Albinism, blue and two toned lobsters and animals with extra legs.

Antennapedia mutation

Man Finds Rare Yellow Lobster - Spotlight - local6.com | WKMG

Photo in the News: Lobster Caught "Half Cooked" in Maine

Both articles are the same.... did you copy and paste wrong? The species of maggots you are referring to are merely a result of hypridisation. Mating between do different types of maggots to create a new type. Just like mating between two different dogs produces a new breed of dog, not a new species. I point the finches example because it's an ironic example of how we have never seen natural evolution create a new animal.

Yeah I did - sorry - The africanized bee is a perfect example of evolution - different species mating and creating a better, stronger and bigger bee.

Africanized bee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

different animal all on its own.

This is what happened last time an evolutionary biologist attempted to publish a paper refuting evolution.

Editor Explains Reasons for 'Intelligent Design' Article

To quote Richard Dawkins, "evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" Of course there would be extreme hysteria and hate against someone trying to disprove it.

I think evolution brought out the same ire from people 150 years ago. Only difference was evolution had something to back it up. ID just has words.I have no problem with ID - I would just like to see some evidence that the intelligent designer spoken so highly of is for real and not just words on print.

Evidence for your assertion that it took place of 10s of millions of years? 5-10 is the general consensus. Also I would like to add that the reason it is 5-10 is merely because that is the closest radiocarbon dating can pin it down to. For all we know it could have happened in a millisecond... (supporting design?). Are these scientists stating that these varying conditions would prevent fossilization of species prior to the Cambrian? I have evidence to disprove that claim.

Special Feature: The Cambrian "explosion": Slow-fuse or megatonnage? -- Conway Morris 97 (9): 4426 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

The Framework. Stratigraphic sections spanning the Vendian-Cambrian boundary show a broadly similar pattern whereby the key events are bracketed by the 600-million-year (Myr)-old Neoproterozoic glacial deposits (tillites) and in the succeeding Cambrian diverse metazoan assemblages, typified by abundant skeletons, diverse trace fossils, and Burgess Shale-type faunas (Fig. 1). One key development is a series of accurate radiometric determinations (1). The Vendian-Cambrian boundary is now placed at 543 Myr, and the duration (45 Myr) of the Cambrian is substantially shorter than once thought. The preceding Ediacaran faunas have an approximate age range of 565-545 Myr. Accordingly, the overall time-scale for discussion is a relatively protracted 65 Myr, although the principal events of evolutionary interest are probably more tightly bracketed (550-530 Myr) between the diverse Ediacaran faunas of latest Neoproterozoic age (2) and the Chengjiang Burgess Shale-type faunas (3). Correlations are also assisted by emerging schemes of chemostratigraphy (2, 4), notably with reference to strontium (87Sr) and carbon (13C).

Special Feature: The Cambrian "explosion": Slow-fuse or megatonnage? -- Conway Morris 97 (9): 4426 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

I read the article, this merely shows that as the cranium allowed the brain to expand, it grew in size. How does this show that evolution could produce a conscience or personalities?

You asked for evolution of the brain.

Our own values and convictions come from this "mystical designer guy" where else would they come from? Our ancestors, the apes? You want me to scientifically prove God exists? Too much to ask from a mere high schooler, haha.

Oh so you do belive in god. Closet bible thumber posing as a scientists. And a teen at that.

It was ignorant to say "God did it" because obviously you display no knowledge of any of the theories of scientist who do believe in a God, on how we came to be. There has never been a largely significant discovery or change that as been added to his studies in the past hundred years. Once again, you ask for scientific evidence of a higher being existing, all we have is scientific evidence of the effects of a higher being, not one himself. Good Game? We are just starting.

Who is this Intelligent Designer closet bible thumpers hide behind. Xenu? You're trying to turn all the evidence for evolution into evidence for your god. without even providing evidence that your god exists and it's not simply about survival when it comes down to 1. Good Game(egothing).

 

[Rhapsody1447]

Oh so you do belive in god. Closet bible thumber posing as a scientists. And a teen at that.

I don't have time tonight to make a full response because I need my beauty sleep, but please cut this bigoted condescending bullshit. Of course I believe in God read my other posts. I am hardly a "closeted" bible thumper (a ****ing bigoted term that is up there with kike), I am sorry if I find more truth in a book written by a loving God rather than a book written by a Christian hating scientist. I am no more posing as a scientist than you are, so cut that bullshit. I am merely researching and posting evidence...which is exactly what you are doing. Don't bring my age into this either especially after being quoted saying:

Did you write this? It's pretty impresive. Fine vocabulary, an usage of the english language that surpases my own by a few school years

Which in itself possesses 3 grammatical and spelling errors.

I am sick of my arguments with you atheist liberal degenerating into immature name-calling, anti-Christian, bigoted remarks. I respect your opinion, respect mine.

 

[Hatuey]

I don't have time tonight to make a full response because I need my beauty sleep, but please cut this bigoted condescending bullshit. Of course I believe in God read my other posts. I am hardly a "closeted" bible thumper (a ****ing bigoted term that is up there with kike), I am sorry if I find more truth in a book written by a loving God rather than a book written by a Christian hating scientist. I am no more posing as a scientist than you are, so cut that bullshit. I am merely researching and posting evidence...which is exactly what you are doing. Don't bring my age into this either especially after being quoted saying:

lol bible thumper is not biggoted it refers to a preacher thumping his hand hard down on the lectern and the Bible on it to emphasize a point during a sermon which is basically what you're doing - you read the opinions of 4-5 scientists that have been discredited by the international community because of their failure to provide any evidence or research to back up their theories and you preach them up and down like they're undisputable evidence that ID is a "theory" worth taking a second look at. ID deserves about as much credence as Scientology. It's made up. Based on nothing more then the opinions of a few scientists who have no evidence to back up their claims. End of story.

Which in itself possesses 3 grammatical and spelling errors.

I am sick of my arguments with you atheist liberal degenerating into immature name-calling, anti-Christian, bigoted remarks. I respect your opinion, respect mine.

I actually ment those as compliments. I have never in my life said I can write better then anybody - I wont throw my grade or IQ around or try to tell you just how smart I am cause it wont prove anything - I simply noticed that for a teen you can write your thoughts down on paper better then I can. Geez take a chill pill thumpy.

Here is a tip : Until you provide some proof or experiment proving that this "intelligent designer" exists - I'll just keep telling you that you have no evidence.

 

[Rhapsody1447]

Evolution doesn't require any faith just common sense. People who push the ID theory are the new-age Darwinists. The only difference between them and Darwin is that their theory about an intelligent designer is nothing more then junk that can't be proven, shown or even experimented on. They're nothing more then words with no other backing then the bible if they choose to use it and if they dont - they have nothing more then words with no scientific backing watsoever.

Of course it requires faith. You have to have faith in this little story that Darwin was the author of. Common sense would dictate towards ID not evolution, this is obviously where are views are different. The ID theory being compared to new-age Darwinists is ludicrous. ID was the main accepted theory of origin by almost every race, religion, culture until the beginning of the 20th century. The fact that you are still stating that ID has NO scientific backing, shows your partisanship, and your blind faith to the theory of evolution. Evolution is the cosmology of atheism.

Intelligent Design simply states something that can't be shown, experimented on or proven. Evolution doesn't happen because of "chance" it happens because of every creature's need to survive.

Shown, experimented, or proven? Evolution can? Show me evolution and I will say it is ID. Prove evolution entirely and you will win the Nobel prize.

Engaging in a war to eradicate jews hardly qualifies as natural selection. The quotes from Mein Kempf are ment to show you that Hitler was influenced by different ideologies and it's unfair to put evolution as a front runner without including religion

Of course it does. It falls under the ethic standard of Darwinism. Hitler believed that Jews (and other non-Aryan people) was a lesser inferior human race. He wanted to eradicate the weak and promote the strong following the law of natural selection.

Honestly? I belive that if we didnt have laws murder would be as normal as walking. Laws and human conviction are the only things that keep that from happening. In nature those that are weak dont survive. It's really that simple. I dont belive killing somebody for the sake of killing them is right - but if it came to my survival or yours. You die buddy. Hitler was a good orator, he fed off the success the jews had and blamed them for the conditions most germans were living in. Envy is a powerful weapon when used by the right men.

But do you believe killing someone because you think you are better or "more fit" than them is right? This is why if you remove a higher moral law you sink into moral relativism.

This is when people get absurd and take things to the ridiculous extent. No I'm not a suporter of bestiality and I am a supporter of animal right. Dont tell me that I'm contradicting myself by saying I supporting animals rights and then turn around and tell you that those that dont adapt, dont survive. I support animal rights because animals don't go through chemical testing in nature, they're not used for furr in nature and they're not used to make suitcases in nature. I belive that animals when threatened by natural circumstances either adapt or dont survive.

Why are you not a supporter of bestiality? Why (morally) is it wrong to have sex with my German Shepherd? It doesn't matter how a carcass is used in nature, it is a matter of survival. If the animal does not adapt to us (the predator) it can't survive. According to you, we are just another animal anyway.

Do you belive in God?

DUH

Look, the age of the universe has been calculated, the age of the earth has been calculated, the earth has been proven to be round, it's been assessed that a meteorite is responsible for erradicating earth 65 million years ago. While not all of these are 100% certain - they're backed by alot more evidence then "An intelligent designer did it". Evolution when first presented by Darwin had some evidence with it. What has ID provided? Nada, 0, Silch. Until you can show me a sign of this "Intelligent Designer"(why dont you cut the crap and call him god, I know you're craving to do it) I'll give your "theory" some credence.

How is the age of the planet and universe relevant? What are you trying to prove? Darwin was never able to prove the creation of a new species due to evolution.

That lends itself towards design? Not survival? There are hundreds of examples of unfit mutations within the animal kingdom. Albinism, blue and two toned lobsters and animals with extra legs.

Hundreds? For evolution to be true there would have to be an astronomical amount of imperfections in comparison to perfections. This is NOT what the fossil record shows, as I stated in my speech, evolution deviates more from the fossil record than Intelligent Design does. Yet there is no evidence for design.

Yeah I did - sorry - The africanized bee is a perfect example of evolution - different species mating and creating a better, stronger and bigger bee.

Africanized bee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

different animal all on its own.

These bees (not an new animal on it's own) was bred by a Brazilian biologist. Another example of hybridization which was intelligently designed.

I think evolution brought out the same ire from people 150 years ago. Only difference was evolution had something to back it up. ID just has words.I have no problem with ID - I would just like to see some evidence that the intelligent designer spoken so highly of is for real and not just words on print.

You want scientific evidence of God? Is that what you are trying to say?

Special Feature: The Cambrian "explosion": Slow-fuse or megatonnage? -- Conway Morris 97 (9): 4426 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences



Special Feature: The Cambrian "explosion": Slow-fuse or megatonnage? -- Conway Morris 97 (9): 4426 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

These sources hypothesize that major glaciers could have prevented animals prior to the Cambrian period to fossilize. In fact, Chinese paleontologists discovered fossils just preceding the Cambrian era, and it turned out the pre-Cambrian creatures were extraordinarily well preserved. Instead of a mass quantity of evolutionary ancestors, all we have at the outset of the Cambrian explosion are some little worms and sponges.

You asked for evolution of the brain.

No I asked how differing personalities and the human consciousness (and moral standard) could "evolve"

Oh so you do belive in god. Closet bible thumber posing as a scientists. And a teen at that.

Considering I haven't quoted the Bible once... please.

Who is this Intelligent Designer closet bible thumpers hide behind. Xenu? You're trying to turn all the evidence for evolution into evidence for your god. without even providing evidence that your god exists and it's not simply about survival when it comes down to 1. Good Game(egothing).

I never try to provide evidence for my God, once again you are asking me to scientifically prove God exists, don't make me laugh.

Some quotes from the past that I enjoy:

"To think that the eye could evolve by natural selection seems I freely confess absurd in the highest possible degree." - Charles Darwin.

"The complete lack of fossil intermediates in all geological records is perhaps the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin.

"I have deluded myself and devoted myself to a fantasy." - Charles Darwin.

And my favorite from the biggest Darwin Fan boy:

"As long as we can speculate freely about naturalistic explanations to nature and life, we shall keep ignoring all the evidence that points to intelligent design, no matter how strong this evidence is, and even if it takes engaging in scientific acrobatics.." - Richard Dawkins

 

[Hatuey]

Of course it requires faith. You have to have faith in this little story that Darwin was the author of. Common sense would dictate towards ID not evolution, this is obviously where are views are different. The ID theory being compared to new-age Darwinists is ludicrous. ID was the main accepted theory of origin by almost every race, religion, culture until the beginning of the 20th century. The fact that you are still stating that ID has NO scientific backing, shows your partisanship, and your blind faith to the theory of evolution. Evolution is the cosmology of atheism.

Have you ever heard of Anne Coulter? You should meet. I think you just quoted her actually.

Anyways - I have no problem accepting your theory. As soon as you provide some basis to back it up. In case you didnt know - when you try to discredit somebody elses work you have to have some work of your own to replace it with. Otherwise you sound like a derranged lunatic that is one step above scientologists. When you come up with a theory you have to test it, verify it, predict possible outcomes and maybe eve add some changes to it. As your theory has no outcome, can't be tested and is impossible to verify(unless you die of course in which case you'd only be proving what comes after life) it becomes what scientists call "junk science".

Shown, experimented, or proven? Evolution can? Show me evolution and I will say it is ID. Prove evolution entirely and you will win the Nobel prize.

The Short Proof of Evolution

He pretty much sums it up for ya.

I dont have to prove it to you the evidence

Of course you do. The burden of proof is on you. Not evolution. Otherwise you're nothing more then a bible thumper with no basis for your claims. I thought you didnt like being called a bible thumper.

Of course it does. It falls under the ethic standard of Darwinism. Hitler believed that Jews (and other non-Aryan people) was a lesser inferior human race. He wanted to eradicate the weak and promote the strong following the law of natural selection.

But eradicating people out of your own free will is not natural selection :

Definition of natural selection :

Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with unfavorable traits. It works on the whole individual, but only the heritable component of a trait will be passed on to the offspring, with the result that favorable, heritable traits become more common in the next generation. Given enough time, this passive process results in adaptations and speciation (see evolution).

Hitler trying to erradicate jews simply because he thought they were inferior can't be considered as natural selection since there is nothing natural about it. Had the jewish people been destroyed by the plague or some natural cause then you can say it's natural selection.

But do you believe killing someone because you think you are better or "more fit" than them is right? This is why if you remove a higher moral law you sink into moral relativism.

If I kill somebody because I think(keyword) they're weaker it would be murder. If I kill them because my survival is at risk and not because of a state of mind then of course I'd be in the right.

Why are you not a supporter of bestiality? Why (morally) is it wrong to have sex with my German Shepherd? It doesn't matter how a carcass is used in nature, it is a matter of survival. If the animal does not adapt to us (the predator) it can't survive. According to you, we are just another animal anyway.

Strawman. I dont think "morality" has anything to do with having sex with a german shepard. Forcing an animal to have sex with you is not survival of the fittest in any way. Neither party is benefiting. You're not going to have offspring. The animal is going to in the end chose a partner it can have offspring with.

DUH

So other then the bible(or w/e book you use) you have absolutly nothing to back your claims of there being an intelligent designer.

How is the age of the planet and universe relevant? What are you trying to prove? Darwin was never able to prove the creation of a new species due to evolution.

Ah but we were. As shown by the Africanized bee. A different species all on it's own.

Africanized bee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hundreds? For evolution to be true there would have to be an astronomical amount of imperfections in comparison to perfections. This is NOT what the fossil record shows, as I stated in my speech, evolution deviates more from the fossil record than Intelligent Design does. Yet there is no evidence for design.

I said there are hundreds of examples of unfit mutations(as in different kinds) in the animal kingdom that show you that if you posses a trait that is undesirable it wont help you survive.

These bees (not an new animal on it's own) was bred by a Brazilian biologist. Another example of hybridization which was intelligently designed.

Incorrect

In central and southern Africa, bees have had to defend themselves against other aggressive insects, as well as honey badgers, an animal that also will destroy hives if the bees are not sufficiently defensive. In addition, there was formerly no tradition of beekeeping, only bee robbing. When one wanted honey, one would seek out a bee tree and kill the colony, or at least steal its honey. The colony most likely to survive either animal or human attacks was the fiercest one. Thus the African bee has been naturally selected for ferocity.

You want scientific evidence of God? Is that what you are trying to say?

Well since that is your theory - Yeah I guess. It would be nice.

These sources hypothesize that major glaciers could have prevented animals prior to the Cambrian period to fossilize. In fact, Chinese paleontologists discovered fossils just preceding the Cambrian era, and it turned out the pre-Cambrian creatures were extraordinarily well preserved. Instead of a mass quantity of evolutionary ancestors, all we have at the outset of the Cambrian explosion are some little worms and sponges.

No I asked how differing personalities and the human consciousness (and moral standard) could "evolve"

Your trying to connect survival of the fittest, natural selection and the human consciousness/personality with a string. It's not working. When Darwin talks about survival of the fittest and evolution he's talking from a physical standpoint. Not a psychological one.

Considering I haven't quoted the Bible once... please.

Can't wait for that to happen.

I never try to provide evidence for my God, once again you are asking me to scientifically prove God exists, don't make me laugh.

Well like I said - since your theory is that there is an intelligent designer - you have to atleast provide some basis for it. You have yet to understand that I have no problem beliving your theory. As long as you provide some proof of it.

"To think that the eye could evolve by natural selection seems I freely confess absurd in the highest possible degree." - Charles Darwin.

Darwin wasn't disproving his theory he was simply admiting that he didnt have the capacity to prove exatcly how an organ evolved thus providing people with a potential way in which his hypothesis could be falsified. This however changes nothing to the fact that the people who propose the theory of ID provide no evidence to contradict Darwins theory.

"The complete lack of fossil intermediates in all geological records is perhaps the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin.

Darwin said that and 2 years later they discovered the archaeopterix.

Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"I have deluded myself and devoted myself to a fantasy." - Charles Darwin

If your going to debate - debate fairly and stop cutting off parts of phrases and taking them out of context : the entire phrase goes :

Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy

Darwing never said he he had devoted himself to a fantasy - he like every good scientist simply questioned his own theory.

And my favorite from the biggest Darwin Fan boy:

"As long as we can speculate freely about naturalistic explanations to nature and life, we shall keep ignoring all the evidence that points to intelligent design, no matter how strong this evidence is, and even if it takes engaging in scientific acrobatics.." - Richard Dawkins

lol the last one made me laugh. You're quoting from the same guy who said this about creationism :

Dawkins is a prominent critic of creationism, describing it as a "preposterous, mind-shrinking falsehood".[28] His book The Blind Watchmaker is a critique of the argument from design, and his other popular-science works often touch on the topic. On the advice of his late colleague Stephen Jay Gould, Dawkins generally refuses to participate in debates with creationists because doing so would give them the "oxygen of respectability" that they want. He argues that creationists "don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters is that we give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public."[29] Dawkins did, however, take part in the Oxford Union's 1986 Huxley Memorial Debate, in which he and John Maynard Smith defeated their creationist counterparts

And then said this about evolution :

In a December 2004 interview with Bill Moyers, Dawkins stated that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know." When Moyers later asked, "Is evolution a theory, not a fact?", Dawkins replied, "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." Dawkins went on to say, "It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue ...Circumstantial evidence, but masses of circumstantial evidence. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence

 

[Rhapsody1447]

Have you ever heard of Anne Coulter? You should meet. I think you just quoted her actually.

I didn't quote her, but I appreciate the compliment.

Anyways - I have no problem accepting your theory. As soon as you provide some basis to back it up. In case you didnt know - when you try to discredit somebody elses work you have to have some work of your own to replace it with. Otherwise you sound like a derranged lunatic that is one step above scientologists. When you come up with a theory you have to test it, verify it, predict possible outcomes and maybe eve add some changes to it. As your theory has no outcome, can't be tested and is impossible to verify(unless you die of course in which case you'd only be proving what comes after life) it becomes what scientists call "junk science".

First of all, this argument initially originated from me proposing that evolution should not be taught as fact but as a theory. THat is also what my speech was about, I never tried to make an argument FOR Intelligent Design but AGAINST evolution. You keep asking for evidence of Intelligent Design but whatever I provide is deemed irrelevant and pseudo-science. You want me to scientifically prove God exists which is merely laughable. Michael Behe's arguments of "irreducibly complex" organisms, the Cambrian period, the support the fossil record lends towards Intelligent Design, the impossibility that enzymes rose to life through chance, and the fact that we don't have fossils for the millions of creatures that should have died out in the survival-of-the-fittest regime is all evidence supporting the theory of Intelligent Design. The only way you will be convinced that I have evidence for my theory is if I am able to put God in a test tube.

The Short Proof of Evolution

He pretty much sums it up for ya.

That is your proof? An opinion based essay with no links whatsoever to a scientific journal? This is all it takes for evolution to be true for you? He tells a story, assuming a common ancestor, and assuming life arose spontaneously. He even suggests life started from an "invasion from outer space." I thought you rejected that claim? It's is funny, you criticize me for having no evidence to back my claims, but you are the one religiously spouting on about a common ancestor, and life arising by chance.

Of course you do. The burden of proof is on you. Not evolution. Otherwise you're nothing more then a bible thumper with no basis for your claims. I thought you didnt like being called a bible thumper.

There is the term again, completely mis-assigned. I haven't quoted to Bible once! You are once again misunderstanding the point of this argument, just like your evolutionary buddy Adrian. Where the hell did you get that quote? I don't remember saying anything like that.

But eradicating people out of your own free will is not natural selection :

Definition of natural selection :

Hitler trying to erradicate jews simply because he thought they were inferior can't be considered as natural selection since there is nothing natural about it. Had the jewish people been destroyed by the plague or some natural cause then you can say it's natural selection.

I never said it was natural selection. I said his moral and ethic principles are a "perfectly logical extension of the basis of Darwin's underlying philosophy" I never stated that what Hitler did was natural at all.

If I kill somebody because I think(keyword) they're weaker it would be murder. If I kill them because my survival is at risk and not because of a state of mind then of course I'd be in the right.

You are dodging my question. When you say murder are you saying that it is wrong? Or right? I never called your survival into question.

Strawman. I dont think "morality" has anything to do with having sex with a german shepard. Forcing an animal to have sex with you is not survival of the fittest in any way. Neither party is benefiting. You're not going to have offspring. The animal is going to in the end chose a partner it can have offspring with.

It is not a strawman, I am not assigning an argument to you, I am asking you questions about morality. I am NOT saying beastiality is survival of the fittest! Are you twisting my questions just a little bit or completely? I asked you, when you said you were against beastiality, why? What moral principle can you base your opinion on? What is wrong with have sex with an animal if we are evolutionary brothers derived from a common ancestor?

So other then the bible(or w/e book you use) you have absolutly nothing to back your claims of there being an intelligent designer.

Of course I do I stated them in my first paragraph.

I said there are hundreds of examples of unfit mutations(as in different kinds) in the animal kingdom that show you that if you posses a trait that is undesirable it wont help you survive.

You point to hundred of examples of unfit mutations, yet the fossil record disagrees with you. Clearly there are little to none unfit, hapless creatures discovered int he fossil record. In order for the "random mutations of desirable attributes" to be true, we would much, much, much more evidence of unfit species than we do.

Incorrect

So your basis that the Africa bee was created by evolution is that it developed ferocity due to attacks on it's hive? That is like saying Timmy is a new species of human because he developed insecurity due to his unseemly appearance.

In your article it states that African bees descended from internal breeding:

The Africanized bees in the western hemisphere descended from 26 Tanzanian queen bees (A. m. scutellata) accidentally released in 1957 in Piracicaba-Sao Paulo State in the south of Brazil from hives operated by biologist Warwick E. Kerr, who had interbred European honey bees and bees from southern Africa.

Well since that is your theory - Yeah I guess. It would be nice.

God cannot be proven or disproved and never will be. God is outside nature and the physical world. As the famous geneticist Francis Collins said,

God's existence is either true or not. But calling it a scientific question implies that the tools of science can provide the answer. From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God's existence is outside of science's ability to weigh in

Your trying to connect survival of the fittest, natural selection and the human consciousness/personality with a string. It's not working. When Darwin talks about survival of the fittest and evolution he's talking from a physical standpoint. Not a psychological one.

Exactly, Darwin only talks about physical evolution, he never touches on how our "psychological beings" came to exist. He talks about the shells but not what is inside those shells. He never hypothesizes how our thoughts, feelings, personalities, likes, and dislikes came to exist. If we are just another animal, how come we are the only ones who create art, music, theories on how we came to exist, cutting edge technology, and differing viewpoints. Every other animal is based purely on instinct to survive, how come not us too?

Can't wait for that to happen.

It won't. I might throw a verse in there just to piss you off though :lol:

Well like I said - since your theory is that there is an intelligent designer - you have to atleast provide some basis for it. You have yet to understand that I have no problem beliving your theory. As long as you provide some proof of it.

I have provided basis and proof, you keep saying you have no problem believing my theory, yet you are doing exactly what Richard Dawkins says to do.

we shall keep ignoring all the evidence that points to intelligent design, no matter how strong this evidence is

Darwin wasn't disproving his theory he was simply admiting that he didnt have the capacity to prove exatcly how an organ evolved thus providing people with a potential way in which his hypothesis could be falsified. This however changes nothing to the fact that the people who propose the theory of ID provide no evidence to contradict Darwins theory.

He didn't have the capacity to prove how the organ evolved at all. We still don't. There is no scientific evidence or theories that point to how the human eye, let alone any eye, came to be. His hypothesis has been falsified.

Darwin said that and 2 years later they discovered the archaeopterix.

Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is still a lot of controversy about this "missing link". Some scientists state that it is a fraud, some state it is the "missing link", and some state that it is a dead end. The point is being that this hardly puts the fossil record in line with evolution, it was merely one discovery which is still being debated in the scientific community.

If your going to debate - debate fairly and stop cutting off parts of phrases and taking them out of context : the entire phrase goes :

Like you did earlier in this response?

Darwing never said he he had devoted himself to a fantasy - he like every good scientist simply questioned his own theory.

He questioned his own theory quite deeply, and admitted that his sole purpose in proposing this theory was to remove a sense of God in any way, shape or form.

I am determined to escape from design and a personal God at all costs.

lol the last one made me laugh. You're quoting from the same guy who said this about creationism :

And then said this about evolution

I never said I agree with his opinions, I am simple pointing out what the evolutionary community does, and so do you! They:

keep ignoring all the evidence that points to intelligent design, no matter how strong this evidence is

 

[Hatuey]

I didn't quote her, but I appreciate the compliment.

It wasn't a compliment. Not even your idol W. Dembski is willing to associate himself with her.

First of all, this argument initially originated from me proposing that evolution should not be taught as fact but as a theory. THat is also what my speech was about, I never tried to make an argument FOR Intelligent Design but AGAINST evolution. You keep asking for evidence of Intelligent Design but whatever I provide is deemed irrelevant and pseudo-science. You want me to scientifically prove God exists which is merely laughable. Michael Behe's arguments of "irreducibly complex" organisms, the Cambrian period, the support the fossil record lends towards Intelligent Design, the impossibility that enzymes rose to life through chance, and the fact that we don't have fossils for the millions of creatures that should have died out in the survival-of-the-fittest regime is all evidence supporting the theory of Intelligent Design. The only way you will be convinced that I have evidence for my theory is if I am able to put God in a test tube.

If you're arguing against evolution but not for intelligent design...then what are you arguing for? Disproving evolution which you cant disprove and neither can any of the people you so admirably look up does what for your cause? What is your cause? Well since ID is a theory that consists of there being an intelligent designer...and thats basically it...what exatcly are you whining about? Not being able to produce the very cloth you're trying to pull over my eyes?

That is your proof? An opinion based essay with no links whatsoever to a scientific journal? This is all it takes for evolution to be true for you? He tells a story, assuming a common ancestor, and assuming life arose spontaneously. He even suggests life started from an "invasion from outer space." I thought you rejected that claim? It's is funny, you criticize me for having no evidence to back my claims, but you are the one religiously spouting on about a common ancestor, and life arising by chance.

Oldest evidence yet of fish moving to land

Wouldnt that count as a common ancestor?

There is the term again, completely mis-assigned. I haven't quoted to Bible once! You are once again misunderstanding the point of this argument, just like your evolutionary buddy Adrian. Where the hell did you get that quote? I don't remember saying anything like that.

Look I've seen some of your posts on the site.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...l-platforms/15887-pray-prayer.html#post442149

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...attractiveness-christianity-6.html#post442118

I dont have to be Stephen Hawking to deduct that you're a bible thumper trying to tell me ID isn't Christianism dressed up for halloween.

I never said it was natural selection. I said his moral and ethic principles are a "perfectly logical extension of the basis of Darwin's underlying philosophy" I never stated that what Hitler did was natural at all.

His moral and ethic principles can't relate to Darwin as he inserted an extra element that is not found in nature.

You are dodging my question. When you say murder are you saying that it is wrong? Or right? I never called your survival into question.

But you have to call survival into question. If you killed me because you thought I didnt deserve to live. Would you be wrong for it? If you killed me because I posed a immediate threat to your life. Would you still be wrong for it?

It is not a strawman, I am not assigning an argument to you, I am asking you questions about morality. I am NOT saying beastiality is survival of the fittest! Are you twisting my questions just a little bit or completely? I asked you, when you said you were against beastiality, why? What moral principle can you base your opinion on? What is wrong with have sex with an animal if we are evolutionary brothers derived from a common ancestor?

Bestiality is wrong simply because of the fact that it goes against nature. Not because of morality. In nature the surest way of survival is reproduction. As you and another animal can't reproduce together, will never be able to ceate a bond that assures the grown of either of your species or a new species then it's obvious bestiality is wrong and would go against the course of nature. You mate with that of your own species. Not with a dog or a cow.

Of course I do I stated them in my first paragraph.

Of course it requires faith. You have to have faith in this little story that Darwin was the author of. Common sense would dictate towards ID not evolution, this is obviously where are views are different. The ID theory being compared to new-age Darwinists is ludicrous. ID was the main accepted theory of origin by almost every race, religion, culture until the beginning of the 20th century. The fact that you are still stating that ID has NO scientific backing, shows your partisanship, and your blind faith to the theory of evolution. Evolution is the cosmology of atheism

Thats your proof? :|

You point to hundred of examples of unfit mutations, yet the fossil record disagrees with you. Clearly there are little to none unfit, hapless creatures discovered int he fossil record. In order for the "random mutations of desirable attributes" to be true, we would much, much, much more evidence of unfit species than we do.

Well most of the fossil record are fossils. Animals that have ceased to exist. Which would kinda show that the evolutionary process they went through wasn't enough to help them survive thus strengthening the point of evolution. Those that dont evolve, dont survive.

So your basis that the Africa bee was created by evolution is that it developed ferocity due to attacks on it's hive? That is like saying Timmy is a new species of human because he developed insecurity due to his unseemly appearance.

Lol no it's not because the African bee developped this ferocity over a period of many generations.

God cannot be proven or disproved and never will be. God is outside nature and the physical world. As the famous geneticist Francis Collins said,

Ah yes. Let's quote a bible thumper.

Exactly, Darwin only talks about physical evolution, he never touches on how our "psychological beings" came to exist. He talks about the shells but not what is inside those shells. He never hypothesizes how our thoughts, feelings, personalities, likes, and dislikes came to exist. If we are just another animal, how come we are the only ones who create art, music, theories on how we came to exist, cutting edge technology, and differing viewpoints. Every other animal is based purely on instinct to survive, how come not us too?

If we weren't based purely on the instinct to survive then we wouldnt be here. Our ancestors would have died off millions of years ago. I think that the fact that we're part of the homonidae family has had a very big role in our evolution. Great apes are the only animals that exhibit an advanced capacity for language or simple cultures behond that of a family or band. Explaining how emotions, feelings and other actions created by the brain come to be is not possible as of today as there is no way of comparing the brains of our ancetors to that of our own. However some of it can be explained with neurobiology :

Based on discoveries made through neural mapping of the limbic system, the neurobiological explanation of human emotion is that emotion is a pleasant or unpleasant mental state organized in the limbic system of the mammalian brain. Specifically, these states are manifestations of non-verbally expressed feelings of agreement, anger, certainty, control, disagreement, disgust, disliking, embarrassment, fear, guilt, happiness, hate, interest, liking, love, sadness, shame, surprise, and uncertainty. Emotions are mammalian elaborations of vertebrate arousal patterns, in which neurochemicals (e.g., dopamine, noradrenaline, and serotonin) step-up or step-down the brain's activity level, as visible in body movements, gestures, and postures. In mammals, primates, and human beings, feelings are displayed as emotion cues.

It won't. I might throw a verse in there just to piss you off though :lol:

Awww.

I have provided basis and proof, you keep saying you have no problem believing my theory, yet you are doing exactly what Richard Dawkins says to do.

This is roughly what you have said : There is an intelligent designer. Scientists that are considered wackos and cooks and closet bible thumpers by the international community have said so. Now belive me.

He didn't have the capacity to prove how the organ evolved at all. We still don't. There is no scientific evidence or theories that point to how the human eye, let alone any eye, came to be. His hypothesis has been falsified.

Well it's not like we can come up with the eyeball of one of the apes that died 4-5 Million years ago now can we? You focus on the eye and have ignored the fact that we have studied the evolution of our bones, how we started walking upright and the evolution of our hands/feet skulls etc. Wait...wheres that intelligent designer of yours again? Oh thats right. Sorry forgot we couldnt prove him...just say it was him that "did it".

There is still a lot of controversy about this "missing link". Some scientists state that it is a fraud, some state it is the "missing link", and some state that it is a dead end. The point is being that this hardly puts the fossil record in line with evolution, it was merely one discovery which is still being debated in the scientific community.

Ah yes. Dismiss the evidence with the old "some people" trick. What about this.

Oldest evidence yet of fish moving to land

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harvard Gazette: Missing link crawls out of muck

Like you did earlier in this response?

?

He questioned his own theory quite deeply, and admitted that his sole purpose in proposing this theory was to remove a sense of God in any way, shape or form.

He didnt admit to anything. You devoted yourself to a fantasy on that one.

I never said I agree with his opinions, I am simple pointing out what the evolutionary community does, and so do you! They:

There is no evidence pointing to ID - only bible thumpers posing as scientists wanting to give their existence special meaning and claiming that evolution is one of Gods many creations nothing else.

 

[Rhapsody1447]

It is sad to see the how far your points have sunken. You post blindly, with a closed mind, and a heart full of bigotry and hatred. I do have to say though that I am not suprised.

If you're arguing against evolution but not for intelligent design...then what are you arguing for? Disproving evolution which you cant disprove and neither can any of the people you so admirably look up does what for your cause? What is your cause? Well since ID is a theory that consists of there being an intelligent designer...and thats basically it...what exatcly are you whining about? Not being able to produce the very cloth you're trying to pull over my eyes?

I am arguing that evolution is an incomplete theory, and that it should not be taught as absolute. True, no one can disprove it, but then again no one can prove it. I am hardly whining your view is so contorted, and your mind is so closed that I think this debate is quickly coming to an end.

Oldest evidence yet of fish moving to land

Wouldnt that count as a common ancestor?

Even if we had definitive proof that this fish evolved into a stable land animal, it still doesn't point to a common ancestor. Yet we do not have that proof, we have fossils of a ancient fish and we wrote a story.

His moral and ethic principles can't relate to Darwin as he inserted an extra element that is not found in nature.

Pardon me, but WTF? This doesn't even make sense. His ethic principles were clearly drawn from survival of the fittest. He believed in eridacting the weak and promote the stronger race. (As he percieved it)

If you killed me because you thought I didnt deserve to live. Would you be wrong for it?

Yes, now YOU answer this question.

Bestiality is wrong simply because of the fact that it goes against nature. Not because of morality. In nature the surest way of survival is reproduction. As you and another animal can't reproduce together, will never be able to ceate a bond that assures the grown of either of your species or a new species then it's obvious bestiality is wrong and would go against the course of nature. You mate with that of your own species. Not with a dog or a cow.

So you also agree that homesexual sex is wrong? As is contraceptives? You are arguing that anything that goes against nature is morally wrong? That's absurd.

Well most of the fossil record are fossils. Animals that have ceased to exist. Which would kinda show that the evolutionary process they went through wasn't enough to help them survive thus strengthening the point of evolution. Those that dont evolve, dont survive.

Pardon me again, but WTF? This doesn't even make sense! Please rephrase this to more clearly make your point.

If we weren't based purely on the instinct to survive then we wouldnt be here. Our ancestors would have died off millions of years ago. I think that the fact that we're part of the homonidae family has had a very big role in our evolution. Great apes are the only animals that exhibit an advanced capacity for language or simple cultures behond that of a family or band. Explaining how emotions, feelings and other actions created by the brain come to be is not possible as of today as there is no way of comparing the brains of our ancetors to that of our own. However some of it can be explained with neurobiology :

You are right! We cannot explain how are consciousness and moral standard were endowed to us, we can only look to a God or higher being to explain our greater moral significance. Not evolution.

Well it's not like we can come up with the eyeball of one of the apes that died 4-5 Million years ago now can we? You focus on the eye and have ignored the fact that we have studied the evolution of our bones, how we started walking upright and the evolution of our hands/feet skulls etc. Wait...wheres that intelligent designer of yours again? Oh thats right. Sorry forgot we couldnt prove him...just say it was him that "did it".

Your ignorance and short-sightedness is disturbing. We can't explain how an eye evolved and never will. This is also known as an "irreducibly complex" mechanisms not that have possibly evolved from slight gradualistic mutations.

Oldest evidence yet of fish moving to land

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harvard Gazette: Missing link crawls out of muck

You post 3 links that are all synonymous with the same information. This is hardly considered evidence for a common ancestor. If it was it would be highly acclaimed and highly publicized. Instead all you show are rudimentary deformed fish, and you try to claim that these fish magically turned into land animals, and sprouted four legs.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Hatuey]

It is sad to see the how far your points have sunken. You post blindly, with a closed mind, and a heart full of bigotry and hatred. I do have to say though that I am not suprised.

I'm crying now.

I am arguing that evolution is an incomplete theory, and that it should not be taught as absolute. True, no one can disprove it, but then again no one can prove it. I am hardly whining your view is so contorted, and your mind is so closed that I think this debate is quickly coming to an end.

Wait...so if Evolution is an incomplete theory....what does that make Intelligent Design? Please awnser the question.

Even if we had definitive proof that this fish evolved into a stable land animal, it still doesn't point to a common ancestor. Yet we do not have that proof, we have fossils of a ancient fish and we wrote a story.

OK - I'll agree with you that there is no definitive proof as of now that this fish evolved into a stable land animal but the evidence strongly points to the theory scientists have had all along about evolution. What evidence do you have that backs your theory? Just asking. Please awnser the question.

Pardon me, but WTF? This doesn't even make sense. His ethic principles were clearly drawn from survival of the fittest. He believed in eridacting the weak and promote the stronger race. (As he percieved it)

Wow Adrian was right...

10) WHEN REALLY CORNERED, CALL NAMES.

Asserting links between evolution and such movements as Marxism, Communism and Nazism is a popular form of mud slinging. If you have been making use of technique #7, accuse your opponent of being as bad as the people you've been citing.

This is even more effective if you can manage to goad your opponent into a display of impatience, disdain or temper using any of these techniques.

Yes, now YOU answer this question.

Yes? What have you proven? That you killing me because you want to is survival of the fittest? No my son as your survival is not at stake and you've chosen to commit this act out of your own free will not because you were threatened.

So you also agree that homesexual sex is wrong? As is contraceptives? You are arguing that anything that goes against nature is morally wrong? That's absurd.

I never said that. Now you're twisting my words.

Pardon me again, but WTF? This doesn't even make sense! Please rephrase this to more clearly make your point.

You are right! We cannot explain how are consciousness and moral standard were endowed to us, we can only look to a God or higher being to explain our greater moral significance. Not evolution.

Really. 700 Years ago you would have been right beside the people claiming the earth was flat and if you sailed into one of the 4 corners of the earth you'd fall right into hell. What your doing reminds me of some phrase...oh yeah God of the gaps(sorry took me a while to google it I kept asking my wifey but she didnt know).The best example I can give you of such an argument might be as follows: "Because science can't figure out exactly how species change, it must be God who causes it to happen."

Your ignorance and short-sightedness is disturbing. We can't explain how an eye evolved and never will. This is also known as an "irreducibly complex" mechanisms not that have possibly evolved from slight gradualistic mutations.

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The eye is a famous example of a supposedly "irreducibly complex" structure: due to its many elaborate and interlocking parts, seemingly all dependent upon one another for proper functioning, it is frequently claimed that the eye could not have evolved through gradual, step-by-step, evolutionary improvements guided only by natural selection.

Michael Behe used the "development of the eye problem" as evidence for intelligent design in his controversial book, Darwin's Black Box, and creationist website Answers in Genesis describes the eye as evolutionary biologists' "greatest challenge as an example of superb 'irreducible complexity' in God's creation".

The argument that the eye could not have evolved is most commonly invoked in questions such as "What good is half an eye?" The assumption is that an incomplete eye would be completely useless for sight, and therefore an eye could never have evolved through the gradual, step-by-step progression required by modern evolutionary theory. However, this claim has been heavily disputed based on the plentiful evidence of suboptimal eyes in nature. Such eyes, despite their shortcomings, tend to be dramatically more useful for organisms than no eyes at all would be: people with visual impairments are generally much more able to function normally than people who are completely blind, and there are millions of species of animals with significantly simpler eyes than humans that nonetheless thrive, and are in many cases much more successful than similar species with still poorer vision. Thus eyes with decreased functionality, in humans and in numerous other species, still tend to be more beneficial than having no eyes at all.

Conversely, the human eye is suboptimal compared to what many would consider to be "lesser animals." Human visual acuity is, in daytime, noticeably less than that of raptors in terms of spatial resolution, and significantly less than various insects in terms of spectral range. At night, visual acuity is less than predators such as raptors and cats, and invertebrate molluscs such as squid and octopuses. The visual champion, however, is currently the mantis shrimp. This invertebrate possesses polarization capability, hyperspectral capability (with three to four times the number of receptors by range as humans, without including interpolation, over a wider spectral range), and triple redundant depth perception from both their eye constructions and their multiple eyestalk motions (both 2D tracking, and axial rotation). The fact that these capabilities are achieved using a compound eye layout is especially notable, and a sign of radically divergent evolution. Thus, the vertebrate layout can be considered half (perhaps even a third or less) of an eye compared to the mantis shrimp form, while still being "good" in many respects.

Although the eye remains a common and popular example of complexity in arguments against evolution, some intelligent design and creationism advocates have abandoned the eye as an example of "irreducible complexity". As the detail and history of eye evolution have become better understood, its role in these circles has declined and been replaced by molecular and microscopic structures such as the flagellum. However, much as with the eye, research into these smaller-scale structures has also uncovered details of their evolution.

The eye argument thus stems from a "God of the gaps" strategy, or more broadly, the "argument from incredulity" fallacy.

I dont claim to be a genius kid, I just read alot.

You post 3 links that are all synonymous with the same information. This is hardly considered evidence for a common ancestor. If it was it would be highly acclaimed and highly publicized. Instead all you show are rudimentary deformed fish, and you try to claim that these fish magically turned into land animals, and sprouted four legs.

Ignoring evidence aren't we while providing none of your own to refute it? 2nd time now.

Isn't this in one of Adrians list of things you'd do whilst debating?

These are the ones you've already used :

6) USE "CAFETERIA SCIENCE"

If you look around diligently enough, some scientist somewhere will say something that will bolster your case. Even at the rate of one oddball case in a million, you can accumulate literally thousands of quotes if you mine a long enough time period. In true cafeteria style, you can seize upon these quotes and ignore the science that refutes these quotes.

4) ANY FACTS OR EXPLANATIONS NOT IMMEDIATELY AT HAND MAY BE REGARDED AS NONEXISTENT.

If a critic makes a statement about science and doesn't present all the evidence to prove it from the fundamental level on up, you can seize upon any missing step and declare the entire statement as "unproven" or "a wild guess". If a critic manages to refute any of your statements, ignore the refutation. As soon as the refutation is no longer being actively presented, re-assert your claim. After all, the refutation's not right out there any more.

3) SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO YOUR CRITICS ANY WAY YOU CAN.

Remember, your position is indefensible. The only way you can present anything like a compelling argument is to make your opponents look ignorant. Force them to prove everything they say. If they refuse to accept the burden of proof, force them to prove they don't have to prove what they say.

5) BURY YOUR OPPONENT IN QUOTES.

Nobody is an expert in everything. The more quotes you pull up, the greater the chance that your opponents will not have the knowledge or data to refute at least one of them. You can then emphasize the quotes not dealt with and announce that "science has no response to them". (Note that this will not work unless you have managed to shed the burden of proof, as advised in step 2.)

7) FIND AN INSTANCE OF A SCIENTIST BEHAVING BADLY, AND USE IT TO MAKE THE CLAIM THAT ALL SCIENTISTS WILL DO THE SAME.

Ideally, all scientists would base arguments against bad science on the science. Fortunately, scientists are human. Sometimes they will engage in personal attacks, censorship and other unsavory techniques. Use this fact to tar all scientists with the same brush, and also to make the claim that no crank scientists have been "refuted", but rather censored.

And finally :

8) SCIENTIFIC FACTS AND THEORIES NEED HAVE NO EFFECTS EXCEPT WHERE CONVENIENT.

Whenever some bit of cafeteria science has implications you don't want to deal with, you are free to ignore them. For example, if you like the possibility that neutron radiation might have changed the ratios of radioactive elements and their decay products, ignore the fact that neutrons have observable effects elsewhere in nature.

Anymore?

 

[Rhapsody1447]

Wait...so if Evolution is an incomplete theory....what does that make Intelligent Design? Please awnser the question.

Ugh, repeating myself gets tiring so I am going to bold and caps it. THE POINT OF MY SPEECH WAS NOT ARGUING FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN. IT WAS TO SHOW THAT EVOLUTION IS AN INCOMPLETE THEORY. Intelligent Design to me is a fact, through my faith I have reached that conclusion. As long as you admit that you believe evolution is a fact and through your faith you have reached that conclusion, we're good.

OK - I'll agree with you that there is no definitive proof as of now that this fish evolved into a stable land animal but the evidence strongly points to the theory scientists have had all along about evolution. What evidence do you have that backs your theory? Just asking. Please awnser the question.

I have showed you evidence that backs my theory! Why must I keep repeating myself. The whole point of your quoted text was to show that these fossils hardly proved evolution.

Yes? What have you proven? That you killing me because you want to is survival of the fittest? No my son as your survival is not at stake and you've chosen to commit this act out of your own free will not because you were threatened.

No, that if you believe in evolution you cannot logically have a moral objection to me killing someone who is weaker or less developed than myself. It doesn't make sense.

I never said that. Now you're twisting my words.

Bestiality is wrong simply because of the fact that it goes against nature.

Homosexuality and contraceptives go against nature, are they simply wrong?

Really. 700 Years ago you would have been right beside the people claiming the earth was flat and if you sailed into one of the 4 corners of the earth you'd fall right into hell. What your doing reminds me of some phrase...oh yeah God of the gaps(sorry took me a while to google it I kept asking my wifey but she didnt know).The best example I can give you of such an argument might be as follows: "Because science can't figure out exactly how species change, it must be God who causes it to happen."

I laughed at this. Someone very close to me told me before this debate, that my opposition would eventually call me a bible-thumper, and I probably still believed in a flat Earth. Evolution is the theory of gaps, even major scientists are willing to confirm that one.

I don't claim to be a genius kid, I just read alot.

No one is claiming to be a genius here.

 

[Hatuey]

Ugh, repeating myself gets tiring so I am going to bold and caps it. THE POINT OF MY SPEECH WAS NOT ARGUING FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN. IT WAS TO SHOW THAT EVOLUTION IS AN INCOMPLETE THEORY. Intelligent Design to me is a fact, through my faith I have reached that conclusion. As long as you admit that you believe evolution is a fact and through your faith you have reached that conclusion, we're good.

I dont belive in evolution because of faith. Simply because it makes more sense then "something we cant see, prove or find evidence of - did it". I'll stop beliving in evolution the day we find clear evidence that disproves evolution completely and a new theory that makes more sense is then formulated. Until then, "God did it" just aint cutting it.

I have showed you evidence that backs my theory! Why must I keep repeating myself. The whole point of your quoted text was to show that these fossils hardly proved evolution.

Yup you have. You have a theory that is impossible to verify; you have 4-5 scientists that are the laughing stock of the scientific community; you have claimed their opinions as facts and finally you have an entity that cant be proven or disproven - what exacly have you proven again? Please repeat it again. It might come true this time.

No, that if you believe in evolution you cannot logically have a moral objection to me killing someone who is weaker or less developed than myself. It doesn't make sense.

Evolution and you killing somebody for anything other then your own survival have nothing to do with eachother.

Homosexuality and contraceptives go against nature, are they simply wrong?

Homosexuality involves 2 beings that can communicate with one another(unlike bestiality), that consent and completely understand the consequences of the actions they're involved in (unlike bestiality where you might understand but I'm sure the animal doesn't). If one of the consequences of their actions means them not being able to reproduce and thus stopping the natural flow of nature, I'm completely sure both of the homosexuals aware of it. Wether or not it goes against nature matters very little as both parties know that the choice they have made means they'll be unable to reproduce and have children of their own. As for contraceptives it is my personal belief that they go agaisnt nature but there is also option #2 which involves me going in without them and running the risk of catching some STD. Comparing either of these to bestiality is a perfect example of apples and oranges as I'm pretty sure a dog doesnt ask for you to mount it and you like a reasonable person would rather live a decease free life then one with AIDS. Choice and Reason vs. You forcing yourself on an animal. Yup they're all the same thing.

I laughed at this. Someone very close to me told me before this debate, that my opposition would eventually call me a bible-thumper, and I probably still believed in a flat Earth. Evolution is the theory of gaps, even major scientists are willing to confirm that one.

Well...if the shoe fits? Evolution is a theory with gaps I wont deny that. It's a side of science that has only been in study for 120-140 years so having every single awnser at the speed people like you want it is out of the question. My question however still stands : If evolution is a theory of gaps, what does that make Intelligent Design?

 

[Rhapsody1447]

I dont belive in evolution because of faith. Simply because it makes more sense then "something we cant see, prove or find evidence of - did it". I'll stop beliving in evolution the day we find clear evidence that disproves evolution completely and a new theory that makes more sense is then formulated. Until then, "God did it" just aint cutting it.

But therein lies your problem. You can't believe in evolution simply because it "makes more sense" and you hope something new will come in the future that will "make MORE sense". The fact that on one hand you claim to have a belief on one hand, and on the other hand claim it as a fact is contradicting. Just admit that you have to have faith (The second one) in order to believe in evolution's improbabilities and it's shortcomings.

Yup you have. You have a theory that is impossible to verify; you have 4-5 scientists that are the laughing stock of the scientific community; you have claimed their opinions as facts and finally you have an entity that cant be proven or disproven - what exacly have you proven again? Please repeat it again. It might come true this time.

Claimed opinions as facts? Laughing stock of the scientific community? I have proven that evolution is not the scientific fact that so many claim it to be. Which was the point and origin of my argument. You repeating baseless, bias assumptions over and over again are not helping your case. Every theory about the origin of man cannot be 100% verified. You keep attacking my belief, but you are never willing to examine your own.

Evolution and you killing somebody for anything other then your own survival have nothing to do with eachother.

Did you not listen to my entire point? Of course they do, when try to remove God from the picture you are faced with a string of unanswerable questions. What defines morality? How do we know right from wrong? If we just "went with nature" as you propose, we would degenerate as a society into something horrific. Remember what Adam Sedgwick said about removing morality from nature, "it sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history."

Homosexuality involves 2 beings that can communicate with one another(unlike bestiality), that consent and completely understand the consequences of the actions they're involved in (unlike bestiality where you might understand but I'm sure the animal doesn't). If one of the consequences of their actions means them not being able to reproduce and thus stopping the natural flow of nature, I'm completely sure both of the homosexuals aware of it. Wether or not it goes against nature matters very little as both parties know that the choice they have made means they'll be unable to reproduce and have children of their own. As for contraceptives it is my personal belief that they go agaisnt nature but there is also option #2 which involves me going in without them and running the risk of catching some STD. Comparing either of these to bestiality is a perfect example of apples and oranges as I'm pretty sure a dog doesnt ask for you to mount it and you like a reasonable person would rather live a decease free life then one with AIDS. Choice and Reason vs. You forcing yourself on an animal. Yup they're all the same thing.

Alright, so you are arguing from a standpoint of consent. The only thing that makes it morally wrong (Remember we are talking about morality, I am not saying bestiality and homosexuality are the same thing) is the lack of consent from the animal. Although entirely disturbing and sick, I can understand your viewpoint.

Well...if the shoe fits? Evolution is a theory with gaps I wont deny that. It's a side of science that has only been in study for 120-140 years so having every single awnser at the speed people like you want it is out of the question. My question however still stands : If evolution is a theory of gaps, what does that make Intelligent Design?

Still stands? How many times do I answer! Intelligent Design is the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes.

 

[Hatuey]

But therein lies your problem. You can't believe in evolution simply because it "makes more sense" and you hope something new will come in the future that will "make MORE sense". The fact that on one hand you claim to have a belief on one hand, and on the other hand claim it as a fact is contradicting. Just admit that you have to have faith (The second one) in order to believe in evolution's improbabilities and it's shortcomings.

Definition of faith - which is the one I hope you're refering to :

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

I tend to disbelief anything that isn't based on proof or has no evidence to back it up. Much like ID.

Claimed opinions as facts? Laughing stock of the scientific community? I have proven that evolution is not the scientific fact that so many claim it to be. Which was the point and origin of my argument. You repeating baseless, bias assumptions over and over again are not helping your case. Every theory about the origin of man cannot be 100% verified. You keep attacking my belief, but you are never willing to examine your own.

If you had truly proven it. I along with the entire scientific community and most liberals on this forum would be running to the nearest churches right now and begging for forgiveness. Nope. Hasn't happened. I never said Evolution was 100% I said it's got plenty of parts that science can't explain as of today but how long has evolution been under a microscope? How long has religion/oops sorry ID been preaching about god? Who's made more progress? You find him yet?

Did you not listen to my entire point? Of course they do, when try to remove God from the picture you are faced with a string of unanswerable questions. What defines morality? How do we know right from wrong? If we just "went with nature" as you propose, we would degenerate as a society into something horrific. Remember what Adam Sedgwick said about removing morality from nature, "it sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history."

No they dont. Attributing the weak moral fiber humans have or any part of human life to a diety is foolish. It's the equivalent of the Greeks saying Cupid was responsible for love. Today we look at those examples and laugh at them thinking they're silly stories. In time the same will happen with Islam, Christianism and all that other wierd **** people like to preach with a bible, koran in their hands like they're supposed to be proof of something. Our ascendents will look at the history of the religions and giggle at how stupid humans were for believing in God. Have you ever even read Origin of Species? Please read it and stop quoting dead geologists.

Alright, so you are arguing from a standpoint of consent. The only thing that makes it morally wrong (Remember we are talking about morality, I am not saying bestiality and homosexuality are the same thing) is the lack of consent from the animal. Although entirely disturbing and sick, I can understand your viewpoint.

I'm sorry, by nature, are you ment to mate with dogs? Are you really going to elevate you and another human to you and different animal species? Do you see cows mating with lizards? Do you see pigs mating with Komodo dragons? Do you see chimps humping hippos? I'm sure you would agree that if animals of a particular genus dont try to mate with ones of a different genus it's not because God's drilled morality into them but because of common ****ing sense.

Still stands? How many times do I answer! Intelligent Design is the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes.

Faith :

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion

What you have my friend is faith. What I have is reason. Evolution = Reason

Religion oops I mean ID = Faith.