• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should Evolution Be Taught In Schools?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
IIRC that's the stupid website that tries to say Dinosaurs were all vegetarians prior to the fall of Adam =D

Do you have any HARD EVIDENCE to prove that the site is full of crap? I bet that you didn't even explore the entire site! I just hate it when you naysayers just shoot something down right off the bat because you don't agree with it. If you'd just sit down long enough and read the material, then you could form a reasonable opinion. I've already studied Darwinism, and you have to admit that there are alot of gaps in it. Like where's the missing link? I GUESS that there isn't a missing link, because we DID NOT EVOLVE FROM MONKIES!!! There is no proof of our link to monkies, except that we're both mammals and look SIMILAR (not the same as) to monkies. God, or aliens, or whatever; created us special. There is no way that in 10 million years did we evolve from mice, to monkies, and then to the form that we are today. There is a better chance of a tornado ripping thru a junk yard and throwing together a perfect construct of a 747.
 
Donkey1499 said:
Do you have any HARD EVIDENCE to prove that the site is full of crap? I bet that you didn't even explore the entire site! I just hate it when you naysayers just shoot something down right off the bat because you don't agree with it. If you'd just sit down long enough and read the material, then you could form a reasonable opinion. I've already studied Darwinism, and you have to admit that there are alot of gaps in it. Like where's the missing link? I GUESS that there isn't a missing link, because we DID NOT EVOLVE FROM MONKIES!!! There is no proof of our link to monkies, except that we're both mammals and look SIMILAR (not the same as) to monkies. God, or aliens, or whatever; created us special. There is no way that in 10 million years did we evolve from mice, to monkies, and then to the form that we are today. There is a better chance of a tornado ripping thru a junk yard and throwing together a perfect construct of a 747.

It is interesting to me, that one would read the site metioned, and come away with anything other than confusion. The information contained there is less than accurate in many respects, or so I believe.....mostly due to my understanding of science. As to the statement concerning Man and Monkey, No where in actual scientific literature is it claimed man evolved from monkeys. It IS howver understood that both species evolved from a common ancestor, as is obvious in the genetic makeup of the two species, (ie Simian and Homo-Sapien). I grow tired of this ignorant argument, and find the lack of even so much as an attempt to understand this a sign of....well....a sign.
As for the claim to have studied Darwinian theory....somehow I doubt that, though you may have read a few chapters of a book somewhere. Just the thought of a 10 million year evolution from mice to man brought a smile to my face. I would recommend you stick to the study of scripture (which you need to brush up on if you actually accept the site mentioned) and stay as far away from evolution as you can.
By the way....The King James does not scripture make....heh
 
Donkey1499 said:
Do you have any HARD EVIDENCE to prove that the site is full of crap? I bet that you didn't even explore the entire site! I just hate it when you naysayers just shoot something down right off the bat because you don't agree with it. If you'd just sit down long enough and read the material, then you could form a reasonable opinion. I've already studied Darwinism, and you have to admit that there are alot of gaps in it. Like where's the missing link? I GUESS that there isn't a missing link, because we DID NOT EVOLVE FROM MONKIES!!! There is no proof of our link to monkies, except that we're both mammals and look SIMILAR (not the same as) to monkies. God, or aliens, or whatever; created us special. There is no way that in 10 million years did we evolve from mice, to monkies, and then to the form that we are today. There is a better chance of a tornado ripping thru a junk yard and throwing together a perfect construct of a 747.


Evolution may have holes in it but that's not the point. The point is that it should still be taught in schools because it's a scientific theory. But you or anyone else is free disagree with it.
 
Here are some ways to link Science to Religion. This is gonna require a Bible to look at, because I'm just gonna write down the passages and what's described in it. Alright, here we go:

1.) Jeremiah 33:22 - Claims that the stars of the Heavens are innumerable. Hippocrates, before the invention of the telescope, charted and numbered 1,022 stars. Kepler later recounted and revised the #. Today, scientists agree with Jeremiah. There are BILLIONS just in our galaxy!

2.) Psalm 135:5-7 - How do the rain drops stay small (discrete even in a strong wind)? One of the reasons is found in these 3 verses. Because of the electrical charges in the clouds, the rain drops repel each other as they fall. This is why electrical static during a rain/snow storm can interrupt transmissions.

3.) Ezekiel 5:5 & 38:12 - Claims that Jerusalem is the center of the Earth. ICR commissioned a computer analysis of the Earth's land masses and discovered that the geographic center is in Palestine, near the Holy City.

4.) Psalm 103:12 - The Psalmist seeks to describe how far away God has removed the sins of those who have been forgiven. Interestingly, one can go east or west forever, unlike north and south.

5.) Hebrews 1:11-12 - Describes the wearing down of the creation in language that nicely mirrors the second law of thermodynamics (The theory that everything eventually wears down or dies), and Peter 3:12 describes the Heavens one day passing away in a fire that causes the elements to melt in a fervent heat (a pretty accurate description of nuclear meltdown).

6.) Ecclesiastes 1:4-7 - Describes the whirling motion of the winds and the movement of storm fronts long before the advent of modern meteorology.

7.) Job 37:16 - Also gives significant meteorlogical info, including the balancing of the vapors in the clouds. Job 36:27 adds that the quantity of the rain is proportional to the amount of vapor aloft.

8.) Psalm 8:8 - Discusses the "Paths of the Seas". The story is told that when the man we call "the Father of Oceanography," Matthew Fontain Maury, read Psalm 8, the aforementioned phrase stuck in his mind. He later thought to confirm the idea and eventually wrote The Physical Geography of the Sea in 1855. It was the first text book on modern oceanography. The State of Virginia erected a memorial to him that cites this passage.

9.) Job 38:13 & 14 - Conveys the idea of the Earth rotating on its axis: "The earth... is turned as clay to the seal."

10.) One of the directors of Standard Oil Company read in Exodus 2:3 how Moses was placed in an ark "daubed with slime and pitch." He sent the company geologist, Charles Whitshott, to determine if there was still oil in that region. The discovery of oil led to Standard Oil having very successful operations in Egypt.

11.) The Practice of medical bleeding as a treatment was common until the middle of the 19th Century. Historians believe that George Washington's bleeding caused his death. Ironically, by his bedside was a Bible that stated in Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood."

12.) Linguists (ppl who study world languages) have determined that all the earth's peoples must have originally shared a common language. That is precisely what the Bible declares in Genesis 11:1.

13.) The concept embodied in the Laws of Thermodynamics; the constant of the universe's mass/energy and the universal tendency towards decay and disorder are clearly articulated in Ecclesiastes 3:14 and Romans 8:21-22.

14.) In Job 38:16 - God challenges Job to find "the springs of the sea." These fresh water fountains emerging from the deep ocean floor have only been located in recent decades.

15.) Much of the Old Testament Levitical Law is comprised of health-related restrictions involving diet, cleansing, and quarantine. The book "None of These Diseases" and Keller's work demonstrate the healthfulness of following that advice. Human medicine did not realize this until thousands of years after Leviticus was written!

Other verses could be cited. Just recently articles have been published claiming that the human rib is the only bone that has been shown to grow back. Is it merely a coincidence that this is the bone God took from Adam? A strong case has even been made that it is no accident that science has flourished to unprecedented levels in an era of Christian Philosophy. Great classical scientists sought to seek God's thoughts after Him. The Biblical view gives reason to expect orderliness, laws, and repeatability that are the foundation for the Scientific Method.

Most of this info came from www.genesispark.com , but I did double check the verses to make sure that they were correct, and they are. I think that this hits the subject right on the head. If Intelligent Design is bogus, then how do you explain all of these scientific findings in the Bible? Especially way before they "officially discovered" by modern science? Some one had of told the author(s) of the Bible all this stuff. Whether it was God (or aliens; if you believe that) Intelligent Design can be proven. Someone or something created us. Not a puddle of "soup."
 
And by the way. I never said that Evolution shouldn't be taught in school. When I joined in to this discussion I clearly remember saying that Evolution AND Intelligent Design should BOTH BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL!!! There are bits and pieces from both that can be scientifically proven. I hate it how ppl jump to conclusions!!!!!!
 
Do you have any HARD EVIDENCE to prove that the site is full of crap?

Yes. It supports "cretinism." The trauma from exposure to high quantities of pro-god pseudoscience alone has the power to crash my Firefox browser.

I bet that you didn't even explore the entire site!

No. I didn't. I stopped after I read this:
The Scripture says that on the fifth day of creation God created great sea monsters and flying creatures. The scriptures are clear that everything was made in six days and therefore dinosaurs and man came into existence at the same time.


I couldn't maintain the fortitude to keep trudging through the swamp of dogshit that is that site after this moronic comment. Yes. I was right. That is the "Dinos and humans lived together in harmony" website. Wtf? You actually believe that ****? How old are you? 5? Do you also believe in talking chickens and dogs?

I just hate it when you naysayers just shoot something down right off the bat because you don't agree with it.

I didn't shoot it down beecause I don't agree with it. I ignored it because it's bullshit, like the whole 747 analogy you made.

If you'd just sit down long enough and read the material, then you could form a reasonable opinion. I've already studied Darwinism, and you have to admit that there are alot of gaps in it.

Darwinism is not modern evolution. Darwin didn't even create evolution. He created the Theory of Natural Selection, which is a primary mechanism of evolution. The mechanism is quite sound. I have formed a reasonable opinion. Do you think I haven't read stuff from creationists before? It's all the same bogus arguments repated in various, creative forms. There is only so much I can take.


Like where's the missing link? I GUESS that there isn't a missing link, because we DID NOT EVOLVE FROM MONKIES!!!


You're right. We didn't evolve from monkies. Now that's a fact! However, all species that lead to other species, and don't go exinct are transitional. All fossiles that don't end at a dead end are transitional links. Species don't magically puff from species A to B in a day.

There is no proof of our link to monkies, except that we're both mammals and look SIMILAR (not the same as) to monkies.

Why would there be proof that we evolved from monkies when there is no such thing? You do know we didn't evolve from monkies according to evolution, right? You do know that a primate is not all primates are a monkey, but a monkey is always a primate? Right? A human is a special type of primate who evolved from an earlier form of primate--not a monkey.

As well, there is much more than "looks." Do you know that other Great Apes, including the Bonobo Chimpanzee shares 97-8% of human DNA? DNA is a sighn of evolutions unity as well as diveristy. All animals share common core DNA, some more than others. This is a heavy sign of relation.

God, or aliens, or whatever; created us special.

Or....not. Nature could easily have done it. It may seem like high odds, but given the BILLIONS of years earth has existed, high odds aren't actually bad. The odds that I would come to this website and talk to you are low. It happened, did it not? I could have gone ANNNNNNNNYWHERE else, but I came here. According to your logic, something highly unlikely would never happen---like winning the lottery lol. Amazing that people do, no?

There is no way that in 10 million years did we evolve from mice, to monkies, and then to the form that we are today. There is a better chance of a tornado ripping thru a junk yard and throwing together a perfect construct of a 747.

The 747 argument is false, and has been refuted countless times. If you want me to take you seriously, don't cut-paste long-refuted arguments for impossiblity of evoultion. The 747 crap relies on pure chance--Evolution doesn't Evolution is guided by 2 major principles: natural selection and mutation. One is not chance and one is. They work in tandem.

This argument is not only a false analogy, it's an argument from incredulity.
 
The use of the word monkey, in the context of how I used it, is referring to all primates. That is how I use the word "monkey" in this argument. And yes, there are chances that we came from a puddle of soup, but I don't believe it. Will I shoot it down and call evolution bull crap? No, cuz I don't want to offend anyone. You on, the other hand (Techno-what ever) have offended me and my religion. I've studied enough of Evolution (with my Florida Education, for what ever it's worth) and fail to believe that we evolved from a single-cell organism a billion or more years ago. I find it NEARLY, not 100%, impossible. But I'm not gonna stop my research just because someone shoves my theories (THEORIES: something that can't be proven, yet) down my throat. I'm gonna try even harder now to prove that God exists! And damn it! I'll do it too. But for right now, Evolution AND Intelligent Design should BOTH be taught in school and should BOTH be listed as THEORIES!!!
 
The use of the word monkey, in the context of how I used it, is referring to all primates. That is how I use the word "monkey" in this argument.


Don't use the word monkey when you mean primate. That's retarded, frankly. A monkey isn't an Gorilla. A Gorrilla isn't a baboon. That makes all the difference. Say what you mean.


And yes, there are chances that we came from a puddle of soup, but I don't believe it.

No, you believe a magical man in the sky scratched his head, rolled up his sleeves and molded mankind out of dust. That's so much better, hahaha. Come on. THis isn't stand up night. That's friday.

Will I shoot it down and call evolution bull crap? No, cuz I don't want to offend anyone. You on, the other hand (Techno-what ever) have offended me and my religion.

Yes. I am an offensive person. I am a mean, angry asshole. I admit that. Being nice doesn't work; it never has. If you delt with people who believed in a magical being that cannot be tested, verified, falsified, you woul be pissed off too. Those conversations get nowhere, since if you believein God, you can justify anything

I've studied enough of Evolution (with my Florida Education, for what ever it's worth) and fail to believe that we evolved from a single-cell organism a billion or more years ago.

Why? Why do you believe in God, but not Evolution, which has many successful predictions. Has been verified in nature, and has the complete support of every major peer reviewed scientific journal, institution, and text? What makes YOU more qualified than the top scientists around the world? What could you POSSIBLY have found wrong that scientists could not have? Do you think they're all lying to you? Do you think there is some universal anti-god conspiracy? You do know that many scientists are christian, right?

I find it NEARLY, not 100%, impossible. But I'm not gonna stop my research just because someone shoves my theories (THEORIES: something that can't be proven, yet) down my throat.

Ok. Here I have to ask: What is a theory? Don't use a dictionary, because I want to see what you think it is. Most of the time, problems arrise at this level when people misunderstand the nature of a scientific theory. You use the term "prove," so that sends my alert buzzer into overdrive. I hate when people use the term "prove" in science.


I'm gonna try even harder now to prove that God exists! And damn it! I'll do it too. But for right now, Evolution AND Intelligent Design should BOTH be taught in school and should BOTH be listed as THEORIES!!!

I disagree. You cannot teach intelligent design in school. It has no testable mechanism, no accurate predictions, and it violates occam's razor. Evolution does neither of those and has successful applications, predictions, and is testable.
 
Donkey1499 said:
The use of the word monkey, in the context of how I used it, is referring to all primates. That is how I use the word "monkey" in this argument. And yes, there are chances that we came from a puddle of soup, but I don't believe it. Will I shoot it down and call evolution bull crap? No, cuz I don't want to offend anyone. You on, the other hand (Techno-what ever) have offended me and my religion. I've studied enough of Evolution (with my Florida Education, for what ever it's worth) and fail to believe that we evolved from a single-cell organism a billion or more years ago. I find it NEARLY, not 100%, impossible. But I'm not gonna stop my research just because someone shoves my theories (THEORIES: something that can't be proven, yet) down my throat. I'm gonna try even harder now to prove that God exists! And damn it! I'll do it too. But for right now, Evolution AND Intelligent Design should BOTH be taught in school and should BOTH be listed as THEORIES!!!

You just don't get it. A professor can say if he believes in God or not, that's fine. But you can't implement intelligent design in a biology curriculum as a scientific theory because it's NOT.

We're both Christians but let's be honest, we can't prove God exists, at least not in a scientific sense. We just have to accept it on faith. I don't think God really wants us to prove that he exists in a scientific capacity or else he wouldn't have revealed himself through the Bible. The point of Christianity isn to prove he exists but to just accept it on faith and be a good person in the image of Christ.
 
Technocratic, you can take your hate speech and go to Hell!

Evolution is no more fact than Intelligent Design is. How the Hell can you prove that a puddle of snot is where all life originated? YOU CAN'T! Just like I can't prove God's existance, yet.

And what does make a top scientist "Qualified"? A slice of paper from Yale or Harvard? Please... And a poll was made several months ago that said that 97% of college/university professors are liberal. And Libbies are always the ones to put religion down first, because to them it is all superstition and hocus pocus. They can believe that ALL life as we know it came from single-cell organisms, but yet, they can't believe that something else created them. And I think I know why. Cuz mankind is arrogant and just doesn't want to believe that there is something smarter than them out there. Like aliens for instance.

I believe in some evolution, like mutations and how a creature adapts to a new environment. And I even believe that some dinosaurs might have evolved into birds, but to say that man evolved from single cell organisms is retarded. And even IF we did evolve from unicellular beings, who the Hell put them there? Huh? Can't answer that one I bet. Who caused the Big Bang? Most "scientists" agree on the Big Bang.

And before you rant on about "Who created God? Where did He come from?" I have an explaination, which is the best I got for now. Since God can be everywhere at once, that means that time means nothing to Him. And since God created time, He knows how to avoid it. So my guess is that He has just always existed. Which is difficult for a human mind to interpret, but it's hard for man to understand infinity anyways. Like in mathematics a line that goes on forever is drawn kinda like this: <---------->. Because we can't draw a line that goes on forever we just use 2 angle signs to let everyone know that those lines go on forever.
 
Technocratic, you can take your hate speech and go to Hell!

Hard to go somewhere that doesn't exist. Go to Neverland! What's the matter? You like to dish out hate speech, but you can't take criticism on it? I don't see you curbing the rhetoric on the anti-gay happy horseshit you spew.

I use hate speech about as much as humans evolved from monkies (see if you can understand the irony).

Evolution is no more fact than Intelligent Design is. How the Hell can you prove that a puddle of snot is where all life originated? YOU CAN'T! Just like I can't prove God's existance, yet.

1. I cannot prove that a puddle of snot is where life originated, since natural selection and evolution do not posit that life came from snot. You see, this is called a "strawman fallacy." Now, if you are done beating up that poor straw-target, we can debate civilly.

2. Your assertion that evolution is equally factual as Intelligent Design is farcial. Again, you never answered my questions on the following page, therefore I assume you either don't know the answer to them or you are ignoring them because you are afraid you will be wrong. I will reiterate, however, because I am a nice guy.

1. Do you know what natural selection is?
2. Do you understand the meaning of a Scientific Theory? What is it?
3. Do you understand the Scientific Method and how it works?

If so, explain. If not, I will explicate. It's nothing too difficult--it's basic science that every student should know comming out of highschool (sigh).


And what does make a top scientist "Qualified"? A slice of paper from Yale or Harvard? Please

This is many steps.
1. A degree in the appropriate scientific field under discussion who is "graduated" from an accredited university. This is crucial, because if you appeal to the knowledge of a non-authority in the appropriate field, you are committing an "Appeal to Authority Fallacy," which is properly termed--Appeal to Improper Authority. Proper authorities are those who

2. Secondly, you look to see if his work has been published in peer reviewed scholarly scientific journals. The Peer Review process is integral to scientific advancement. It's what sifts the bullshat from the non-bullshat. They look at the arguments presented and the data, and they try arduously to falsify it. This is how science works. There's no universal scientific establishment that is out to screw creationists. Every concept that has come before the review system has been punched, kicked, and mutilated to try to find major errors in the data and deductive process. That has not occured with evolution. Since it has successfully passed peer review for over 100 years, and understanding the nature of peer review, one can safely conclude that the scientists know what they are talking about. That's their job, and the system has myriad checks and balances. Do you understand? Do I need to bring up graphs and pretty pictures?

A poll was made several months ago that said that 97% of college/university professors are liberal. And Libbies are always the ones to put religion down first, because to them it is all superstition and hocus pocus. They can believe that ALL life as we know it came from single-cell organisms, but yet, they can't believe that something else created them.

1. First, this entire paragraph's logic is predicated upon what's known as "Appeal To Motive Fallacy." This is improper logic. If you want to make a point, don't use logical fallacies. As Ayn Rand would say, "check your premises," because that's probably why your conclusions are wrong.

Do you understand what an "Appeal to Motive Fallacy" is and why it's wrong? If not, I will explicate it to you. An appeal to motive fallacy is wrong because you are automatically assuming that because "professors" are liberal, Evolution is automatically wrong. You are trying to poison the theory due to the proponents. It does not matter one iota what political affiliation the scientists/professors are. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

IE. If you had Nazis who supported Natural Selection, that does not disqualify the effectiveness or the quality of Evoultion. Their political affiliation is irrelevant. Moving on...


And I think I know why. Cuz mankind is arrogant and just doesn't want to believe that there is something smarter than them out there. Like aliens for instance.

More Appeal to Motive Fallacy. Refer to the above. You have not actually challenged evolution. You simply repeat creationtard arguments from creationtard websites and parrot them like an idiot. If you want serious discussion, you will bring down the wall of ignorance and cease using it.
 
Continued: browser accident. Sorry.

I believe in some evolution, like mutations and how a creature adapts to a new environment. And I even believe that some dinosaurs might have evolved into birds, but to say that man evolved from single cell organisms is retarded.

A. No, it's not retarded. If you actually understood something about cellular biology, you would comprehend why it's actually quite logical to move from single to multi-cellular.

Most one celled organisms are what are known as Prokaryotes. They are very early lifeforms on earth. As such, they are far simpler than Eukaryotic cells. In specific, they don't possess most of the organells and memberaneous parts of Eukaroyotes. A key thing to look at is that SOME elements of early prokaryotes are found IN and ON Eukaroyotes. For example

1. Flagella
2. Ribosomes
3. A cell membrane
4. Neucleic Acids.

See if you can follow this: Ask questions if necessary. I am not an expert, but I can give some commentary.

B. It is also important to note that many of the chemical processes we have in Eukaryotes (humans) are directly derrived from Prokaroyotic organisms. First I should give some background. Take Cellular Respiration as the example. Cellular Respiration in Humans is an offshoot of Cellular Respiration in Prokaryotes. In fact, it has to do partly with the early atmospheric composition of the environment. Prokaryotic organisms undergo a cellular respiration called "anerobic respiration." Most Prokaryotic organisms are anerobes, which means they use the former process.

Anerobic Respiration is a form of respiration (which produces ATP molecules) that does not use oxygen in order to produce energy molecules for cellular work. Anerobic respiration, as far as I know, only uses the first stage of Respiration--Glycolosis--a stage that does not require oxygen. Furthermore, Cellular Respiration Glycolosis does not occure IN organells or on the memberane--but in the cellular cytoplasm. In glycolosis, energy is used by a cell (ATP) to break down glucose into pyruvic acid, and then pyruvid acid I think undergoes fermentation." In such reactions, 4 ATP molecules are produced, but you get only a net gain of 2 molecules. Why is this all significant? It is also known that Prokaryotic organisms can, if given the ability, use both Anerobic and Aerobic Respiration.

Eurkaryotic Respiration is quite different. Eukaryotic respiration produces 38 + molecules of ATP becaues it uses oxygen. Oxygen intake by animals, for example, allows for a more efficient, higher energy ATP gain. Why is this entire paragraph important to evolution? I will explain following:


1. Oxygen was not, in large part, a major component of early earth. Billions of years ago, and later when life actually began in earnest when proteins and amino groups formed the first cells. THis means that when these cells formed, they had not the oxygen necessary to undergo the Oxidative Phosporylation and Citric Acid Cycle crucial in Aerobic Respiration. No Oxygen = no Eukaryotic version of respiration. As the result, they were forced to develop an early, sufficient form of energy production. This is "anarobic respiration." Instead of using oxygen to produce CO2 waste, they fermented to produce Alcohol. The Environment of the early earth was ripe with chemicals that were useful for anerobic organisms, and the atmosphere was excellent for the use of anarobic respiration.

Later, as earth changed over millions of years, the atmosphere changed with it. New elements such as Oxygen and Nitrogen started to dominate the atmosphere. When Oxygen was present, organisms (prokaryotes) that mutated or had DNA allowing for them to utilize that Oxygen in chemical reactions were extremly successful, prospered, and then survived to replicate themselves. They probably had an evolutionary advantage over the organisms that did not have the capacity to utilize oxidative phosphorylation. After a while, the prokaryotes likely started to have the capacity to use both respirative methods of ATP production given conditions due to the proliferation of the trait.

Another evolutionary point to consider is that Prokaryotes are far smaller and less complex than Eukaryotes. This must mean they probably came before. What is the reasoning for this? The reasoning relates to cell size and energy requirements. Larger organisms desperately need more energy. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. The early earth atmosphere did not promote the growth of macroorganisms or large, multicellular organisms because not enough energy can be gathered via Anarobic Respiration. As I mentioned earlier, only 2 net ATP molecules can be harvested from it. With the entrance of Oxygen onto the world stage, organisms now had a vast pool of resources from which to make ATP. The more ATP, the more larger, more complex organisms can be sustained. More ATP means that work can be done--organelles that were not previously within the Prokaryotic cells were able to form and finally take advantage of the mutations and traits developing. Things like vaculoes, nuclei, endoplasmic reticulum---things not in Prokaryotes--now developed in Eukaroyotes. Oxygen is a major factor, and it was not present earlier, which partly explains why there were no Eukaryotic organisms likely present and why Prokaryotic ones came before.

Note* Anarobic Respiration also can go on in Eukarotic organisms, but you don't derrive much energy from it. You tend to produce lactic acid in your muscles.




And even IF we did evolve from unicellular beings, who the Hell put them there? Huh? Can't answer that one I bet. Who caused the Big Bang? Most "scientists" agree on the Big Bang.

1. First, life did not start off as a cell. Life began because the atmosphere and the chemicals in the atmosphere happend to be present. These chemicals, along with atmospheric conditions were a breeding ground for aminoacids, which are the modern buildingblocks of all life. Without Aminoacids, you probably wouldn't exist. Aminoacids and carbon and other functional groups naturally come together due to natural laws. They do this for the same reasons gravity works. It just is a law of nature. They do it. Could God be doing it? Hmmmmm maybe, but that's not a concern of science. THere's no evidence for it, so you cannot concern yourself with it.

2. The Big Bang does not concern Evolution. Evolution refers to a change in the frequency of allelles in a given population. It is not predicated on the existence of a big bang. However, to answer you question, no one "caused" the big bang. When the big bang occured, the nature of the universe was quite different. There was no time, as time is characteristic of the universe. Prior to the big bang, therte was no time. Reality has at least 4 dimensions, all of which came into being via the big bang. What you have to understand is that it's pointless to say "what came before" or "who did it," because there was no time. Time did not exist, time does not pass. Pretend you are in "Nexus" from star trek generations where time has no meaning. To understand this further, you would have to study Einstein's Relativism, and I am not qualified to expound on that. I am not a Physicist.


And before you rant on about "Who created God? Where did He come from?" I have an explaination, which is the best I got for now. Since God can be everywhere at once, that means that time means nothing to Him. And since God created time, He knows how to avoid it. So my guess is that He has just always existed. Which is difficult for a human mind to interpret, but it's hard for man to understand infinity anyways.

1. This is a prime example of the hypocrisy of the creationist arguments. They are blinded by the notion that god must exist. Their common complaint about the big bang or evolution is that "it cannot possibly occure! It's incomprehensible that something could naturally come into existence that complicated! Then, on the same notion, they turn around and say what you said: Which is difficult for a human mind to interpret, but it's hard for man to understand infinity anyways. If we must accept your position that God avoids time and that we cannot understand infinity or God being "everywhere," why do we have to tolerate your ignorance of the big bang and evolution? We could simply mimic your argument by applying it to the Big Bang. You are applying a double standard.

This problem also occures because you don't understand how Occam's Razor works. We KNOW the universe exists. We have a lot of evidence for the big bang, so we know it occured. We know there are natural laws of physics. We DON'T know God existss. As such, we cannot use him in a logical equation to explain the origin of the universe. Why? It's an unknown, unfalsifiable entity. Any argument you make for "god" making the universe I can equally make by claiming Barny the Divine Purple Dinosaur did it. Why do you not understand how hypocritical you are being when it comes to your religion in relation to nature? That's not fair, nor is it honest. If you can say "we cannot understand infinity" therefore God exists, one could equally say, you cannot understand infinity, therefore the Big Bang was the "creation." Time had no meaning, therefore, there need not "be" a before.
 
I've got some questions for you, Technocratic. Then I'll explain myself after I've asked the questions.

1.) When did I "spew anti-gay happy bullsh**"?
2.) How can you PROVE that religion is a fallacy?
3.) Do you think that people who have degrees in Theology are full of crap, even tho they have a "degree"?
4.) Do you believe in archaeological discoveries that back up the Bible, Tora and Koran? (EX. Associates for Biblical Research has extensively excavated Jericho. Just one of the interesting features about this city is that the walls appear to have fallen outward. While an invading army would typically ram the walls inward upon the debris, the Bible declares that God caused the walls to fall flat so that the Israelites could go straight in.) (EX2. Skeptics once believed that the book of Daniel was in error when it discussed Belshazzar ruling Babylon. The dynasties were revealed on cuneiform tablets excavated from ancient Babylon and Belshazzar did not appear on the list. Yet, a later find revealed that the sovereign, Nabonidus, traveled extensively and in his absence left his son Belshazzar to rule as co-regent. That is why, in seeking to offer the ultimate reward to anyone one who could interpret the mysterious meesage of doom, Belshazzar offered the position of "third in the kingdom" [Daniel 5:7]. Belshazzar could do no more since he was only second himself.)
5.) What about Sir William Ramsey? Once a well known Archaeologist (and skeptic) how he turned to say that the book of Luke is "trustworthy". (EX. Sir William Ramsey is regarded as one of the greatest archeaologists ever to have lived. Skeptical of the authorship and accuracy of the Gospels and Acts, Ramsey set out to investigate. Yet he concluded after 30 years of study that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of facts trustworthy... this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." [Ramsey, W.M., "The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament", 1953, p.222, as cited in McDowell, 1991, p.71])

So, religion can be proved through history (and there are more facts that I could display). Now we just need to prove it scientifically. We are slowly getting to that point.

So I don't care about Natural Selection or Scientific Theory. They mean nothing to me. I studied that stuff years ago, but I don't remember it cuz I don't care. Religion can be proven historically and that's all that matters. Because you still cannot prove or show facts that 1.) God doesn't exist, 2.) Angels don't exist, 3.) Hell doesn't exist, 4.) Heaven doesn't exist. You can't prove that those don't exist. I'm gonna TRY to prove that God exists. Actually I already posted some meteorlogical evidence in an ealier post, but I guess you chose to ignore it. It's all right there in the Bible. Just read it; you don't have to believe it, but give it a shot. I gave Evolution a shot, I tried to believe, but just too much of it can't be proven, so thus it is only a theory, like the theories NASA has about long distance space travel, or what not.
 
But something made the Big Bang happen. Stuff like that just doen't happen on its own. Physics calls for a cause and effect solution. What causes a rock to roll down a hill? Gravity. Or sometimes, 2 causes (ex. a giraffe pushed the rock to the edge of the hill and then gravity pulled it the rest of the way down.)

But the questionS still remain, WHO MADE ALL OF THE STUFF THAT MAKES UP THE UNIVERSE? WHO PROGRAMED IT ALL TO DO THE STUFF THAT IT DOES? WHAT MADE OUR BRAINS DECIDE TO HAVE EMOTIONS? WHAT MAKES A COW KNOW THAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO EAT GRASS AND NOT MEAT?
 
I will try to get to most of the post later. I have to go to class in abuot 15 min.

I've got some questions for you, Technocratic. Then I'll explain myself after I've asked the questions.

1.) When did I "spew anti-gay happy bullsh**"?

This was my fault. I mistook your name for someone else. It was the other guy whose name, in my mind, sounds similar to yours. I apologize for this and redirect it to the other tard. You are fine.

2.) How can you PROVE that religion is a fallacy?

Religion itself isn't a fallacy. I just think they are things made up by people who wanted to have power over other people--IE. Priests, Shamans, etc. Religion is used as a pacification and control tool. It's easy to understand, can be spread easily, and appeals to the emotional needs of people. Science doesn't do this. A lot of the concepts are cold and esoteric. Trying to use God as a theory for creation simply is unviable. If it were viable, I wouldn't have a problem with it. God cannot be the encompassing element of a Theory, because it does not follow the Scientific Method. A Theory is only as good as it's mechanism explanation and its successful explanations of phenomena. God theory doesn't have a mechanism that's falsifiable, testable etc. That means it's impossible to use with any real meaning. Unlike Natural Selection, God has no explanatory power. You cannot just say, "goddidit" and be done with the problem.

3.) Do you think that people who have degrees in Theology are full of crap, even tho they have a "degree"?

Do I think theologicans are full of crap, even though they have a degree? As long as they keep their comments and knowledge within the confines of their religion, I don't care. However, when they start pretending that they're scientifically accurate or correct in explaining the universe, yes, then they are. Many of the arguments of theologicans of past were simply refuted.

IE. Anselm, Aquinace, etc. There is simply no rational foundation to faith. Someone can have a degree in agriculture. It doesn't mean they know squat about astro physics.


4.) Do you believe in archaeological discoveries that back up the Bible, Tora and Koran? (EX. Associates for Biblical Research has extensively excavated Jericho. Just one of the interesting features about this city is that the walls appear to have fallen outward. While an invading army would typically ram the walls inward upon the debris, the Bible declares that God caused the walls to fall flat so that the Israelites could go straight in.) (EX2. Skeptics once believed that the book of Daniel was in error when it discussed Belshazzar ruling Babylon. The dynasties were revealed on cuneiform tablets excavated from ancient Babylon and Belshazzar did not appear on the list. Yet, a later find revealed that the sovereign, Nabonidus, traveled extensively and in his absence left his son Belshazzar to rule as co-regent. That is why, in seeking to offer the ultimate reward to anyone one who could interpret the mysterious meesage of doom, Belshazzar offered the position of "third in the kingdom" [Daniel 5:7]. Belshazzar could do no more since he was only second himself.)
5.) What about Sir William Ramsey? Once a well known Archaeologist (and skeptic) how he turned to say that the book of Luke is "trustworthy". (EX. Sir William Ramsey is regarded as one of the greatest archeaologists ever to have lived. Skeptical of the authorship and accuracy of the Gospels and Acts, Ramsey set out to investigate. Yet he concluded after 30 years of study that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of facts trustworthy... this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." [Ramsey, W.M., "The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament", 1953, p.222, as cited in McDowell, 1991, p.71])

Yes. I know the basic story of Jerico. It tries to pretend that people ran around the wall and blew really hard and knocked it down with musical instruments. This is physically impossible. It was tested--it could never, ever be replicated. They even tested it using equipment vastly more poweful than musical intruments used at the time. The reason for the collapse of the walls was most likely geological---earthquakes. Earthquakes have been very well known to knock down even the most stout defenses in history, allowing invaders in.

The problem here is that you assume some being caused the collapse. There's no testable, logic-based evidence for this other than some book that say so. That's not analytical at all. There's no evidence! YOu cannot say something did something if you have no evidence of it. I can say, again, that Barny the Deified Dino did it. It would be just the same as saying God did it.

So, religion can be proved through history (and there are more facts that I could display). Now we just need to prove it scientifically. We are slowly getting to that point.

Yes. There are some historical accuracies of the Bible. So what , though? that doesn't prove anything other than people who wrote the bible knew the history around them. Huckelberry Finn also has historical elements in it. Does that mean it's author made the universe? No.

So I don't care about Natural Selection or Scientific Theory. They mean nothing to me. I studied that stuff years ago, but I don't remember it cuz I don't care. Religion can be proven historically and that's all that matters.


This is the problem in a nutshell. YOu don't care about Scientific Theory and Natural Selection. YOu don't understand it, you don't want to understand it, and you never will comprehend it due to that attitude. It means nothing to you, which is but the problem. I cannot have a civil debate with someone who ignores the majority of my post and then claims: I don't care about science. If you want this to continue and have a rational discussion, please read what I wrote and ask me something about it. Try to understand--the fact that Religious texts have historical components to them is not all that matters. To say that is to miss the entire concept.



you still cannot prove or show facts that 1.) God doesn't exist, 2.) Angels don't exist, 3.) Hell doesn't exist, 4.) Heaven doesn't exist. You can't prove that those don't exist. I'm gonna TRY to prove that God exists.

Here is the problem you aren't getting. I don't know how clear I can make this, but:

1. I don't have to prove nor show evidence that heaven and hell do not exist. The burden of proof is completely on you when you say it does exist. You must prove and or show evidence that it does exist. Do you know what "burden of proof" means in relation to "Proving a Negative Fallacy?"

You cannot prove a metaphysical negative nor a universal negative. I cannot prove unicorns don't exist anymore than you can prove that God does not exist. You cannot prove a negative. You must prove or show evidence that heaven, hell, and angels exist. There is no way you can do that empirically AT ALL. They are unfalsifiable. This means there is NOTHING someone can use to show they aren't true.

Actually I already posted some meteorlogical evidence in an ealier post, but I guess you chose to ignore it. It's all right there in the Bible. Just read it; you don't have to believe it, but give it a shot. I gave Evolution a shot, I tried to believe, but just too much of it can't be proven, so thus it is only a theory, like the theories NASA has about long distance space travel, or what not.

You didn't give it a shot. You ignored my very detailed, factual post. You don't understand epistemology. You cannot prove anything 100%. We don't go by proofs in reality--only logic and mathematics. Science and empiricism work off of probability and evidence, not proof.
 
The theory of evolution was born from the quest for truth.
Creationism was born from the quest to see everything in terms of the Bible.
I'll opt for evolution to be taught.
 
George_Washington said:
You just don't get it. A professor can say if he believes in God or not, that's fine. But you can't implement intelligent design in a biology curriculum as a scientific theory because it's NOT.

We're both Christians but let's be honest, we can't prove God exists, at least not in a scientific sense. We just have to accept it on faith. I don't think God really wants us to prove that he exists in a scientific capacity or else he wouldn't have revealed himself through the Bible. The point of Christianity isn to prove he exists but to just accept it on faith and be a good person in the image of Christ.

Wow....I think you may be the first real Christian I have seen in months....good job.
 
George_Washington said:
2.) Where does organic material come from?

Organic, when talking about chemistry, simply means that it contains carbon.
 
ThatGirl83 said:
Dude you are so awesome, and I agree that both should be taught as theories in school...

I don't have as much time to debate as I would like... but suffice it to say that evolution, intelligent design and creation are three distinct theories... each w/ their own scientific evidence... and that still doesn't necessarily make them mutually exclusive.

Think critically, do some research and open your mind. Then come to you're own logical conclusion... don't just follow the crowd because "the majority is always right."

In order for something to be a theory, it must have evidence that supports it.

Can you show any evidence that supports either creationism or intelligent design.

The best that I've ever seen are people who try to show where the theory of evolution has faults. Finding fault in a evolution is far different from putting forth evidence that supports creationism or intelligent design.
 
I never said, "I don't care about science." But I did say, "I don't care about Natural Selection or Scientific Theory."

But I'm just gonna quit this post cuz I got like 4 on 1 here. But it don't matter cuz I know that in the end, I'll be correct about everything I've said.

Just like how the old saying goes, "He who laughs last, laughs best."
 
Saying "I don't care about natural selection" (the crux of all biology) and "I don't care about scientific theory" ammounts to "I don't care about science." Scientific Theory is at the heart of all science, and biology is the main paradigm of all Biology. It's absurd to say you are pro science and against the former.

[quote[But I'm just gonna quit this post cuz I got like 4 on 1 here. But it don't matter cuz I know that in the end, I'll be correct about everything I've said.

Just like how the old saying goes, "He who laughs last, laughs best."[/quote]

Your concession is accepted. Thank's for playing ;)
 
Donkey1499 said:
Here are some ways to link Science to Religion.

Actually, about all you've got here are some examples that the Bible isn't totally incorrect. But, let's have fun with them.

Donkey1499 said:
This is gonna require a Bible to look at, because I'm just gonna write down the passages and what's described in it. Alright, here we go:

1.) Jeremiah 33:22 - Claims that the stars of the Heavens are innumerable. Hippocrates, before the invention of the telescope, charted and numbered 1,022 stars. Kepler later recounted and revised the #. Today, scientists agree with Jeremiah. There are BILLIONS just in our galaxy!

Actually, Jeremiah 33:22 says, "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered", not stars.

Hippocrates was, medically, very ahead of his time. I would say he was a medical genius. I can find no reference to him making a claim about how many stars there are. Even if he did, he would be constrained by what he could see, and that could be accurate with what could be seen by the naked eye.

So, already we have an assumption that host=star, and an unverified claim about something that somebody might have said outside of their field of study.

Donkey1499 said:
2.) Psalm 135:5-7 - How do the rain drops stay small (discrete even in a strong wind)? One of the reasons is found in these 3 verses. Because of the electrical charges in the clouds, the rain drops repel each other as they fall. This is why electrical static during a rain/snow storm can interrupt transmissions.

Let's look at these verses:

135:5 For I know that the LORD is great, and that our Lord is above all gods.
135:6 Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places.
135:7 He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain; he bringeth the wind out of his treasuries.

So, the first 2 verses have nothing to do with it. And the third verse only links lightning to rain, that's quite a stretch, assuming that it is electrical charge that keeps raindrops seperate.

Then, there's the question of air resistance and the surface tension of water. The surface tension of water can only overcome the force of air resistance to a certain point. That puts an upper limit on how large raindrops can be.

Donkey1499 said:
3.) Ezekiel 5:5 & 38:12 - Claims that Jerusalem is the center of the Earth. ICR commissioned a computer analysis of the Earth's land masses and discovered that the geographic center is in Palestine, near the Holy City.

Eze 5:5 Thus saith the Lord GOD; This is Jerusalem: I have set it in the midst of the nations and countries that are round about her.

It doesn't say that Jerusalem is the center of the Earth, it says that Jerusalem was put "in the midst" of the surrounding nations and countries.

Even more to the point, according to ICR, the center is Ankara, Turkey, not Jerusalem

Donkey1499 said:
4.) Psalm 103:12 - The Psalmist seeks to describe how far away God has removed the sins of those who have been forgiven. Interestingly, one can go east or west forever, unlike north and south.

Psalm 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

True, you can go in one direction forever. However, unlike north and south, from any given point, east and west meet half way around the world. North and south are on opposite ends of the world. So, it seems that our transgressions are with us, since east and west must meet.

Donkey1499 said:
5.) Hebrews 1:11-12 - Describes the wearing down of the creation in language that nicely mirrors the second law of thermodynamics (The theory that everything eventually wears down or dies),

The laws of thermodynamics are about the dynamics of heat (energy) in a closed system. That alone makes them irrelevent when talking about the Earth. Earth is not a closed system, if nothing else, it gets a continual energy input from the sun.

Also, the Second Law states that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder object to a warm one.

Donkey1499 said:
and Peter 3:12 describes the Heavens one day passing away in a fire that causes the elements to melt in a fervent heat (a pretty accurate description of nuclear meltdown).

And, if you back up a little (to 2 Peter 3:10),, and 2 Peter 3:12 both describe the burning of the heavens, the elements, the earth and "the works that are therein". So, it seems to be a description of everything being destroyed in fire. It sounds nothing like a nuclear meltdown.

Donkey1499 said:
6.) Ecclesiastes 1:4-7 - Describes the whirling motion of the winds and the movement of storm fronts long before the advent of modern meteorology.

Actually, Ecc 1:6 says that the wind goes to the south, turns to the north, and returns again. It says nothing that sounds like storm fronts.

Donkey1499 said:
7.) Job 37:16 - Also gives significant meteorlogical info, including the balancing of the vapors in the clouds. Job 36:27 adds that the quantity of the rain is proportional to the amount of vapor aloft.

Job 37:16 Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is perfect in knowledge?

This counts as "significant meteorological info"?

As for Job 36:27-28, it basically says that rain comes from clouds. Oooh, big revalation there!

Donkey1499 said:
8.) Psalm 8:8 - Discusses the "Paths of the Seas". The story is told that when the man we call "the Father of Oceanography," Matthew Fontain Maury, read Psalm 8, the aforementioned phrase stuck in his mind. He later thought to confirm the idea and eventually wrote The Physical Geography of the Sea in 1855. It was the first text book on modern oceanography. The State of Virginia erected a memorial to him that cites this passage.


Any civilization that has experience in sea travel also has knowledge of sea and ocean currents. Besides, Psalms 8:8 doesn't discuss the "paths of the seas", it makes passing mention.

Donkey1499 said:
9.) Job 38:13 & 14 - Conveys the idea of the Earth rotating on its axis: "The earth... is turned as clay to the seal."

Donkey1499 said:
10.) One of the directors of Standard Oil Company read in Exodus 2:3 how Moses was placed in an ark "daubed with slime and pitch." He sent the company geologist, Charles Whitshott, to determine if there was still oil in that region. The discovery of oil led to Standard Oil having very successful operations in Egypt.

When did this supposedly occur. before or after it was know that the entire middle eastern area is rich in oil deposits?

Donkey1499 said:
11.) The Practice of medical bleeding as a treatment was common until the middle of the 19th Century. Historians believe that George Washington's bleeding caused his death. Ironically, by his bedside was a Bible that stated in Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood."

And, unless I'm mistaken, bloodletting was the treatment approved by the church.

Donkey1499 said:
12.) Linguists (ppl who study world languages) have determined that all the earth's peoples must have originally shared a common language. That is precisely what the Bible declares in Genesis 11:1.

I'd really like a source for this claim. Especially since we're dealing with the origin of language, which pre-dates the origin of writing.

Donkey1499 said:
13.) The concept embodied in the Laws of Thermodynamics; the constant of the universe's mass/energy and the universal tendency towards decay and disorder are clearly articulated in Ecclesiastes 3:14 and Romans 8:21-22.

Ecc 3:14 says that whatever God does will be forever. That doesn't sound much like a tendency to disorder.

Rom 8:21-22 is comparing the suffering here with the glory of heaven.

Donkey1499 said:
14.) In Job 38:16 - God challenges Job to find "the springs of the sea." These fresh water fountains emerging from the deep ocean floor have only been located in recent decades.

He doesn't challenge Job to do it, he asks him if he has done it. Most of Job 38 looks to me like God is throwing a little hissy-fit and asking Job if he's done any of a multitude of things that he can't do.

Donkey1499 said:
15.) Much of the Old Testament Levitical Law is comprised of health-related restrictions involving diet, cleansing, and quarantine. The book "None of These Diseases" and Keller's work demonstrate the healthfulness of following that advice. Human medicine did not realize this until thousands of years after Leviticus was written!

And, there's also a lot of rules in there that are entirely nonsensical. The prohibition against eating shrimp, crab, lobster, oysters, clams, octopus, calimari (squid), hares (they do not chew cud as the Bible states), escargot or any animal with paws.

This is immediately before describing locusts, beetles and grasshoppers as having 4 legs. These are the only insects (with 4 legs) that you may eat.
 
Donkey1499 said:
Other verses could be cited.

And disputed as these were...

Donkey1499 said:
Just recently articles have been published claiming that the human rib is the only bone that has been shown to grow back.

Again, a source for this claim would be nice.

Donkey1499 said:
Is it merely a coincidence that this is the bone God took from Adam? A strong case has even been made that it is no accident that science has flourished to unprecedented levels in an era of Christian Philosophy.

The argument could also be made that for the better part of 2000 years there was very little advance, but in the last 200 or so years, advance has been accelerating as society becomes more secular.

Donkey1499 said:
Great classical scientists sought to seek God's thoughts after Him. The Biblical view gives reason to expect orderliness, laws, and repeatability that are the foundation for the Scientific Method.

And, ironically, it gives us virtually nothing that can be verified.

Donkey1499 said:
Most of this info came from www.genesispark.com , but I did double check the verses to make sure that they were correct, and they are. I think that this hits the subject right on the head. If Intelligent Design is bogus, then how do you explain all of these scientific findings in the Bible?

Most of them are simply the result of observation. Most of the claims were easily dismissed.

Donkey1499 said:
Especially way before they "officially discovered" by modern science? Some one had of told the author(s) of the Bible all this stuff. Whether it was God (or aliens; if you believe that) Intelligent Design can be proven.

If it can be proven, can you give any evidence of it?

Donkey1499 said:
Someone or something created us. Not a puddle of "soup."

In your opinion.
 
Donkey1499 said:
The use of the word monkey, in the context of how I used it, is referring to all primates. That is how I use the word "monkey" in this argument. And yes, there are chances that we came from a puddle of soup, but I don't believe it. Will I shoot it down and call evolution bull crap? No, cuz I don't want to offend anyone.

Why would stating facts be insulting to anyone? Unless they don't support your beliefs...

Donkey1499 said:
You on, the other hand (Techno-what ever) have offended me and my religion. I've studied enough of Evolution (with my Florida Education, for what ever it's worth) and fail to believe that we evolved from a single-cell organism a billion or more years ago. I find it NEARLY, not 100%, impossible.

Whereas there is no evidence that supports intelligent design.

Donkey1499 said:
But I'm not gonna stop my research just because someone shoves my theories (THEORIES: something that can't be proven, yet) down my throat.

Sorry. Intelligent design isn't a theory. To be a theory, there must be some evidence that supports it.

Donkey1499 said:
I'm gonna try even harder now to prove that God exists! And damn it! I'll do it too.

Good luck. I'd be impressed if you can offer any evidence that supports the existence of a god.

Donkey1499 said:
But for right now, Evolution AND Intelligent Design should BOTH be taught in school and should BOTH be listed as THEORIES!!!

No, a theory must have some evidence that supports it. This does not include pointing out flaws in a different idea. In other words, pointing out possible flaws in the theory of evolution is not supplying evidence to support intelligent design (or creationism, for that matter).

Unless you can show some evidence that actually supports intelligent design, it is not a theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom