Party_Of_Lincoln said:
Ever heard of the law of thermodynamics? Well LAw>Theory.
I'm familiar with it, are you? It is moot to the point of evolution. The laws of thermodynamics apply to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system. The Sun gives us a continuous input of energy. That energy is what drives life. The majority of he energy released by the Sun disapates into space, reducing the overall amount of energy available, per the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Party_Of_Lincoln said:
Second do you realize that preaching evolution is a violation of church and state? That since athieism is a considered religion,
Not even close. Atheism is a lack of belief. Nothing more. Saying that it is a religion is like saying that absolute zero is hot.
You are saying that the lack of something is the same as that thing.
Party_Of_Lincoln said:
that anything associated with athiests beliefs (evolution) have to be banned from public schools. So really evolution being allowed in the schools is a reason for why intelligent design should be put in schools. If one religion is given the abilty to have their own views in a school, and the others not, then this is even worse because it is state sponsored religion. So in order to be fair, and follow the constitution you must allow intelligent design.
Well, since your opening premise upon which you base this is wrong, then we can dismiss this as well.
Party_Of_Lincoln said:
Did you also know that you assume something is normaly true if there is no counter evidence. If I cannot prove that I am not purple, then logically you have to believe I am purple because all other colors are ruled out.
Again, not even close. It is virtually impossible to prove a negative. If you are making a claim (i.e. that you
are purple), then it is up to you to prove that claim. The more extraordinary the claim, the more stringent the level of proof needs to be.
If you claim to be a person who is purple, that goes against every observation of people throughout history, so you are under the onus of a very high burden of proof. In a case like this, I would accept nothing less than actually physically seeing you, and having the opportunity to make sure that you were not artificially pigmented in some fashion.
Party_Of_Lincoln said:
The same can be said of god, and intelligent design. If you cant in any way disprove intelligent design or god then logically all that is left is that they exsist.
You cannot disprove that you aren't a figment of my imagination, therefore, according to your concept of logic, you are nothing but a figment of my imagination.
Do you see how ridiculous this line of "reasoning" is?
Party_Of_Lincoln said:
I can disprove evolution, by pointing out that 1. it breaks laws with a theory.
What law does it break?
Party_Of_Lincoln said:
2. never explains the eye. I dont know if this has been discussed yet, but the eye is the main thing that evolution cant answer.
Ahh, the old "irreducibly complex" argument. Well, here are the major intermediate stages that could have come about.
1. photosensitive cell
2. aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
3. an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
4. pigment cells forming a small depression
5. pigment cells forming a deeper depression
6. the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
7. muscles allowing the lens to adjust
Now, in the case of a fish eye, this is estimated to take 1829 1% changes. (
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_time.html)
So, we can see that the eye is not irreducibly complex, but that we actually have a viable sequence showing it developing.
Party_Of_Lincoln said:
Evolution is based on the fact that things jump because of a survival of the fittest, such as my arms getting longer in each generation, which will lead to many bonuses to me, allowing that trait to be inbred and used in my species creating a line of DNA of long arms. However look at A. the eye.
Taken care of above.
Party_Of_Lincoln said:
Even easier. Look at animals from simple to complex. You can follow the progress from no brain structure, to a loose network of neurons, to a ganglion, to simple brains, to complex brains.
This one is (sorry for this pun) a no-brainer...
Party_Of_Lincoln said:
Well, I've shown that the eye and brain (the two most common used by creationists/IDots) can be explained, there is no reason to think that others can't be. For most of the organs, you can look to existing animals. Start with the simple and move to the complex, and you'll be able to follow how the development of an organ may have come about.
Party_Of_Lincoln said:
Now how did these come about. Did I have a mirror for my eye and that helped me, or what about a nerve ending to my eye, or the lens, or any part of a complex structure (remeber evolution relies on a slow change through the eons. It cant just be one day my baby is born with an eye, it requires generations of a slow process) if the mirror didnt help me than it would be bred out, because according to theory non-good traits will be bred out. So in order for evolutionist to explain the eye they will have to explain how we got it through evolution.
Explained...
Party_Of_Lincoln said:
For example if we used the theory of evolution to build a building with the trait to keep us warm, then when we poor the foundation, it would in no way help us keep warm and therefore would be "bred out".
But, the foundation would give us a building that lasts longer and can be bigger and stronger, so it would retained.
Party_Of_Lincoln said:
However when building buildings we use intelligent design, we look at it and see that it may not keep us warm, but we realize that the final product will, so we continue to build. This is what intelligent design is, that a higher being dictated the eye be created, when he was at a mirror he didnt give up, like evolution would have, he continued to build over the eons.
Nice try, but we've seen possible intermediary steps for the eye, and we've seen that your building analogy is flawed.
Party_Of_Lincoln said:
Evolution cant explain anything, case closed
And creationism/ID explains nothing. It is just saying that "God did it".
Party_Of_Lincoln said:
evolution is disproven leaving only one other way,
Well, seeing as I just refuted your claims, I'd say that it isn't disproven.
Party_Of_Lincoln said:
and as stated this means we have to use Intelligent design because all other ways have been disproven (purple analogy).
Bzzzzzz...
Thank you for playing, try again. Preferably after coming up with something other than an argument from incredulity. And, preferably after learning where the burden of proof lies, and maybe even a little about logic.