jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (319 posts)

Intelligent design is not anti-evolution

  1. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 4 years ago

    It just means evolution was designed by god

    1. 0
      jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Except that evolution has no design.

      1. Paul Wingert profile image79
        Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Why do some people insist that there must be a "god" behind everything? That sort of crude thinking would of been fine thousands of years ago, but this is the 21st Century!

        1. 0
          jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Might be immaturity
          or just the wish to have a daddy to protect and to have a feeling of 'being special'.

        2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It is good science, to look at what would be a sufficient cause for an effect we see in our universe, or planet.  Evolution, just as an example, is not a sufficient cause, for the effect we see in the world, in regards to origins.    We can't apply our brightest minds on this planet in all of history, to even begin to duplicate what would be needed in the beginning.  Its actually rather scientific, reasonable, and logical to ask, "what could be a sufficient cause for all we see?"  Has anything ever been offered in that regard? 

          So the irony I see, is that the idea of an uncreated creator is actually not incongruous with science, in terms of explanations.  One may not like it, or agree, but its not crazy or stupid like some suggest.  Its actually the best idea, that has been offered, that is in keeping with what we see in our universe.  I do see a lot of asserting of opinions and ideas though, filled with much emotion and vitriol.  Not much explains that either, except.... guess what?

          1. A Troubled Man profile image61
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Nonsense. A belief in a creator is not something we see in our universe at all, quite the opposite. As an explanation, it is well beyond crazy and stupid.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
              oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I was hoping for a response to some of my points, with other points or reasoning as to why you disagreed with me. 

              Also, it doesn't make sense to me what you said, that "a belief in a creator is not something we see in our universe at all, quite the opposite."  I didn't say that, and not sure what you mean by it.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                ID is merely masked as creationism.

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So no responses....ok.  Thanks for sharing your opinions and assertions, however.  I was hoping for some discussion on what you disagreed with.  My experience is the same as Janesix says below, that its not often I get actual responses to particular points from most devout atheists....but I wanted to give the chance.  I am sure if there were real rebuttals, they would be given.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No, you weren't looking for discussion, you were looking to push your irrational beliefs about creationism.

                    If you were actually looking for discussion, you would learn something about the subject matter, first.

                    For example, you should have started this thread with a question such as, "What are the basic postulates of evolution?"

              2. janesix profile image59
                janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You wont get responses to your actual points from devout atheists.

        3. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
          Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          God is behind you.

        4. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Because there is God behind everything!

          It's called "Philosophical Theology," the science of deducing the existence of God by observing the world around you.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, I think the word you are looking for is "majik."

            Science and deduction forsooth! lol lol

      2. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Are you suggesting evolution is completely random?

        1. Paul Wingert profile image79
          Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes of course. Why wouldn't it be?

          1. janesix profile image59
            janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Life is not random. Evolution doesnt randomly select itself into shapes and processes that follow phi. Shells, the sequences of leaves on plants, the shape of your face all follow the golden mean. How is that random?

            1. 0
              jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You are telling me this is designed?
              http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8d/Enencephaly.jpg/450px-Enencephaly.jpg

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No jomine. That is an example that life is not perfect. If that child survived, had children, and what we perceive as a defect was passed on to its offspring...eventually changing the species; I would chalk it up to evolution.

                1. 0
                  jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Exactly, life throw out a myriad of forms and the one that fit the surroundings survive and continue as species, and if changes accumulate enough to differentiate it from its ancestor or its brother that is in another place we call it specification. There is no design. But people want to think that they are special and the whole world occurs just for them(especially those people who don't have to bother where their next meal come from), so they think it is a design by the designer just for them, otherwise how can they feel they are special?

                  1. Eric Newland profile image61
                    Eric Newlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Meanwhile, third-world countries are almost exclusively atheistic...

                  2. janesix profile image59
                    janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Show me one example of life that was thrown out there randomly that didnt fit into a specific niche.

                2. Paul Wingert profile image79
                  Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL nice Photoshop pic.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Thank goodness. That was one butt ugly baby

                  2. kerryg profile image86
                    kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    That's not Photoshop, that's anencephaly:

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

              2. 0
                Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                defects were not designed by God. Defects are results of sin way back from Adam and Eve.

                1. couturepopcafe profile image62
                  couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  ? roll

                  1. 0
                    Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You can't believe it? why?

                2. 0
                  jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  When I hear such idiotic and foolish arguments, I think there is a god and either he deliberately made fools for others enjoyment or it was a 'divine mistake'.
                  http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/williamscountyextension/agriculture/livestock/genetic-defects-in-cattle/images/figure-2.jpg
                  http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/williamscountyextension/agriculture/livestock/genetic-defects-in-cattle/images/figure-13.jpg
                  Was this the sin of cow eve and bull adam?
                  or was the human Adam practicing bestiality?

                  1. mischeviousme profile image60
                    mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't think they've read up on genetics and have no idea of the goings on, on the smallest internal level. It's insane to think there was enough material to make eve from a rib... It's preposterous. The ideas are outdated and only serve to enslave the minds of a greater and greater audience.

                  2. 0
                    Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    If you go back to Genesis, you will see that God created everything in such a wonderful state, no sickness, no pain and no abnormalities. However we come across to Genesis 3 where we find the fall of man into deliberate sin and as a result all creation have fallen into pain, struggles death and chaos.

                    No matter how man deny this truth, it will continue to reverberate across land and seas because it is the truth. Why many people ignore this? because they are blinded by the lies of the Devil so that they will not see their need of the Savior.

              3. 0
                Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                a photo designed by a photo shop  expert? kidding aside, abnormalities is a result of sin way back in the garden of Eden.

                1. Paul Wingert profile image79
                  Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah right. All the talking snakes fault! What does sin, god,garedn of eden, adam, eve all have in common? A result of someone's wild imagination.

                  1. 0
                    Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    you are excluding God from the created world. well, the bible tells about your unbelief even before you were born.

                2. 0
                  jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yea, the sin of your god, that this god of yours is just a moron. Or is it you? Because I rarely come across people who post like they are absolute idiots and have studied nothing but bible and have never used the 'thinking' part of their brain.

                  1. 0
                    Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    When we rely just on our brain to understand the wonderful product of God's wisdom and power, we will end up to the wrong conclusion. But when we allow Him to instruct us and give us wisdom to see the beauty of His enormous work, we will best appreciate how excellent is His awesome majesty. We will see at best the how and why in this created world.

              4. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
                Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I get banned for months at a time for things far less offensive....you must be hidden staff, or in the right political circles.

                1. 0
                  jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Instead the picture is in lieu with the forum topic and I chose the picture from wikipedia(I've more gruesome pictures) a public site.

                  1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
                    Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Anyways - the notions here are all illogical.

                    1. Intelligent design - we're all going to agree that that means "God Did it."

                    2. If we believe in a God, then it is obvious he is more intelligent than us - we can't create much of anything..certainly we can not design worlds, ecosystems, and create unique species of life.

                    4. - so since we are admitting (should we agree to the notion of God) that our human knowledge is exactly shit we:

                    5. ...can't say that a deformed or aborted fetus is not the will of the intelligent designer, as we can't comprehend "his" mind.

            2. Randy Godwin profile image93
              Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              But god is random!  There have been so many of them and you cannot prove they weren't random too, can you? 

                                                    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

          2. lorlie6 profile image84
            lorlie6posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Paul, are you serious?  Evolution has countless examples of 'design'.  From the first nasty pool came the higher order of gunk, then fish, then......and so on.  If that ain't some sort of 'scientific design', then I've never heard of anything that is.

            1. Paul Wingert profile image79
              Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What I'm saying is there's no need for a god in this "design". Saying "god made this or that" is mentally laziness and now we have the science and technology to explain how things came to be. Life today among living things are a result in millions upon millions of years of trail and error (evolution and in some cases interbreeding) which is still not perfect. If you are an expert in biology, for example you'll know why humans are the only animals that that suffer lower back problems and giving birth is incredibly painful. So the human body is far from perferct.

              1. janesix profile image59
                janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Millions of years of trial amd error dont produce perfect phi ratios in every aspect of the human form, down to the very shape of your dna.

                1. psycheskinner profile image81
                  psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So you don't believe in evolution.  That's fine.

                  It kind of proves the point that ID and evolution are different though.

              2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It seems that part of the argument  (that some are suggesting) against some god being possible creator of things, is that life needs to be perfect, never having any defect or problems (like pain, etc).   That is one opinion to have. 

                I also observe an ignoring that people that believe in a god, also very often believe in the evolution we all observe and see.   Its not a rejection of science that I see among theists, but it is made to look that way by some.  Is there a benefit in that somehow?

                1. 0
                  Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Psa 8:3  When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained.

                  God created all things and His creation declares it so.

            2. cascoly profile image60
              cascolyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              design is a CONSCIOUS mechanism - evolution is random and undirected.  organized lifeforms may emerge but there's no intelligence involved

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Troubled Man said, "There isn't anything random about evolution, which shows you have no understanding of evolution" 

                Evidently not all atheists agree on evolution and whether it is random or not.  If I am wrong in assuming you both are atheists, let me know.  His comment was directed at me, after I showed how randomness doesn't negate an intelligence involved, necessarily.

                1. cascoly profile image60
                  cascolyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  first, why do you assume that anyone who understands evolution is an atheist?

                  some people may not understand that evolution is random - that doesnt change the FACT of evolution

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Cascoly, I do not assume that anyone that understands evolution is an atheist.  I asked a genuine question about not wanting to assume about people being atheists.  I ask in part, because of the responses I am seeing, and the lack of points being addressed, and the tone, etc. 

                    My points go unaddressed.  I am not sure which facts you agree with or disagree with in evolution, but if you notice, I have not once denied the fact of evolution we observe in science.  Hope this helps.

          3. oceansnsunsets profile image88
            oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So a few of you disagree in here about randomness in evolution....

            1. mischeviousme profile image60
              mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I think of evolution as trial and error, if one design doesn't work, then the species must adopt a new strategy or method of survival... So if there is an order you're looking for, forget it. As our environment constanly changes, so shall we. These changes might not always be physical, sometimes the design is good enough, it just needs a better engine... Or by our current design, a better computer.

            2. kerryg profile image86
              kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "So a few of you disagree in here about randomness in evolution...."

              No, people are using the word in different ways.

              ran·dom/ˈrandəm/

              Adjective:   

              1. Made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision: "a random sample of 100 households".
              2. Governed by or involving equal chances for each item.

              Evolution has several distinct components required to make it work, some of which are random ("governed by or involving equal chances for each item") and some of which are not.

              The word random can also be used in the sense of "made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision" to differentiate evolution from something that is planned or designed.

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I observed that when I pointed out how the randomness of evolution doesn't necessarily negate an intelligence involved, was when I got the response that surprised me.  The quote from a Troubled Man said,

                "There isn't anything random about evolution, which shows you have no understanding of evolution."

                Do you agree with him then?  Or disagree?  Its a pretty cut and dry statement as I see it.  I was very surprised based on what everyone else was saying.  He didn't seem to differentiate or care what kind of definition was being used for random, and assumed I just know nothing about evolution.

                1. kerryg profile image86
                  kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, I obviously can't speak for A Troubled Mind, but I interpreted that statement as referring to the "governed by or involving equal chances for each item" definition of random, which evolution is not.

                  Mutation occurs by random ("governed by or involving equal chances for each item") chance, but which mutations spread to the population and which die out is governed (primarily) by natural selection, which, as twosheds1 explained earlier, is not random ("governed by or involving equal chances for each item") at all.

                  However, both mutations and natural selection are random in the sense of being "made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision," and so is evolution.

          4. grinnin1 profile image82
            grinnin1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Einstein didn't think so :

            The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.

      3. lorlie6 profile image84
        lorlie6posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Seriously, Jomine?  There is no design to evolution?  I must beg to differ.

        1. 0
          jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          How?
          Evolution does not work to create us or anything, it is just the adaptation of organisms to procure food and procreate. The one better at that survive, that does not, perish. It doesn't matter whether organism is simple or complex, it only matter whether the genes can replenish itself.

          1. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So what about all the evolutionary characteristics that work agains survival?

    2. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Nonsense. Sorry you don't understand biology. It must be very frustrating for you.

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You probably believe that genes and traits can only be transfered from parent to offspring due to random, accidental mutations.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You probably believe in majik, because I believe no such thing.

          GAWD you believers are funny. Uneducated, but funny. lol

          1. 0
            Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Eph 2:2-3  Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:  (3)  Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

            We were just like you before Christ made us see the truth. You are denying it now and even sarcastic to it because their is no wisdom in you.

        2. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Then i have hope for you yet.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry you did not understand.

            Oh well....

    3. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, we understand the only answer believers need to hear is that god dunnit and that everything else is irrelevant.

    4. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That would make it anti-evolution. Evolution is a designerless process.

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ok. I dont have any other word to use besides evolution. I still believe life evolves, it just has to follow a pattern. I could be wrong that it is a DESIGNED pattern. But there is a pattern. It is not random.

        1. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Evolution is widely accepted to mean: random variation + natural selection.

          So, you need to use a different word.

          1. twosheds1 profile image60
            twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, evolution is the OPPOSITE of random. If you have a million monkeys typing at typewriters, you will never have one of them type out, say, a Tale of Two Cities. Never. However, if you set those same monkeys to typing, and kept each correct letter as it appeared, you'd get ATOTC rather quickly. For the first letter "I" you'd have a 1 in 52 chance (26 letters in two cases). Once you get the "I," you'd go on to the next letter, with another 1 in 52. Heck, with a million monkeys, if you divided up the chapters, you'd probably have the whole book within minutes.

            That is how evolution works: good results are kept and expanded upon, bad results are tossed out.

        2. 0
          Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          janesix, which camp are you? Do believe in God who created everything or a believer of a self existing creation?

          1. janesix profile image59
            janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I believe god created everything, the universe, evolution, physical laws.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              lol

      2. Eric Newland profile image61
        Eric Newlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Not exactly. Evolution simply says that the development of life was subject to the whims of whatever mutations occurred and whatever factors contributed to one genetic makeup surviving over another. It makes no stipulation that I can see as to what those forces are.

        On the contrary, by definition the evolutionary process must be subject to any and all possible external forces, regardless of what they are or where they come from. So it all comes back to the individual's belief as to whether God exists and thus could have been involved in the process or not.

        1. couturepopcafe profile image62
          couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          God exists. It's just not what religions think it is.

    5. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      A cell is a great example of something that is designed, something that we never see just happening.

      A process is another thing

      Forget a god for a moment.  Are there any things in this world, created by a human that can be set up to be random after the fact?  Do we know of anything like that?

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
        oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That was said, assuming I was going with the "there is no design in evolution" comment.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Of course not, something like a cell takes millions of years to evolve. It's one of the most common misunderstandings of believers who are unable to grasp long periods of time.

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Troubled Man, curious about particular points I made that you disagree with ans why if you do.   I think you missed my points actually.  I don't have trouble, by the way, of grasping long periods of time.  Nice of you to care about that though.  I didn't even mention time.  To be fair, I should have said, a cell seems to be designed.  You don't find things like cells randomly happening in nature, when there wasn't anything there before.  This is where I was coming from. 

          What matters even more than a cell evolving even over a long time, is how it gets to the point it can evolve at all.   Where does the stuff that the cell is made from, come from?

          My point kind of echoes the first point, (which gets ignored in many threads), that the idea of ID, isn't anti evolution.

          1. twosheds1 profile image60
            twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You're assuming that since we are unsure now, that we'll never know the answer. But actually, organic molecules are abundant in the universe, and the early Earth was bombarded with them. Chemical reactions in these molecules are what is believed to have led to self-replicating RNA.But this is not a guess, it is a scientific consensus that has withstood experimentation.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
              oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I can see how you maybe assumed I assume that, but I do not.  If there ever is a time where there is more data and evidence to support such ideas, then that would "be the case."

              The earth did seem to be the one place where life could flourish abundantly, which is rather interesting.  I don't have any issue with organic molecules in the universe, (which seems an odd thing to say but I do all the same, lol).    You mention the word believed, and that is fair as when one considers a lot of non atheistic, ideas, it comes down to that.  I was more just wanting to help correct the misconception that a belief in an intelligent being is somehow incongruous with small changes over time or evolution. 

              A lot comes down to reasoning, and what could best explain what we see, that is in keeping with factual science.  Assuming all is true, what accounts for the process being set into motion, what allows for chemicals in the first place.   Both sides put faith into things, is another point that can be made.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, evolution is incongruous with intelligent design. You would know that if you actually understood evolution.

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Troubled Man, Please show how evolution is incongruent with intelligent design, then I will know why you say what you said there.  Thanks.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    lol What would be the point of going into a long explanation that would have to include teaching you all about evolution because you haven't taken the time to understand it in the first place.

                    Your agenda is obvious, you are pushing creationism because that is your belief while you deny an explanation you have no concept of understanding.

                2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  My understanding of intelligent design being, that something intelligent is the cause for the effect we see now.  How is that incongruous with what we see in the world.

                  1. mischeviousme profile image60
                    mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    If I create a child, said child is not born equipped with adult reasoning. If evolution is a fact and so is an intelligent desinger, then evolution is nothing more than a global learning process.

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    lol How does one have an "understanding of intelligent design"? That's hilarious.

              2. kerryg profile image86
                kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                There's still just enough mystery about abiogenesis that you might be able to get away with saying some supernatural being was involved.

                If you want to argue that evolution was guided, though, that's kind of difficult because once you get some supernatural force mechanically moving base pairs around to enact a desired result, it ceases to be supernatural and becomes natural, and thus testable. We have no evidence that such a thing has ever happened, and if it did, it's rather curious that an omnipotent, omniscient supernatural being would choose to do its fiddling in such a way that it appeared to be entirely random. (Just to be clear here, I'm talking about mutation, NOT natural selection, which, as twosheds1 explained earlier, is not a random process at all.)

                Scientists know the average mutation rate, for example, and thus are able to estimate the length of time between two related species and their common ancestor by comparative DNA analysis. These estimates have been upheld by the fossil record to within a reasonable standard of error.

              3. twosheds1 profile image60
                twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                "The earth did seem to be the one place where life could flourish abundantly, which is rather interesting." Ah, the old Goldilocks hypothesis. Life came about on Earth BECAUSE life could come about on Earth. It couldn't come about on Mars, so, as far as we know, it didn't. It's like if you went up in an airplane and sprinkled fish eggs over a large area. Most eggs would land in places that wouldn't support them growing into fish. Some would land in puddles where they might hatch, but not go much further, and just a few would land in a pond or lake where conditions were right for them to hatch and mature. That lake=Earth.

                ID is an extension of what is called the "Argument from Incredulity." It assumes that life is too complex to have come about without some entity to help it along at some point. The problem is, the origins of life are pretty well understood, and evolution is understood about as well as any other theory in science. There are literally mountains of evidence intertwining across many disciplines that support it, and offer not even a hint of an intelligent designer.

                I suggest reading Richard Dawkins' books "The Blind Watchmaker" and "Climbing Mt. Improbable" for better explanations of evolution than I am able to give here.

                1. kerryg profile image86
                  kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm reading a fascinating but rather rambling book right now called Ghosts of Vesuvius whose author says you can whip up pre-biotic compounds in your kitchen in less than a day if you know what you're doing. He cites Claire Folsome's experiments and says all you really need to do to get started is to get carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen in the same place and add energy. He suggests that it would be much more surprising if life hadn't begun on Earth, and he believes it existed on Mars at one point and probably still exists on Europa, Triton, and a few other places in our solar system. Coincidentally, some scientists just announced that we probably found evidence of life on Mars back in the 70's and just didn't have the tools to recognize it at the time.

                2. PhoenixV profile image79
                  PhoenixVposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  An argument of incredulity is better than an argument from stupor or an argument of denial. You are narrowly defining a definition of ID so you can say- Is evolution correct or incorrect? If it's correct then no ID.

                  Dawkins is not a cosmological theorist and is a poor philosopher. Instead of actually being a scientist he wants to be an atheist, and an anti-believer, first.


                  Evolution is not a cosmological model. Evolution is not a cosmological model. 


                  First the universe had to exist. In your above response you obviously sidestep -where did the chemicals come from? New universes haven't popped up recently or in billions of years somewhere near jupiter. The fundamental laws of our universe Do Not seem to have existed before the universe. Unless someone would want to argue that "laws exist" prior to application for no apparent reason. Our universe coming into existence seems to defy natural occurrence, otherwise we would be wondering how do Physical laws apply - beforehand? The argument could be made although it is "rare occurrence" and that possibly there was an unnatural occurrence, doesn't necessarily mean it was a " intelligent supra-natural occurrence.


                  It is not a miracle for a set of dice to constantly and infinitely come up for a total of 7. It would defy odds of course but it would be no miracle. Claiming that dice just sometimes appear on tables is because they "evolved there" is silly.

                  First you have to have a universe that will allow life. Next, the material provided by the universe must be capable of have the raw material that constitutes RNA or DNA. This material is the "blueprints and chemical instructions for creating more sophisticated life".

                  Vacuous assertions of "it takes million and billions of years" have no relevance. If I build the most sophisticated computer the universe will ever know, am I on a deadline? If Appl, builds a computer in 5 minutes and it takes me 10 billion years but mine in the end is a billion times faster and better, then I can still brag correct?

                  Likewise, expanse of time has no relevance, because life does exist. In the computer example APPL takes for granted that plastic and metals exist beforehand to make their products. But they have not been building circuits forever so even the basic material had to develop to be used for computers.


                  First a universe has to exist. Out of all that material RNA and DNA developed. These in turn developed into sophisticated biological machines that ponder it all. Evolution is not a cosmological model. Evolution may only near abiogenesis, but that is about it. There is the obvious claim that evolution has had effect in the development of more and more sophisticated life. From bacteria -to people that study bacteria. But then we come to claims- all this just happens if you give it enough time and ignore confusing cosmological theories?

                  Life exists in our universe and this life in some cases is intelligent. The answer is "oh it just happens"? That is not scientific answer. "oh it just happens" if you give it enough time? That is not scientific answer.

                  The universe does in fact work. The material for life was provided. Life proceeded and grew out of an extravagant amount of what should be considered noise (as is being claimed) to create mozart.


                  The fact of the matter is that it got undeniably done. It sure did work well for being stupid and never existing before.

                  I am sorry I do not have that much "blind faith".

                  1. twosheds1 profile image60
                    twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No, Dawkins is not a cosmologist, but I was referring specifically to evolution. For an explanation of the origins of the unvierse, try "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss and "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking.

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    lol That just goes to show how little you know about Dawkins.



                    The fact that our physical laws came into existence as a result of the Big Bang does not mean the BB was not a natural occurence.



                    What do dice have to do with anything? Strawman.



                    "Vacuous assertions" lol



                    Now, those are indeed vacuous assertions.



                    Strawman.




                    Gibberish.



                    That would be the misinformed answer you are providing as a strawman.



                    More gibberish.

                  3. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Phoenixv, that is a great post, brilliant even.  Thank you so much for sharing those thoughts.  You bring up things that make sense, based on things we know for sure in the world.

                    Distinguishing what is good science and what is bad, shouldn't need to be pointed out when it seems fairly obvious.  However, when arguments and threads get SO far from the basic points, it needs to be done.  Excellent post. I hope it is read by many.

                  4. kerryg profile image86
                    kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    "First the universe had to exist. In your above response you obviously sidestep -where did the chemicals come from? New universes haven't popped up recently or in billions of years somewhere near jupiter. The fundamental laws of our universe Do Not seem to have existed before the universe. Unless someone would want to argue that "laws exist" prior to application for no apparent reason. Our universe coming into existence seems to defy natural occurrence, otherwise we would be wondering how do Physical laws apply - beforehand? The argument could be made although it is "rare occurrence" and that possibly there was an unnatural occurrence, doesn't necessarily mean it was a " intelligent supra-natural occurrence."

                    1. There is some evidence that there may be multiple universes, thus you can't suggest with any claim to scientific accuracy that our universe's existence is rare or unusual in the slightest. It may well be that universes pop in and out of existence all the time.

                    2. There are no chemicals in a singularity. The chemicals came after. Most of the elements that actually make up life came from stars. For billions of years after the Big Bang, the universe was almost entirely hydrogen and helium and you could fit the amount of solid matter in the universe into the palm of your hand. The heavier elements came from fusion reactions in stars. We are all, literally, stardust.

                    "Vacuous assertions of "it takes million and billions of years" have no relevance. If I build the most sophisticated computer the universe will ever know, am I on a deadline? If Appl, builds a computer in 5 minutes and it takes me 10 billion years but mine in the end is a billion times faster and better, then I can still brag correct? Likewise, expanse of time has no relevance, because life does exist. In the computer example APPL takes for granted that plastic and metals exist beforehand to make their products. But they have not been building circuits forever so even the basic material had to develop to be used for computers."

                    I am not sure what your point is, but the time scales involved definitely are relevant. There's only been enough solid matter in the universe to make the formation of a terrestrial planet like Earth possible for 9 billion years or so, and there's only been enough to make it likely for about 5 billion years.

                    On the life front, it takes tens or hundreds of thousands of generations for enough genetic differences to accumulate between two species that split from a common ancestor to make them unable to breed with each other. The mutation rate is average, not fixed, so it might be possible to do it faster, but it's about as likely as your hypothetical dice that eternally throws 7s. If a Plesiadipus gave birth to a human, that would be a very strong argument against evolution.

                    "Life exists in our universe and this life in some cases is intelligent. The answer is "oh it just happens"? That is not scientific answer. "oh it just happens" if you give it enough time? That is not scientific answer."

                    No, it's not, but if you point me to where an actual scientist says "it just happens" and leaves it at that, I'd be interested to see that. Simple physics ensures that if you mix a bunch of stuff together and add energy, the stuff will become something else. If you've got carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen, you can start getting amino acids in less than 24 hours. If you keep it up for a billion years...

          2. A Troubled Man profile image61
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            There isn't anything random about evolution, which shows you have no understanding of evolution.



            You are attempting to ask questions to answers well beyond your understanding of even the very basics of evolution. Start from the beginning and try to gain some understanding of that first before wading into deeper waters.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
              oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Troubled Man, lets back off of the randomness, as it wasn't my point initially, but others were pushing for it. 

              Your attempting to know so much more, while not being able to address the points you disagree with, makes me doubt what you say there in your put downs.  Lets give the benefit of the doubt however, and have you show me where I have gotten the basics of evolution wrong, in anything I have said.  If you show me to be genuinely wrong, I will give you that.  Not just for the asserting that you know so much more than me.  You disagree with me, show where and how you disagree.  Thanks.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Why should I do that when you're too lazy to take the time and learn something instead of just bleating your irrational beliefs?

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I observe that you are not really interested in debating intellectually, as you keep making incorrect assumptions, and putting down.  In my experience, that is just another form of "a white flag waving" a surrender.  You accuse me of what you are actually doing, as well.  Another red flag.  You can't say I didn't try to engage you, and assume you wanted to have a discussion.  If you change your mind, and want to discuss actual points, like some others have done, please do. 

                  For starters, share with us one of my irrational beliefs, and why you think anything I have said is irrational.  Or am I the one that is too lazy, as you state?  The irony is strong, for those that care to see it.  (Throughout)

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    lol That's rich. You come here with absolutely no understanding of evolution with the agenda of pushing creationism and then accuse others of not debating intellectually. Classic!



                    Intelligent Design. lol

            2. PhoenixV profile image79
              PhoenixVposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Oh? You dont seem to know anything about mutations and genetic drift or any aspects of evolution. You dont really know anything about evolution do you? You know how to use Ad hominems and strawmen arguments of ID= creationism and then another ad hominem. Is that all?

              1. janesix profile image59
                janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Obviously you are mistaken. He can use smileys as well.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  There really isn't any reason to get upset over believers who come to public forums with their ridiculous beliefs in an attempt to diminish or deride scientific theories and fact, especially when they haven't got a clue what they're talking about, it's just plain laughable.

                  1. PhoenixV profile image79
                    PhoenixVposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You havent offered any science or facts. You just keep claiming you know them when you obviously dont and then use an ad hom-like above. Anything else? You obviously dont know anything about evolution.

              2. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                lol

              3. PhoenixV profile image79
                PhoenixVposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                *crickets

    6. paradigmsearch profile image88
      paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      First time I saw this thread. I am not going to read through the 76 accumulated posts (so far). She is right! The concepts of intelligent design and evolution do not conflict!

    7. sparkster profile image92
      sparksterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I was reading a book recently about extraterrestrial intelligence and it is alleged that an advanced extraterrestrial being informed humans that the theory of natural selection, although it undoubtedly exists, does not explain all the anomalies on Earth.  For example, why would a deer need antlers in order to survive in it's environment?  It then claimed that such anomalies was due to intervention by advanced extraterrestrial intelligence.  It's certainly not proof but it definitely makes sense.

      1. kerryg profile image86
        kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Antlers are secondary sexual characteristics used to display strength and attract mates.

        Some species also have antlers offering additional benefits. They can be used for defense against predators. Reindeer and caribou use them to help dig through snow to find food, which is probably one reason both male and female members of those species have them. Moose seem to use them as natural hearing aids - their antlers are so large they act like parabolic reflectors!

    8. Chris Neal profile image83
      Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Jomine is right, evolution is specifically thought out to not have any design function to it, other than the "immediate need."

      I don't think I agree with Jomine about much, but I do agree with him about that. If Jomine is a him, if not, I apologize.

    9. phillippeengel profile image72
      phillippeengelposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There can be no valid answer to your question. Evolution could be masterminded by God, or it could be simply adaptation.

      1. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Your honesty is refreshing Sir, and I could almost agree that simple adaption would give rise to entities that have a staunch and unassailable position on what is valid and that same willpower would allow it to dominate a planet over some organic eating bacteria that multiplies exponentially.

      2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        http://s3.hubimg.com/u/6537822_f248.jpg

    10. frubblegum profile image60
      frubblegumposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There is no GOD! I wish there was but there is not. There is no evidence to support a god of any sort. In fact, there is more evidence to support the complete fabrication of god then there is of an existence of GOD. But good luck with delusional thinking it is bound to influence your behavior for the rest of your life especially guilt and shame plus it will keep you separated from other cultures and in complete denial of the truth.

    11. frubblegum profile image60
      frubblegumposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If you have not guessed I am agnostic when I am down and an atheist when I am getting laid.

      1. frubblegum profile image60
        frubblegumposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Unless she is a Christian then I am a pious Christian up until ejaculation.

    12. lorlie6 profile image84
      lorlie6posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Janesix-I know we've had our problems in the past, but the past is just that-so here, I am in complete agreement with you.  Intelligent design is not anti-evolution, it may, in fact, be in God's design.
      Great observation.

    13. 61
      atheistchickposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Why should an invisible man up in the sky get all the credit? No one can prove his existence but yet HE gets all the credit?  That's an insult to mother Nature.  You can't be amazed by the process of erosion that took place on a rock..but you can thank God for created such beauty? Really?

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Invisible man? Did i ever mention an invisible man? I dont remember doing that.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well you did say God, and god, if he even exist is certainly invisible so...

          1. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Mmm, not really. You just see Him differently...

      2. Chris Neal profile image83
        Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Pretty well sums it up, except for the "can't prove He exists." Not everyone accepts the proof, but He's proved Himself to many people.

  2. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 4 years ago

    I suggest that not only do some forms of life follow the same phi pattern, but ALL life does. If this is the case, then mutations have to follow in the same pattern. Which means evolution is ultimately predictable. No mistakes allowed.

    1. lorlie6 profile image84
      lorlie6posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly, janesix.

    2. couturepopcafe profile image62
      couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      janesix - You make a valid point regarding mutations however the word mutation itself would suggest a deviation from the pattern. It can't be both ways. Either it's a mutation or it follows the pattern. It stands to reason that mutations would struggle to survive and I'm curious, now, to see research into this area. Do genetic mutations, in fact, differ in pattern or lack thereof?

      The individual may appear to be a mutation but may actually still follow the golden mean.

      http://s3.hubimg.com/u/6511542_f248.jpg

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, i could probably use a different term like change instead of mutation. But then im not sure if people would know what im trying to get at

        1. couturepopcafe profile image62
          couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          They'll still be a debate no matter what anyone says! lol

      2. cascoly profile image60
        cascolyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        no one said there was no patterns found in life -- but there is no designer - now if you want to interoppre the word 'design' to mean a pattern, like we see in ice crystals, then you've moved away from the definition used in 'intelligent design'

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Cascoly, you said, "but there is no designer..."  What makes you say that?  Or, how do you know that?

    3. frubblegum profile image60
      frubblegumposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I am the next species to follow homosapiens. I have decided to interbreed with white homosapiens in an effort to speed up the evolutionary process. If anyone is looking to assist me in my endeavor - I am available.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You sir are a racist. I would kindly ask you to keep those comments to yourself.

  3. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    I think trying to discuss evolution with someone who hasn't familiarized themself with the three basic parts of its suggested mechanism is pretty pointless.

    1. Druid Dude profile image61
      Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The fractal nature of the universe says that there is a design...more than one actually...I wonder who cut the master template?

    2. 0
      Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      evolution as an argument for the existence of things we now see is pointless.

      1. mischeviousme profile image60
        mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I'd hardly see teaching a dog to aid in hunting, as a pointless venture. Without the propensity to learn, evolution would be useless. Without any logic or rationality, religion is useless. It would appear that many theists are not self critical, why else would they see their belief as trumping reality?

        1. 0
          Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          A thing can never exist by itself. teaching a created thing to act accordingly is not an evolution process.

          1. mischeviousme profile image60
            mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The process responsible for thought is... Do you honestly think we were always this smart? Where did all the cell phones and tv's go in the bible? If evolution didn't occur, we'd still be using sticks to eat terimites.

            1. 0
              Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              who made cell phones anyway? isn't man? who created man? God. Man is endowed by God with knowledge to make things not create things. can you your ancestors? if you're smart

              1. 0
                Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I mean can you trace back your ancestors?

                1. mischeviousme profile image60
                  mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  All the way back to gothic Germany, Austria, Norway, England, Scottland and Ireland. I come from a long line of Europeans, funny I have an eastern mindset...

                  1. 0
                    Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    so you don't trace back your ancestry from nothing to fish to apes and so on.good for you. thanks for your time mischevuiosme. nice to meet you.

                2. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, millions of years.

              2. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                lol If who is smart? lol

      2. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        In other words, according to you, facts are pointless. lol

  4. TheMagician profile image89
    TheMagicianposted 4 years ago

    a bit off topic, but did anyone ever hear of the Creationism masked as Intelligent Design plot to get Creationism taught in school alongside Evolution in Dover, PA earlier in the 2000s? I just finished watching a great PBS video on it today, very cool. Brings up great points on why evolution is a highly regarded theory, too.

    http://video.pbs.org/video/980040807

    ^ in case anyone is bored and wants to watch something interesting smile

    1. 0
      Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      theory? yes a pointless theory.

      1. TheMagician profile image89
        TheMagicianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        A pointless theory? Did you complete basic middle and high school biology courses? It's certainly not pointless. I'm sorry you feel that way, it's a shame. Perhaps if you'd given more thought to the topic and learned a bit more you'd think differently. Oh well.

        1. 0
          Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          TheMagician- I guess there is no point of arguing with you either but I would like to point you to the offer of salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ which ultimately the issue of evolution denies. God loves you, He wants to save you from the damnation in hell as a result of man's sin. The offer is free and simple. John 3: 16-18 if you will.

          1. TheMagician profile image89
            TheMagicianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks, but I don't need your hand outs. I have my faith as a Christian, but I know the difference between logic/knowledge and faith.

            For example, the fact that there's no solid evidence that the bible was written as the word of God. For all you and everyone else knows, someone or a group of people could have decided to write it just for kicks or to make their own following. This makes sense because (1) too many things in the Bible are contradictory to both itself and facts in the world, and (2) it doesn't address dinosaurs or early human beings, as in the real ones that we've found fossils of.

            As an added note, anyone who wanted to create their own religion would of course add in a scare tactic, the "believe in me or you're burn for eternity" if you will.

            The issue of evolution also does not defy God or Jesus Christ in any way. It just defies the lack of logic the bible poses. God could have very well created the universe and the first source of life, which could also just as well have been some archaic type of bacteria. You can't know, and you'll never know. So there's really no point in arguing about it.

    2. twosheds1 profile image60
      twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for the link!

  5. 0
    Rad Manposted 4 years ago

    There really is a rather simple solution to this argument. Does evolution follow a path? Simply, NO. If it did we wouldn't have had dinosaurs for million and millions of years. There is no reason for them to have been here. They just were and now we are here. Why would a designer have made parasites? To keep our population down? Kind of a cruel way one would think. Ever heard of the Filarial Worm. No designer in his right mind would design that and unleash it upon humans.

    1. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There is nothing random in nature. Everything follows mathematical laws, which is of course a pattern. The laws of the universe were set at the moment of creation.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Nature is completely random. Someone walks too close to a lion and gets eaten. Random.

        1. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Nature can hardly be exempt from the physical laws that formed it. There is an appearance of randomness only because we have an incomplete understanding of them.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So you claim to know how nature works even though we don't understanding it and I'm wrong.

            1. janesix profile image59
              janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No, it is just what i believe.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Exactly. smile

                1. janesix profile image59
                  janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So you KNOW how the universe works, atm?

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    How dishonest of you to come to that conclusion. That's what beliefs cause one to do, create false conclusions.

                2. 0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Interesting how they can make a claim and then when show them how silly they sound they say it's not a claim it's a belief.

                  1. janesix profile image59
                    janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I dont think its silly to suggest that evolution follows a mathematical pattern like many other things in the universe. Just because something hasnt been proven doesnt mean it wont be sometime in the future. I have said more than once that these are my beliefs. I could care less that you have miopic views of the world and cant think for yourself.

        2. twosheds1 profile image60
          twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          There really is no such thing as "random." What we perceive as random is actually just something that happens where we can't readily identify all the the causes. Take a die roll. It seems pretty random, but there are many components that influence the fall of the die. The position on release, height of release, surface on which it is rolled, temperature of the die and surface, etc. It's just that we usually don't control all those parameters that it seems random.

          Of course, since we don't control those, it might as well be random. Makes it easier.

    2. Chris Neal profile image83
      Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You're right, evolution has no design to it. That's the point. But if you can look at the history of the world and actually see the design, then whether or not  you believe in God, it puts doubt about evolution in your head.

      I'm a Creationist, so I say with conviction that the reason we Creationists like ID is because it fits well with what we already think. But I disagree with many of the ID scientists because no matter WHAT anybody says, most of them are not religious and are certainly not pushing a Christian agenda. IMHO they don't go far enough.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No Chris, It puts doubt in YOUR head, not mine.  If you had never read the old myth book you could look at evolution with an open mind.  As it is,  I'd wager you are comparing evolution to the first theory of our beginnings you were ever taught.  Or am I incorrect in my assumption?



        ID scientists?  How does one get a degree in ID?  Attend a religious college or what?  yikes  And where does one find the information concerning which religious affiliation these "ID scientists" adhere to or don't?  smile

                                                 http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

        1. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Randy, at least in regards to me, you have so far been pretty wrong in almost all your assumptions.

          However, let me be sure I get you right. Evolution is supposed to be random, right? That's what I was taught. I'm not up on all the lates evolutionary theory, so if I'm wrong I will happily admit it, but that's what I was taught. I'm a Creationist, I already doubt evolution, so you're comment about, "No, it puts doubt in YOUR head," was a bit, ah, unnecessary. And all the ID "proponents" (since you don't want to allow the word scientist, even though most of them are accredited scientists and were at least well respected before they started espousing ID,) I've heard, I've parsed what they say and I haven't heard one of them say, "It was God."
          I'm familiar with the Supreme Court decision (vaguely) that Eugenie Scott loves to "quote." The only thing I'm going to say about it now is, Dred Scott should prove  to everyone that it's always a good idea to let lawyers decide what is science and what is not!

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No - he has been bang on in his assessments. You are dishonest and make things up as needed to defend your irrational beliefs.

            There are no ID "scientists," any more than there is a ton of evidence that Jesus existed.

            We evolved. Evolution is not driven by an Invisible Super Being. Sorry.

            1. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              lol

              You're a genius, Mark! Don't ever change!

      2. 0
        Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Knowledge should not be about christian agenda. If knowledge is found not to fit into the christian agenda it should still be knowledge and not changed to fit your agenda. Trying to change the theory of evolution to fit your agenda is doing just that. At least the Catholics understand this.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          This is how the old myth book causes those who would normally look at the world with inquisitive eyes instead try to make it all fit their preconceived notions.

          Anyone who cannot see this is true is doomed to remain ignorant of the beauty of life itself.  Nature is so much more wonderful than any god could make it.  Much less destroy it for silly reasons because of a lack of self esteem.  God contradicts his own words many times in the old novel.  Acting in a "godly" manner is against the law these days.

                                                         http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Amen Brother.

        2. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          But what if the knowledge doesn't fit the evolutionists agenda either? What if it happens to fit into Christian knowledge independent of any agenda?

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Scientists and biologists are trying to disprove evolution. That's how science works. They are right now trying to test Einstein's theory of relativity by testing the speed of neutrinos. Science doesn't care about religion. Their agenda is to find the truth.
            To your question "But what if the knowledge doesn't fit the evolutionists agenda either?" - Then they get a new theory.
            To your question "What if it happens to fit into Christian knowledge independent of any agenda?" Then it happens, but that has not happened yet. There was a time when science was controlled by Christianity because they only wanted knowledge that fits their agenda. It didn't work. Why are you still trying to control knowledge?

            1. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Seriously, that's news to me. To read what other evolutionists in these forums are saying, real scientists spend their time finding new "proof" for evolution, and anybody who either accidentally or on purpose comes up with a theory that MIGHT, MAYBE disprove or disagree with evolution is NOT a real scientist. One guy literally said as much, that ID scientists are not "real scientists."

              As I said to someone different, as a Creationist, I don't think ID scientists go far enough. I've listened to several of them and none of the ones I've listened to are particularly religious, let alone Christian.



              That's almost but not quite accurate. The fact is that the early scientists were Christian because they wanted to explore the universe that God had made. (I assume that muslim scientists wanted the same thing.) And although most people will point to Galileo, the facts are not quite as advertised. The church was certainly resistant to Galileo, but it wasn't an out of hand rejection. If Galileo had been patient, his paper would probably have been published, just not as early as he wanted.  Yes, there were those in the church who wanted to suppress it for various reasons. And I'm certainly not pro-catholic, but it's not exactly as if the church has been against the truth for the entirety of it's existence.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Where did you find the info about early scientists being Christians, Chris?  It wasn't exactly "kosher"--to use a Hebrew word--to let it be known one was an atheist back then because of being labeled a heretic by the church.  Or perhaps you were simply not aware of this "fact"? 

                                                            http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I've heard that one before. I stand by what I wrote. Even Galileo was a professing believer. The assertion that some, many or most of the early scientists were secret unbelievers who couldn't afford to come out is based entirely on the assumption that any halfway educated person would axiomatically become a nonbeliever. If anyone has the evidence (I mean that Galileo and Copernicus and Newton and others) were secretly unbelievers, I'll look. Many educated people are believers. They're just not usually as loud as Dawkins.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                    Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Are you serious, Chris?  What idiot would freely admit to being an atheist during that time period?  It would asking for trouble in the worst way.  C'mon, you're smarter than that I think!  yikes

                                                                  http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You must be forgetting the inquisitions. I do like your comment "but it's not exactly as if the church has been against the truth for the entirety of it's existence." Not exactly, the catholic church understands that evolution is real. But for the last 1500 years they have resisted science. Now it seem the fundamental christians are left.
                Galileo was out of hand rejected and so was Darwin. When you tell someone that is you don't repent you will kill them that does seem to reveal a rejection. Both these men were correct.

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No, I haven't forgotten the Inquisition, or the Crusades, or any other thing. I have never shrunk from history, and I have always admitted that terrible things were done by people claiming Jesus' name. They will answer for that on  Judgement Day.

                  Darwin was rejected out of hand, I'll give you that one. But on the other hand, it's not like Darwin (and more to the point, Huxley) didn't relish the fight. Darwin's own religious views were a bit more complicated than most people want to believe, but Huxley's weren't.

                  As my source on Galileo, I cite a piece I heard on National Public Radio (that noted bastion of pro-religiosity) several years ago. A man who wrote a book on Galileo (who was not a Christian) talked about how if he had shown a little patience the church would probably have sanctioned his paper. As it is, he died in his bed, not on the fire.

              3. cascoly profile image60
                cascolyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                galileo DIED without the church accepting his theories - in fact, it was only in the 20th century that the pope admitted galileo was right - meanwhile the cathlic church murdered scientists who showed the truth

                but as to ID scientists, the point is there just isnt any ID science to report - there are some scientists who support tID, but they have NO research to back them up - instead they just make fallacious arguments about evolution

                finally, many experiments in biology are attempts to disprove evolution - that's the whole point of the null hypothesis and the scientific method.  but unfortunately for creationists, they just kleep finding more evidence FOR evolution.

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I SAID I'm not pro-catholic. I'm not catholic at all. And I've never shrunk from history. Nevertheless, Christianity is not automatically anti-science. The early scientists (including Galileo) were exploring the universe God made and how it works!



                  Be that as it may, and I stress "may," it's also not religious, the marvelously neutral Eugenie Scott notwithstanding. I am religious, and ID is a scientific hypothesis, not religion.



                  You're the second person to tell me that in a week. You're also the second person to tell me that ever. I have been busy with other things, so I may not be the most informed person on the planet, but I find it interesting that I don't find out about these things for forty-five years. Not from pro-evolution, not from anti-evolution. But I believe you.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Let me be the third, that's what science does. Science has an idea and tries to disprove that idea. Just like trying to prove Einstein was wrong by testing the speed of neutrino's.

    3. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly. And what about extra drippy ice cream? No intelligent designer would ever create ice cream that drips down the cone and gets all over our fingers.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Nor bible thumpers who drip down into everyone's business either.  smile

                                               http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

        1. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You would have an actual argument if you weren't in a religion and philosophy forum, correct?

          1. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            An "actual argument" depends on one's perspective and whether one considers it so.  An argument does not have to be based on facts, as those of religious folks plainly exhibit. smile

                                                      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

            1. PhoenixV profile image79
              PhoenixVposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Do you go to the cooking forums and complain about people posting recipes? Yet you implied something about Bible thumping although this is a religion forum and I have posted absolutely no chapter, verse or scripture of any kind whatsoever? I will take your whining as an apology and I accept it. Future whining will be considered further apologies and I accept those too in advance because I dont think you can help yourself. If you dont want to be bothered by religious discussion dont come to a religion forum would be my advice.

              The topic is intelligent design and if life, evolution etc have intelligence behind it or not. Do you have an opinion that you arent afraid to share on the topic? Trolling is an automatic loss.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                This is not only a religious forum and it isn't limited to such.  And please point out to me where I said you were a thumper if you like.  You mentioned ice cream in your post.  As you said. this isn't the cooking or recipe forums.lol




                Take what you please as whatever.  Who cares?  I've no concern what you take or don't.  And you know where you may store your advice.  lol



                I suppose I missed the post where everyone elected you forum hall monitor.  Or is this a self appointment?  What I share need be no concern of yours, Mr/Ms. anonymous account holder.  Afraid to use your name, yet you refer to me as a troll.  There's a name for such folk, it's right on the tip of my forked tongue. tongue

                                                               http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

                1. PhoenixV profile image79
                  PhoenixVposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Once again you had the opportunity to discuss the OP and chose to whine instead.

                  Are you afraid to discuss the original post?


                  Is putting people down that are actually discussing the topic the best that you can do?

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                    Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I merely responded to your post admonishing me for what you took to be my accusing you as a thumper.  Honestly, did you really think you were going to get away with that?  But carry on with your earth shattering revelations.  I'm sure everyone is waiting with bated breath for your words of wisdom.  roll


                                                             http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

    4. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I would suggest reading Leibniz; particularly "best of all possible worlds". Why would would a designer create bacteria? At first thought it seems like a pretty negative thing. But who would want to be neck deep in road kill that we have to wait for it to erode by wind and water and lots of time? Bacteria takes care of that.

      Life really really wants to thrive. It wants to duplicate itself, yet our environment is sort of harsh and life has difficulty sustaining itself individually againts the sun, rain and time. One could say: good grief the sun is a fusion bomb irradiating everything, yet it does make the flowers grow.


      When some life gets out of control we will often see the checks and balances kicking in. Too many insects and it makes for a great condition for frog populations to explode. Too many frogs and we get other predators. Microscopically if we get too many populations exploding we get disease.

      Now, I think it's not a good argument to say- we see stuff that looks bad, now why would God do that? Then if we see that without that same stuff it would be much worse. But can either be attributed to an intelligent designer?


      We have an amazing amount of balance in these systems. We have the material to begin with, we have systems, we have balance. These things should be considered for ID in my opinion rather that the already existing systems. For an analogy I would compare it too looking for mechanics inside of auto radiators. Common sense says we will not find a mechanic inside of a radiator right? We could say- OMG there is super hot under pressure water inside, how will that ever work to cool an engine? Who ever thought that idea up! Then we understand the mechanics of it all and how it actually works, yet there will still be no human mechanic inside of a radiator.

      I apologize if my "extra drippy icecream' answer was inconsiderate although it made the point in a much quicker and easier way.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't think you looked up the Filarial Worm. It's a nasty creature that no one would plan if they had compassion. There is no way to convince me that God planed the Filarial Worm for if he did I'd take a second look at the one you worship. Do a simple google search for 10 worst human parasites the come back to me an tell how wonderful everything is designed and God layer all this out for us.

        1. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So if there is anything in the world that seems bad to you then it lacks compassion so there can not be any intelligence behind it? But all that is good in the world "has compassion" and that is indicative of intelligence?

          Or is it some kind of maltheism, because you perceive bad things, but ignore good things- so unless God only makes a sterile world of indestructible robots, he has to be "bad".

          Is your idea of compassion good? What makes your compassion possible?

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            What I am saying is, if there is an intelligent designer he would not have introduced such a horrifying creature as the Filarial Worm. Address this so we can move on. I'll take the good with the bad, but you must do the same.

            1. PhoenixV profile image79
              PhoenixVposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              If there is an intelligent designer he would have never introduced man. He causes wars, he murders, rapes, robs- you name it. But I'll take the good with the bad.

              Now, What makes your compassion possible? Is compassion a noble quality?

              What makes compassion possible? In a sterile, indestructible robot world, there would be no need for compassion, would there?

              Do you think that a world without the need for compassion, a sterile, indestructible robot world sound like a good place?

              You dont like Filarial Worms. After they are gone what would be next? Something else I bet and we would be back to - God must be a bad guy or a bad designer because of -this, then -that, then something else, right?

              Teenagers (or any age really) fall in love, yet sometimes it is unrequited so they will commit suicide or get into drugs. What kind of God would create beings that love or love itself?

              Studying and eradicating Filarial Worms may help in solving other parasite problems. That may save lives- If that is the case then your logic was not compassionate or sound.

              Life thrives because their is conflict and because there is competition. Noble qualities like compassion can only exist if their ARE problems.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                All this talk about how perfect the world is and God must have planed it, and I show you that it's not perfect so you say well it's not perfect for a reason. BS

                1. PhoenixV profile image79
                  PhoenixVposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So that we could possibly come to a closer understanding of what we each regard as perfect- which of these many cherry blossoms are perfect and which are not?

                  http://i1048.photobucket.com/albums/s370/Tropical_Kwatsu/thumbnailCAWS32UI.jpg

  6. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 4 years ago

    C.elegans is a much more interesting worm when it comes to evolution.

  7. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 4 years ago

    G. StearothErmophilis is another example of predictability on wvolution.

  8. fredey123 profile image60
    fredey123posted 4 years ago

    you are design

 
working