Your views about Intelligent Design ?

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 60 discussions (312 posts)

75
skyfireposted 15 years ago
I found ken millers talk on ID a worth to watch. You can watch the video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

what are your views on intelligent design ?
reply report
1. 54
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Creationism with a new label.
  reply report
2. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
  0
  Will Apseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What are your views on accepting reality?
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  ID reality ?
  reply report
3. 61
  Davidsonofjesieposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The heavens declare the glory of GOD;and the fermament shows His handiwork.The LORD says,Who created the heavens,who is GOD,who formed the earth and made it,who has established it,who did not create it in vain,who formed it to be inhabited;I am the LORD,there is no other.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Vacuous word salad devoid of content.
  reply report
  61
  AllanWritesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Words that come from and appeal to true authority
  reply report
  62
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Is this a phrase from the Designer's guide book ?
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  yeah, i hate it when they do that. it's like they think its some kind of crusade or something. People you shall not go to hell if you let a couple of bored people vent their intellectualism on useless chatter about intelligent design.
  reply report
4. 0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well, with Natural Selection you have to start with something. Even Darwin admitted it carried flaws.
  
  Intelligent design certainly outweighs N.S.
  
  The study of evolution goes back to the 6th century.Though there is natural evolution in plants and everything else. it is through mutation of genes and species creating new species. As far as man evolving from apes the thoughts go back and forth on this. Was it the Baboon, no the Gorilla, no the Chimpanzee. Turns out it is the Chimpanzee who wins for Scientists say they are most LIKE humans..
  There are a few problems here. The blood types which never change is quite different. Most humans have blood type O. 1 in every 3 people. Chimpanzees have blood type A but never B and only very rarely have type O and Gorillas have blood type B but never A and never O. This seems a little ODD.. If they are A and B why are most humans in every race O? Why not A or B?
  If Chimpanzees evolved to humans why are there Chimpanzees? Why didn't they change?
  
  And where did the Apes come from... Maybe they evolved from FISH..yes that's it FISH.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Pure garbage. The next time you get information injected directly into your head instead of learning things, I suggest checking the source.
  
  But thanks for the laughs.Deary me....
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What are you arguing about now? Darwin based evolution on natural selection..so what is garbage? that I believe in Intelligent design? That's my choice.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  well in that case, the way you take it is like replace NS with "God did it". So let's apply this to god as well "who did it to him" ?
  reply report
  61
  defenestratethisposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What I dont understand is this: Why do so many have to be rude and often obnoxious? I'm new here, and Im impressed with the writing and intellect of a lot of you..whatever your stance is on this subject. But when you resort to petty insults or snide remarks....well, its like that old saying : "When you throw dirt, you lose your ground." Sorry..just had to get that off my chest. You may now sling mud at my cretin-like attitude.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  intelligent design is assumption that there is creator which has no creation point, how come ? care to explain.
  reply report
  61
  Hokeyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There's no particular reason why the inherently more simple chemical reactions necessary to form self-perpetuating chemical copy reactions could not also have occurred without ID.
  
  We know the chemicals were all there, we know that conditions on the Earth were more favorable to chemical reactions, and we know that complex sugars are formed in the extrasolar clouds where comets come from.
  
  Once it gets to this point - after science or logic has repeatedly beaten down every one of ID's other assertions - why should we assume that ID is correct in this area, just because we have less evidence? Especially since we know the exact reason for that dearth of evidence.
  reply report
  69
  wyanjenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If you know that god didn't tell noah to make a giant boat, what reason do you have to support ID? It is nothing more than another man-made concept based on imagination and no evidence to speak of.
  Why accept a modern fairy tale? It's no different than the ancient fairy tales.
  
  Bible 2.0
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Noah's arc story reminds me of biggest flaw that people believe in that story. how a man like noah can possibly search and save the available animals on this planet ? i mean we have few varieties of some lizards or snake(imagine anaconda captured by noah[?]) which are not found elsewhere in planet, so that way how many species he saved ? or how many god sent for noah's timepass later on ?
  reply report
  62
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  the arc is an archetype
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  well i just noticed one more thing about that story,if species later on (evolved or redesigned) as per ID then this shows limitation of designer that he's creating imperfect creations,out of their free will.
  
  people who believe in this ID reasoning are on similar line as that of RAELians.
  reply report
  61
  Hokeyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The first version of Noahs ark. The bible ripped it off.
  
  http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mes … /tab11.htm
  reply report
  62
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  All the stories of the bible come from earlier pagan or Religious stories. Like Sumerian, Persian, Indian, Egyptcian, etc.
  reply report
  61
  Hokeyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  YUP!!!!
  reply report
  61
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Except the arc in the Gilgamesh epic wouldn't have been seaworthy.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  agree, these guys have watched star trek but have not heard of campbell.
  reply report
  59
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Par for the course. Modus Operandi. Standard operating procedure.
  reply report
  76
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Actually all you are doing is proving that the Flood happened, and that men have attempted to make sense of it ever since.
  
  Anyhow, this does not pre-date the flood, it may pre-date when the flood was described by the writers of the bible, but it in no way proves anything that affects what God gave us in scripture.
  
  Has it ever occurred to you that Satan also has the capacity to 'inspire' people to write things that may help his quest to misleads the weak will away from God?
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You assume lot of things about God. Yet you didn't answered my question if you have met him you might know the answer don't you ?
  reply report
  76
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  My views about intelligent design, that question?
  
  Yes, I believe that God created the whole kit and kaboodle, and He's intelligence itself, so yes, that would be intelligent design.
  
  Those are my views, all the rest of your collective rhetoric is just bleating as you try to shake faith in a God you refuse to accept exists, but are all too afraid to give total authority over your lives for even ONE day in your lfe.
  
  Just WHY are you all so very afraid of Christ and God?
  
  Never mind, it really does not matter to me what you all want to believe.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ah you missed my question that who created god if you assume there is creation for everything ?
  
  You want others to live in your assumption why is that ? if you want it that way,take some pain and prove that god exist.
  
  Another assumption, why i'll afraid of something that doesn't exist. it's like asking someone to hate something that doesn't exist.
  
  I doubt that. If that was the case why theists wrote about faith protection plan in wanna-be holy books in first place ? why they wrote master plans of hell exit in holy books as if hell is real.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I am not afraid. I am pretty certain god does not exist and 100% certain yours does not. If - on the extreme off chance there is one - I am also pretty certain that living my life as I see fit will not go against me, nor will my personality get to live forever.
  
  Jesus? Best I can ascertain - and I have looked - he is an amalgam of at least three people and never said any of the things you put in his mouth. In fact - the amalgam was very much against religion and the idea of a god.
  
  The christian religion is an abomination that teaches separateness from our physical existence. This is not the way to anything but conflict.
  
  Acceptance is the way. Acceptance of our place in the world as a whole, not separate - and our animal beginnings. Everything I have learned that I take to be true was learned not by flogging my physical self and calling it sin, but by exploring the connection we all have to the world and accepting my place in it. I am as important as a grain of sand on the beach.
  reply report
  59
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  True humility.
  report
  76
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well that's an honest answer Mark, thank you.
  
  I hope you are correct, really I do, for if you are correct then the god you describe will accept me as easily as it accepts you, acceptance based purely on our actions.
  
  That would be pleasant.
  
  Care to provide any of your evidence about the three amalgams that make up 'our' Christ? (source notes or where to look for the facts?)
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  John - if there is a god - which I find extremely unlikely - I do not think it would reject anyone - regardless. Would you reject any of your children based on their actions? Plus - I don't think it would work like that. Any more than the ocean can reject a water molecule.
  
  Still - the other question is a little harder to answer because I am working on very little. As I am sure you are aware, the christian church made a solid attempt to wipe out any scrap of evidence that goes against their dogma.
  
  I was approached recently and am working on writing what I have been asked to write about one of the other religions - The Cathars. I will be publishing some of it here. It is not some Dan Brown mystery, but filled in some interesting gaps for me when I was approached after a public debate here. Well - I call it public - there were just 12 of us and I was the atheist viewpoint and my French is not as good as I would like when it comes to expressing un-quantifiables. The French love to debate and I was lucky to be allowed to speak. They hold a debate every 5th year in the town I live in and they are no longer very popular. Which I suspect is why I was allowed to speak.
  
  Either way - I was invited to meet some one a short time after who claimed to be a Cathar Bishop. I am still doing my homework in between work and "real life."
  
  Sorry if I am a bit vague, but I have not put it all together yet. Far as I know I cannot point you to any online resources, but I would hazard a guess that your local Catholic church has some information.
  report
  76
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The Cathars fascinate me, I became interested after visiting Carcassonne, (several times over the years)and reading about their destruction by an angry and frightened church, they seemed to be a pure strain from the original belief and I am delighted to think that some still survive.
  
  Genuinely do keep me informed of your progress, I am open to new revelation, but I stay with the position I know until something is proven to be more accurate than what I previously understood.
  
  Thanks,
  
  John
  report
  59
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It's the damage to society caused by the followers that I'm afraid of.
  reply report
  0
  wordscribe41posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That's occured to me as often as The Big Striped Invisible Elephant with a similar "inspirational" capacity. Both equally as likely.
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Could you produce this Satan, as well? BTW, you have yet to produce the God creature you talked about.
  reply report
  76
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  59
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No it never occurred to me. But I am aware of the fact that it has actually occurred to believers that saying 'satan did that' makes for a plausible argument. But in reality it only makes about as much sense as saying 'god did it'.
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  woooooo....now everyone is scared to learn more about the topic.
  reply report
  69
  wyanjenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, well..
  hmmm... I guess it's not possible after all...
  
  wait a minute. I'm thinking.
  ok, I've got my answer:
  
  Of course Noah's ark is not a true story. It's a metaphor, silly! Praise god anyway!
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This is a metaphor to teach but of course you wouldn't know that!
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  lol, of course i don't know that. thankfully i'm not in school/university where religious theories are preached.
  reply report
  69
  wyanjenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I said it first anyway
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No comments????????????
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Lol, typical ID questions.
  
  first evolution doesn't carry all species as it evolves, just cause one of the species evolved and it's earlier branch remained doesn't mean it failed and convert them like your god theory claims. if we are not using appendix then why appendix is still there ? get the point ? or need better explanation: http://evolution.berkeley.edu
  reply report
  69
  wyanjenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Humans did not evolve from chimps. If you studied evolution at all, you would know that.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  well her problem is with the branch, she thinks that if chimps evolved and some of them remained in branch then evolution fails according to her
  reply report
  69
  wyanjenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  okey dokey.
  Well, chimps themselves have evolved, but not into anything else.
  And life originated in the ocean, then I guess we all came from fish
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Chimps haven't evolved in millions of years. Prove we came from the ocean. And even if we did where did the spark of life begin?
  Give facts.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  chimps/humans share common ancestor,so if they are not evolved then what is your point here ?
  
  So tell me did life we see today originated from anything other than single cell ? if you agree that evolution is everywhere as you said in your posts here, you deny that we're from single cell ? which different evolution theory you studied ? "god did it -evolution" ? that one ?
  
  have some read for observed evolution: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No one said evolution fails. Why don't you read where I stated this instead of assuming something. I took biology science, evolution is in everything, even plants.
  I didn't come from an ape, but maybe you did.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  and someone was talking about name calling and all. fair enough.
  
  coming back to point, what was the intention of your statement when you posted "If Chimpanzees evolved to humans why are there Chimpanzees? Why didn't they change? ". oppose evolution ? err No ?
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No because evolution is true. It still does not mean we came from apes. Where and when did the divergence take place?
  I wasn't calling names.,. I said maybe you did. If that's what you think why would you be offended?
  Posting links is not an answer.
  What is YOUR argument about blood types? not words of someone else. Otherwise I will have to accuse you of being led blindly the way you say we are.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  it is your assumption about branching that all the species in branch should evolve is it hard rule in evolution ? who set standard by the way ? another point you missed in variation that took place among species.
  
  i have already posted my view about blood types not someone else's. you can accuse me if you want to. and blindly led ? sure, atleast i'm ready to falsify and revise what i know so bring it on the flaw.
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Please point me to your bloodtype argument.
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I know they didn't however it is what science says most likely happened. They have 97% same DNA and 98% same genes as humans. I have studied evolution. And explain the blood types, don't omit facts. Chimps are more like humans than they are like Gorillas according to science. But back to the blood types. Explain..
  
  My undergraduate is in Biology Science. Evolutionary Biology. Genes mutate and cause disease so I had to study it in order to get my MSN.
  reply report
  61
  Hokeyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Wikipedia huh?
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  NO if it was I would have said so. I thought atheist believe we came from monkeys? What do you guys believe.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Biology Science?
  
  Deary me.
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And? Instead of being snide what's your remark?
  Biology Science. evolutionary biology...The study of the mutation of genes
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The flaw in your question is that we didn't evolve from Chimpanzees. We both evolved from similar ape-like creatures millions of years ago.
  
  Perhaps, that's where we get the term, "Fishwife"
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I know we did not evolve from Chimps however most scientist believe this. and who were the chimp like creatures and where did they come from. Instead of arguing explain.
  reply report
  69
  wyanjenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Most scientist believe humans evolved from chimps?
  Really? wow.
  
  Basically you're saying here that you know more than most scientists. But since your claim about what scientists believe is completely wrong, I'm gonna go ahead and assume that you don't know what you're talking about.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  So there!
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Funny that you would ask the bolded question if you already knew the answer?
  
  No, scientists don't believe that, either.
  
  Chimp like? Who said they were "chimp like"?
  
  I wasn't arguing, I was simply pointing out the flaw in your question. But, it's okay now because you already knew the answer before you asked the question, even though you asked the question anyways.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I've never said humans are from chimps. I was created!!!
  
  ?
  ?
  ?
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  deb,
  
  Humans didn't evolve from apes, chimpanzees etc etc. this is a misconception about evolution.
  
  We just share a common ancestor. That's why the species are different, and that's why we're so similar.
  reply report
  61
  Paul Wingertposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Intellegent design and creationism is a mentally lazy way of answering a difficult question by simply saying "God created it".
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It is just a lazy way for those who 'follow' - it is more sinister and cynical for those promoting it. The irritating thing for me is the low level movies that all aim toward this media generated idea with no philosophical credibilty; go check out the utter drivel of the several 2012 apocalypse movies that end with second rate actors reposing in medieaval postures bathed in the supposed light of their god.
  reply report
5. 61
  tobey100posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes!
  reply report
6. 61
  Spaghetti Monsterposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I designed my Beer Volcano and Stripper Factory very intelligently.
  
  But somehow I don't think you wanted to know about that.
  
  RAmen.
  reply report
  61
  Hokeyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thank You FSM!!!!!! hu kfgi kdpdk s kwiw!!!!!
  reply report
62
archturnposted 15 years ago
<a href="http://hubpages.com/hub/Evolution_NOT">On intelligent design</a>
reply report
1. 62
  archturnposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  hubpages.com/hub/Evolution_NOT
  reply report
2. 75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Most of the point in your hub are already covered by talkorigins.org, i wonder how come you put it bluntly without even googling ?
  reply report
61
kephriraposted 15 years ago
If god made me, is my appendix some kind of practical joke? It does nothing except randomly kill people. That doesn't seem very intelligent to me.
reply report
72
getitriteposted 15 years ago
Intelligent Design is a DESPERATE attempt to keep the delusion going. Why is religion so desperate? And you still have not produced your god. Come on produce your god, not Intelligent Design. Where is the designer?
reply report
1. 75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Religious logic for you:
  
  - who created universe ?
  - who created planets, galaxies ?
  - who created garden ?
  - Who created pamela anderson ?
  - who created humans ?
  
  hence ID.
  
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I'm wondering, if the answer were in fact, "No one" would that really make a difference to the religious?
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  check the questions, keyword is "who". each question assumes that there exist creator and keeps burden on the person who wants to answer it to answer the question not in depth but by accepting that there is creator.
  
  religious people have lot of assumption and they shift the burden by asking questions this way. now if you want to disapprove them by giving in depth answer to these question about how universe was formed, they'll neglect it and will prefer short answer. sometimes 1 liner is what those religious minds seek, 3-4 paras of science explanation is too much. and for those who are into science, ID is another way to please their faith.
  reply report
62
tantrumposted 15 years ago
Which is the design that's not intelligent ?

Some are better than others, but all design implies intelligence.
That doesn't mean someone is behind the design.
Nobody designs a hurricane. Nobody designs a desert. Nature does.
reply report
1. 0
  Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  who designed nature? itself? hmmm.
  no matter how anyone tries to slice/dice it, it all had to come from someone/somethings extreme intellect.
  just look at a single strand of hair. hundreds, maybe thousands of little parts working together to form it and its purpose.
  
  food for thought...
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  and that extreme intellect comes from ?
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Sky!
  
  only One Source who has stood up to claim it: Y`shua.
  reply report
  73
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  ...and not being able to think, overwhelmed by anything complex, assign a fairy to it!
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  still waitin` for you to prove otherwise, feller.
  all you have so far is a bag of no-no-no's, but still don't know.
  reply report
  73
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Your god, you prove it exists. Try using these criteria wiz kid!
  
  1. consistent (internally and externally)
  2. parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
  3. useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena)
  4. empirically testable and falsifiable
  5. based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
  6. correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data)
  7. progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more)
  8. tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
  Then come on back with the truth and state it here instead of just asking people to prove the tooth fairy does not exist.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  what's that Eor, your guacamole recipe
  what a waste of good avocado.
  ps, those are the ingredients of your half-sister(religion) especially #5 & #6.
  reply report
  73
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you! I am more than pleased with your reply.
  You got nothin have you?
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  if that iss the synopsis of all your efforts, Eor, I 'feel' sad for you. cuz that load of crap came from some book you happened to read. same as your half-sister. keep trying fella, you'lll catch up some day.
  
  enjoy the guac. might wanna buy some chips to go with. i think the JW's have some.
  
  reply report
  71
  Cagsilposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You keep trying. You've done nothing to prove a GOD exists. So your words are useless and meaningless. You keep dodging the question to bring forth knowledge or proof of this GOD you keep talking about. Yet, you continue to deflect, just like all other religious people do.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Cagsil, I have so grown bored with your wishy-washy excuses and rhetoric. Never answering questions, but demanding answers.
  Besides, my belief has been around for 6,000+ years. When your 20 year theory gets close enough then I'll consider an honest dialogue. Enjoy Eor's guacamole.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And YOU are STILL here ARGUING that so-called NOTHING.
  How dumb are you?
  
  least Eor has guacamole, chips and fairy dust........
  reply report
  71
  Cagsilposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Arguing so-called "Nothing", boy are you not too bright. The argument isn't over nothing. It's over the simple fact that people are forming their beliefs incorrectly and refuse to understand that they are doing so.
  
  You're sad and pathetic attempt to mock people is your waste of time, but I'm not arguing over nothing. I don't give a damn that you THINK there is a higher power. I am defending the pathetic notion that people form sad beliefs without have true facts.
  
  So, why don't you go sit in a corner and suck on your thumb little boy.
  reply report
  73
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Unable to deal with or answer to reality you seem to have moved to the kitchen.
  You go on feeling sad for me, for my part I can't stop laughing!
  .... with you of course!
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Deal with what question/answer? what reality?
  I worked in kitchen half my life.
  
  Ha! perfect Eor -you are the epitome of intelligent design.
  guacamole, ding pick it up!
  reply report
  61
  Hokeyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You are really out of ideas huh?
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  i am way beyond ideas and really bored with the banter.
  you all crow so well, but offer nothing but hand-me-down hairballs of some scientific ideology you assume is correct and dispute our belief, though you have not one iota of proof to the dispute with. Same ole trick with a new spin. Still the NTK in action. I leave you with that thought zen-child.
  reply report
  73
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What is hilarious about this, is that the same hand-me-down hairball scientific methods are responsible for the development of every item you use in your kitchen!
  report
61
Hokeyposted 15 years ago
There are many debates about 'intelligent design', but they need to be separated into categories including underlying motive and political connection.
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well - there aren't actually any debates about intelligent design.
  
  There are a bunch of religionists throwing the idea out there and being laughed at.
  
  Until they can prove that the universe was not vomited by a Star Goat after a heavy night of drinking I am not even prepared to discuss it.
  reply report
  61
  Hokeyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Drunken Star Goat!!!!!! Thats GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can believe this one!!!!!!
  reply report
  62
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  and who designed the Goat ?
  reply report
  61
  Hokeyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  MEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!
  reply report
  69
  wyanjenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not one of the drunken star goat believers.
  
  I've splintered into a new faction. I think it just had the flu.
  reply report
  59
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Heretic..
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Your minuscule mind would never be able to comprehend so - just trust me and send me some money ASAP before the goat eats your children..........
  reply report
  62
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I love the part about my minuscule mind !
  
  How much it's going to cost me ?
  
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How much have you got?
  reply report
  62
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  4 bank accounts, a boat, 2 castles and a mink coat
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Send me everything except $25 and the mink coat. Using animals for coats goes against our beliefs and is a sin and $25 should be enough for a true believer to live on.
  
  Your children are safe now. Good choice.
  reply report
  62
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  thank you !
  I feel so pure and precious now!
  reply report
  61
  Hokeyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Me too!!! I love Star Goat Worship!!!
  reply report
  59
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Your mind, your soul, your spirit, your sanity, your freedom, and 10% -no, make that 20%- of all your future earnings.
  
  In return you get this warm, fuzzy, comforting, plush goat.
  reply report
69
wyanjenposted 15 years ago
ID is the last gasp of religion's battle for validity.
At least I HOPE it's the last gasp.

Bible stories are fantasy fiction. Religion still insists god was involved, so "god did it personally" becomes "god made it happen".

It's completely bogus.
How much farther will religion retreat before it finally gives up?
reply report
61
Hokeyposted 15 years ago
If you were designing a machine that had an oxygen metabolism and needed to take in food, would you plan to use the same passage for both functions? Yeah, that's good design. Would you naturally assume that the organ responsible for hearing would also house the mechanism of balance? If we were "intelligently" designed, why did the designer make our jaws too farking small for all of our teeth? Those "wisdom" teeth certainly don't seem like wise design.
reply report
1. 69
  wyanjenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Apparently the designer had a small budget and limited parts suppliers.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  well one more thing is if we assume designer after every creation then designer himself is also a creation. this goes into "Ad infinitum", so just for the sake religious people assume there is no designer for our designer. (again this whole thing is assumption), that why ID is awesome for deluded people. i mean just think about it, lots of mumbo jumbo is skipped when it comes to religion and for those skeptics and science lovers,ID is heavenly sent.
  reply report
  69
  wyanjenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Insert "Mysterious ways" and "Amen".
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Is it possible you could argue your point without the name calling??
  Like this one "deluded people"
  Atheist seem to show their tempers with name calling. How grown up..
  Why don't you answer about the blood types.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  chill,i'm playing the game, no offense to players. can we get back to that point ?
  reply report
2. 83
  Tom Cornettposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That's easy...because it's funny!
  reply report
3. 62
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Flesh, bones and blood isn't a very clever design either !
  We're too mortal for my taste !
  reply report
  61
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Some people don't believe mortality was part of the original design.
  reply report
61
Hokeyposted 15 years ago
Three engineering students were gathered together discussing the possible designers of the human body. One said, "It was a mechanical engineer. Just look at all the joints." Another said, "No, it was an electrical engineer. The nervous system has many thousands of electrical connections." The last one said, "Actually it must have been a civil engineer. Who else would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area?"
reply report
1. 83
  Tom Cornettposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
2. 62
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
  69
  wyanjenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Who would design a new product launch that needs 18 years of constant care and attention before its finally ready to function on its own?
  
  God must shop at Ikea.
  reply report
  59
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Good point. And that's just for the female model.
  reply report
62
tantrumposted 15 years ago
Ikea is intelligent design
So. You found the answer !
reply report
1. 69
  wyanjenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  I must have come from the "as is" department.
  reply report
2. 58
  Mamelodyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  :lol next you'll be saying Disney world is an intelligent design
  reply report
  62
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  No way!
  Disneyland was designed by nerds
  reply report
0
StormRyderposted 15 years ago
After seeing some of the freaks I encounter on a day to day basis I would say the design may not be that intelligent at all
reply report
62
tantrumposted 15 years ago
OK Children ! Behave !
reply report
1. 61
  Hokeyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I can't behave. Spanking?
  reply report
  62
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  there !
  reply report
  61
  Hokeyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you!
  reply report
2. 69
  wyanjenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Tantrum, I hate to say it...
  but I do still miss the scary eye.
  reply report
  62
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  the scary eye is gone. Now it's scary me !
  
  reply report
  69
  wyanjenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I know, and you are much more fun without it.
  I just get nostalgic...
  
  reply report
60
theirishobserver.posted 15 years ago
hello skyfire, dont know enough about this topic to comment so I will just say hello
reply report
1. 75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  hello TIO
  reply report
75
skyfireposted 15 years ago
Intelligent spanking going on over here.
reply report
61
Hokeyposted 15 years ago
Q: What did a Buddhist say to the hot dog vendor?
A: Make me one with everything.
reply report
60
Randy Godwinposted 15 years ago
Why is it people cannot understand we primates had a common ancestor. Some continue to claim scientist's say we evolved from monkeys or chimps. The same can be said for marsupials, canines, felines,etc. It's really not that complicated, or mystical for that matter!
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It is OK to lie for religion. God said so. Especially if it confuses the issues and helps to keep people uneducated. Sadly - it is the uneducated perpetuating the myths.
  
  Even those with a BA (hons incomplete) in Biology Science.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Unfortunately, it depends on the university being attended, such as Pat Robertson's facility.
  reply report
61
Hokeyposted 15 years ago
I know I am always teasing and messing around. Hey it's fun! People are too serious so I make jokes. People with opinions just bother each other. Why does anyone feel a need to understand why this is all here? It's not to be understood. It's totally beyond us. Any reason you come up with has to have a beginning. Then what came before that, and before that? It's impossible. Arguing over anything is silly especially something that neither side can prove. I love you all. Namaste
reply report
1. 61
  defenestratethisposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I completely agree. Namaste
  reply report
0
Deborah Sextonposted 15 years ago
Yes I know about the Neanderthal.

And we had to come from something with the same genre
we could not develop from canine etc.

I think you guys only think you know what evolution is. Maybe you should keep up with all the latest theories.
reply report
60
Randy Godwinposted 15 years ago
Did you not learn this earlier in your studies?
reply report
1. 0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Learn what? What you think evolution is? No because evolution is not what you think. You do know scientist do more and more studies, make new discoveries and change their minds about things.
  
  I haven't been incorrect in anything I've said. I am asking how you guys see it.
  
  I am very much aware what evolution is.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Can you tell me where about Evolution, scientists changed their minds ?
  
  And you're incorrect on many lines of reasoning, about that blood type/chimp example as i already pointed out.
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  OK now I know you are delusional. I'm a nurse and know blood types. You need to get educated, as I have pointed out.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  This is what happens when someone tries to play with words while defending ID. Let's revise again, humans/chimp share common ancestor. does that mean humans are from chimps ? now try to make sense of your blood type example from this. need help ?
  
  again question is your sources for scientists changing their mind ?
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I wasn't giving blood type (correct info) to support evolution. I was giving it to show we are not from apes. I am 0- so at least I'm not. You?
  
  Here again:Now please point out where I am wrong.
  
  There are a few problems here. The blood types which never change is quite different. Most humans have blood type O. 1 in every 3 people. Chimpanzees have blood type A but never B and only very rarely have type O and Gorillas have blood type B but never A and never O. This seems a little ODD.. If they are A and B why are most humans in every race O? Why not A or B?
  If Chimpanzees evolved to humans why are there Chimpanzees? Why didn't they change?
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  i know that you didn't give that example to support evolution, my point was chimp/humans share common ancestor so if you criticize evolution with that flaw then it is clear that you have no idea about evolution/branching in it and not admitting it.
  
  oh and i'm o-ve as well.
  
  now that you know more about blood type, answer my question is it possible (or in your observation) that one family can have different blood groups ? like father and mother having 0+ and 1-2 kids 0-ve ?
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  See the problem ? again go to previous posting and check where i answered you about branching in evolution, where your assumptions are wrong.
  reply report
  87
  Sufidreamerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  As skyfire said, no biologist proposes that humans evolved from chimps.
  
  Therefore, I am not quite sure what relevance your blood-type idea has.
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  For years scientist have said we came from primates. Now they are saying Chimpanzees. Sorry but maybe you need to get updated.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Here we go again, is it hard in your side to give sources for your claims. when i say we share common ancestor, a single search on arxiv or any tech journal site will lead me to sources. Can i have your authentic sources when you say we are from chimps ?
  
  and by the way, you didn't answered my question about blood types ?
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What question about blood types. I have stated my view about that.
  
  Sources?
  I go to classes each year and get updated info. I didn't get it from the internet or an old encyclopedia
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  this is the reason one should not mock another person without observation. arxiv is the place where you can get updated(as it covers papers from world wide) research papers and journals,FYI it is not encyclopedia. like arxiv there are many sites which i guess if your university also allows subscription for students. get hold of it and let me know the sources of your claim instead of any random claim from classes.
  reply report
  87
  Sufidreamerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  My information is from peer-reviewed scientific journals, both online and hard-copy. I research and write scientific papers for a living, so I know how to find the latest information, thanks
  
  If you have some sources for your claims, I would be interested in reading them
  
  As for your classes, what are the credentials of your lecturers?
  
  Do they provide sources for their claims?
  
  Just because it is taught in class does not make it reputable, otherwise we could all just go and listen to Pat Robertson
  reply report
  87
  Sufidreamerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I keep very updated and have no recollection of this nugget of information. All of the papers that I have read recently still state 'common ancestor.'
  
  Some sources would be very interesting
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I go to classes and don't get it from the internet, so I have no links to give you however I will try to scan some things,
  
  I don't feel we came from Chimps but scientist believe chimps are the common ancestor.
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Because blood types do not change . Blood types beget blood types. Whoever or whatever we came from has to have one of the 4 types of blood.
  
  By Nikhil Swaminathan
  The human brain is not a chimp brain. Sure, somewhere between five million and eight million years ago, before the two species diverged, there was no difference. But at this point, despite our bodies weighing only 20 percent more than those of chimps, the human brain weighs 250 percent more and contains 50 percent more neurons. Eight million years notwithstanding, that would seem to be a sign of rapid change.
  But a team of researchers from the University of Chicago, as well as from institutes in Taiwan and Japan, says not so fast, at least with regards to the speed at which the human mind has evolved since its split with the chimpanzee.
  "We found that genes expressed in the human brain have in fact slowed down in their evolution, contrary to some earlier reports," states Chung-I Wu, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago and the co-author of a study appearing in the most recent issue of PLoS Biology. "The more complex the brain, it seems, the more difficult it becomes for brain genes to change."
  
  By Stephen Dorus, a biologist at England's University of Bath, notes an important aspect not considered in the study: whether there was rapid evolution of brain genes during primate evolution compared to other mammalian species. " The morphological and cognitive advancement in primates has happened in the last 25 million years not simply since the divergence of chimps and humans," he says. "As such, although these genes may be evolutionarily conserved in recent human evolution, they may have undergone significant evolutionary changes in more ancestral primates."
  
  By Anthropologist Herman Pontzer The last common ancestor shared by humans and chimps lived about five million years ago, during a time when Earth was becoming dryer, the rainforest was shrinking, and sources of food were becoming fewer and more widely scattered. Scientists have long hypothesized that hominins evolved to bipedalism to save energy as they faced longer and longer treks to find food.
  
  Daniel Schmitt, a biological anthropologist at Duke University, says that Pontzer's study is important because it demonstrates how incremental changes in both femur (thighbone) length and pelvis tilt save energy. "He's created a way to continue being a biped once you start," Schmitt says.
  In contrast to earlier findings that bipedalism may have evolved in treetops, this study says that upright locomotion may have evolved in a four-legged, knuckle-walking ape ancestor.
  Bipedalism is one of the first specifically hominin qualities that developed after our ancestors and ape ancestors split from one another. "What's cool about bipedalism is that it's first," Pontzer says. Now, he adds, we have a possible reason and mechanism for its evolution.
  
  By David Biello Humans and chimpanzees have in common more than 98 percent of DNA and 99 percent of genes. Yet, in looks and behavior we are very different from them. For more than 30 years--well before either the human or chimpanzee genome had been sequenced--scientists have speculated that this might be due to the way that the common genes express themselves rather than differences in the genes themselves. A new comparison published in Nature seems to prove that theory.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Still i didn't get any source of journal/paper etc instead i got these paras,anyway moving on
  
  and just for your point, tell me in the para you posted(last one) for David Biello,where it is mentioned or said that humans are from chimps ?
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It doesn't however someone from before said that statement wasn't true.
  
  Also in your other post you said..NOW THAT YOU KNOW MORE about blood types..you know as though I had just learned about them.
  
  The paragraphs before the last one clearly shows that scientist are leaning toward Chimp/Human divergence.
  You posted links so I posted Quotes with credits, what's the difference? BECAUSE IT"S YOU.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That statement was true ? How come ?
  
  Nope, i didn't made it sound like you just learned. I made that statement to show you that you claim to know about blood type and relating that example by saying that humans are from chimp which was just another of your assumption.
  
  You posted random quotes without specifying the work of those people, which you made out by making word manipulation by saying that it is leaning towards chimp/human divergence for your point of humans from chimp. Do you understand that YOU failed to prove again with sources that you have no proof for saying that humans are from Chimps. Because it's you making out claims
  reply report
  68
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4991470.stm
  
  Humans came form the same ancestor as chimps before they were chimps and humans, but that ancestor. She was just pointing out the connection and you are pinning her a matter of semantics.
  report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Go through all of her posts, she was pointing about humans from chimps and was raising question like why there are still chimps. Read her hub about that as well.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Wow!
  
  I am astounded that some one claiming a degree in "Biology Science," (LOL) is unable to understand evolution to this degree.
  
  Where did you get your (lol) "degree" (lol)?
  
  Did your Husband give it to you?
  
  Deary me. At least I know to completely discard everything you say now. Thanks for clearing that up.
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Science doesn't even know where the divergence took place and you do? RIGHT!!!
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Like I said......
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Of course you don't know. Do you ever contribute anything except insults and how to make Lasagna? Or did your Lasagna evolve from apes and did it diverge into spaghetti? or did it change into wine?
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sweetie pie - at least I am honest. My Lasagna is the best Lasagna recipe on the planet. You want to go about getting kids to eat vegetables and you could do worse than try my Spinach and sausage Lasagna.
  
  Your nonsensical statements about LOL scientists changing their mind LOL and now saying we came LOL from Chimps LOL are just not worth responding to.
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well then hopefully you don't have a degree. I understand evolution. Darwin had a lot of theories however it does not make it so. I have stated earlier that there is evolution even in plants. That there is evolution due to mutation of genes and species creating new species. However it doesn't explain blood types because blood types don't change. You haven't commented on this yet. How come?
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Not worth commenting on sweetie pie. Let me know when you have gone to a real school with a real degree in - what was it?
  
  "Biology Science"?
  
  That the same as the Ferry to France that does not actually go to France?
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  -----
  reply report
0
Deborah Sextonposted 15 years ago
You guys need to re-educate yourselves on what Scientist think. Your ideas are from 10 years ago. This is 2010.
With their ability to study genetics so much better they are coming to new conclusions.
You know good and well I am not saying Scientist think we went from Chimpanzee to Human. You know I am saying they think our ancestors diverged from them.

Your ideas are very outdated. At least I know why I believe in creationism.
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You were taught creationism in college? What course was this?
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You like to harass people HUH?..wrong person here...G.T.H.A.E.S.B.M.
  reply report
68
goldenpathposted 15 years ago
A thread of this exact topic was up last week. It served to be the playground for mudslinging. It's too bad we cannot seem to accept and tolerate other views. When we lash out it is a true sign that we feel our own views outweigh those of others.

As to your question, yes, I believe in intelligent design. I believe it works in perfect concert with science and I see no conflict in the two.

Thanks for the opportunity to post!
reply report
73
earnestshubposted 15 years ago
"Intelligent design?" Unintelligent design you mean!
reply report
75
skyfireposted 15 years ago
Deborah, my question earlier was this :

now that you know more about blood type, answer my question is it possible (or in your observation) that one family can have different blood groups ? like father and mother having 0+ and 1-2 kids 0-ve ?
reply report
1. 0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Now that I've learned more? what from you? Why do you think I needed to know more. I/'ve had a hub on this for a while now.
  
  Type O both parents have to be type O for their offspring to be.
  If one is A and one is O the child will always be A just as I said on my hub.
  
  If you would like to learn about blood types..read my hub.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Did i said you need to learn more in that para ? i said you know more cause you claimed about knowing blood groups in this thread, don't you ? comprehension problem from my posts ?
  
  I'm not pointing to your hubs. I'm pointing to some of the examples we have in society that there is variation in blood type from same branch. now you come from reasoning of "human are from chimps" without any credible sources. so i'm sure you'll have hard time figuring out how there is variation in same branch.
  reply report
87
Sufidreamerposted 15 years ago
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/baloney.html

Carl Sagan's Baloney test is useful for evaluating information - unless something scores at least 7, I don't use it for an academic paper
reply report
99
Susana Sposted 15 years ago
Where do all these people get the idea that evolution = metamorphosis? They must have crappy science teachers or maybe just didn't pay attention in class, lol
reply report
0
Deborah Sextonposted 15 years ago
Another viewpoint on the possibility of humans evolving from a completely different creature.

"When writing an article on protein evolution, I suddenly realized that commonly occurring mutations cannot explain evolution. I had been conditioned into thinking that with enough time and large enough populations, evolution would become more likely. But even with large populations and millions of years, there are not enough mutations to drive evolution. Only rare and improbable mutations could possibly explain evolution, but this possibility rests on faith, because such mutations are so rarely seen. Furthermore, it is not valid to extrapolate from the small changes seen in organisms today, to the large changes required by the theory of evolution, because these large changes are fundamentally different in nature. The small changes seen today are either not due to mutations at all, but to selection among alleles, or else are caused by mutations that cannot explain evolution in the large. ...
So how is one to explain a large scale change, such as fish developing legs and crawling out of the water? ( Or, the lower primates becoming human? ) With two beneficial substitutions per gene, after which evolution reaches a dead end, how are the complex interactions going to develop that will result in the development of legs and lungs? ( Or, large brains, speech/language, communicative eyes, bipedal locomotion? )
It is an apparent impossibility."

(from http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/where.html)
reply report
1. 87
  Sufidreamerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  An article from a computer science department, with no author, no citations and, therefore, no credibility
  
  Follow the trail and it leads to a creation science website.
  
  Follow the trail further, and the author, David Plaisted, is a computer scientist with a limited grasp of evolution and geology.
  
  Every time an ID advocate gives me sources, they all lead back to the same place - nothing there that has the smallest chance of causing a paradigm shift in my mind, I am afraid
  
  In addition, your sources do not show that humans involved from chimpanzees, as stated.
  
  That is something that I would be very interested in reading.
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I posted the last paragraph from a website where they appear to believe in Creationism because I believe in both creation and evolution (just not from apes) The paragraphs I gave from different men in Science do allude to chimpanzees. I told you I have to scan my notebook I received on it. Please read the paragraphs below again.
  
  By Nikhil Swaminathan
  The human brain is not a chimp brain. Sure, somewhere between five million and eight million years ago, before the two species diverged, there was no difference. But at this point, despite our bodies weighing only 20 percent more than those of chimps, the human brain weighs 250 percent more and contains 50 percent more neurons. Eight million years notwithstanding, that would seem to be a sign of rapid change.
  But a team of researchers from the University of Chicago, as well as from institutes in Taiwan and Japan, says not so fast, at least with regards to the speed at which the human mind has evolved since its split with the chimpanzee.
  "We found that genes expressed in the human brain have in fact slowed down in their evolution, contrary to some earlier reports," states Chung-I Wu, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago and the co-author of a study appearing in the most recent issue of PLoS Biology. "The more complex the brain, it seems, the more difficult it becomes for brain genes to change."
  
  By Stephen Dorus, a biologist at England's University of Bath, notes an important aspect not considered in the study: whether there was rapid evolution of brain genes during primate evolution compared to other mammalian species. " The morphological and cognitive advancement in primates has happened in the last 25 million years not simply since the divergence of chimps and humans," he says. "As such, although these genes may be evolutionarily conserved in recent human evolution, they may have undergone significant evolutionary changes in more ancestral primates."
  
  By Anthropologist Herman Pontzer The last common ancestor shared by humans and chimps lived about five million years ago, during a time when Earth was becoming dryer, the rainforest was shrinking, and sources of food were becoming fewer and more widely scattered. Scientists have long hypothesized that hominins evolved to bipedalism to save energy as they faced longer and longer treks to find food.
  
  Daniel Schmitt, a biological anthropologist at Duke University, says that Pontzer's study is important because it demonstrates how incremental changes in both femur (thighbone) length and pelvis tilt save energy. "He's created a way to continue being a biped once you start," Schmitt says.
  In contrast to earlier findings that bipedalism may have evolved in treetops, this study says that upright locomotion may have evolved in a four-legged, knuckle-walking ape ancestor.
  Bipedalism is one of the first specifically hominin qualities that developed after our ancestors and ape ancestors split from one another. "What's cool about bipedalism is that it's first," Pontzer says. Now, he adds, we have a possible reason and mechanism for its evolution.
  
  By David Biello Humans and chimpanzees have in common more than 98 percent of DNA and 99 percent of genes. Yet, in looks and behavior we are very different from them. For more than 30 years--well before either the human or chimpanzee genome had been sequenced--scientists have speculated that this might be due to the way that the common genes express themselves rather than differences in the genes themselves. A new comparison published in Nature seems to prove that theory.
  reply report
2. 75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Next time you go on spree to post random links as credible sources don't forget to check the references date. current link content has update date of Jan. 2, 2002.
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Since this did not agree with evolution, it shouldn't matter the date. Don't you have anything better to point out?
  
  All the other references to EVOLUTION were as of 2009.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Bravo
  
  You are science student ? I doubt that. and just because something is making your point proved it doesn't matter if the stuff is dated ?
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Do you actually think I care what you think?
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You shouldn't. You see i'm not anti-theist, keeping you as believer helps me more
  reply report
0
Deborah Sextonposted 15 years ago
I haven't been wrong or delusional..
I am however gone from this thread. I am tired and bored.

Argue with yourselves.
reply report
0
Deborah Sextonposted 15 years ago
Shorter for easier reading

Human chimp divergence alluded to. This was with a quick look up on internet.

divergence
noun
1 the divergence of the human and ape lineages separation, dividing, parting, forking, bifurcation.

By Nikhil Swaminathan
The human brain is not a chimp brain. Sure, somewhere between five million and eight million years ago, before the two species diverged, there was no difference.

By Stephen Dorus, a biologist at England's University of Bath, " The morphological and cognitive advancement in primates has happened in the last 25 million years not simply since the divergence of chimps and humans," he says.

By Anthropologist Herman Pontzer The last common ancestor shared by humans and chimps lived about five million years ago, during a time when Earth was becoming dryer, the rainforest was shrinking, and sources of food were becoming fewer and more widely scattered. Scientists have long hypothesized that hominins evolved to bipedalism to save energy as they faced longer and longer treks to find food.

Daniel Schmitt, a biological anthropologist at Duke University, In contrast to earlier findings that bipedalism may have evolved in treetops, this study says that upright locomotion may have evolved in a four-legged, knuckle-walking ape ancestor.
Bipedalism is one of the first specifically hominin qualities that developed after our ancestors and ape ancestors split from one another. "

By David Biello Humans and chimpanzees have in common more than 98 percent of DNA and 99 percent of genes. Yet, in looks and behavior we are very different from them. For more than 30 years--well before either the human or chimpanzee genome had been sequenced--scientists have speculated that this might be due to the way that the common genes express themselves rather than differences in the genes themselves. A new comparison published in Nature seems to prove that theory.
reply report
60
Randy Godwinposted 15 years ago
Now you've done it, Sufi! She's quit following you. That will teach you. HAHAHAHA!
reply report
1. 0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, I was speaking to him not you.
  I wouldn't follow you either. No reason to follow someone who you can't agree with. Unlike you I don't try to punish. He has over 760 followers so he wouldn't even notice.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you for not following me, I really appreciate it. The initials posted are childish enough to make me glad we do not agree. Again, thanks!
  reply report
  76
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Deborah...
  
  I guess BTW means 'by the way'?
  
  But what on earth does all the rest mean, I really think I am an internet forum savage, 'cos I cannot understand most of these acronyms are!
  
  Even .acronymfinder.com could not interpret, so what does it mean?
  
  Hi Sufi BTW (see I know that one) why are you two even discussing this, you will never agree or cause each other to waiver, is it raining in Greece or something!
  reply report
  87
  Sufidreamerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  E.S.A.D appears to mean Eat Sh!* And Die - not sure about the CSG, yet
  
  Have a good one, Rebekah
  reply report
2. 61
  defenestratethisposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Speaking of Sufi's I love Rumi
  reply report
87
Sufidreamerposted 15 years ago
Not sure whether the paragraphs are for or against evolution in primates/humans. They seem to suggest a common ancestor, which is in line with my current knowledge of the subject.

I am afraid that I never had such a black and white view of the world - the differences are what makes us human.

I never agree with my partner about anything - life would be dull if everybody agreed with me

All the best in your future endeavours
reply report
1. 87
  rebekahELLEposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  some people enjoy their black and white world where everyone nods their head in agreement...
  
  nice to see you Sufi, had some nice greek wine last night watching super bowl.
  reply report
2. 68
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4991470.stm
  COMMON ANCESTOR AND INTER BREEDING
  reply report
87
Sufidreamerposted 15 years ago
Hey Randy - What's new?

How is the archaeology going?
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hey Sufi, going great. Never know what I'll find. How's things with you?
  reply report
87
Sufidreamerposted 15 years ago
@Randy - Very busy at the moment. A couple of books to polish off and a website due to go live in the next few weeks.

@Agua - Hey - It is raining heavily here, although spring is not too far off!

How is Spain treating you?

I have no idea about the acronym, either.

Just seeking knowledge and reasoned debate - I disagree with lots of people, but that is what makes life interesting.

I generally use the beer-test - there are many people that I have arguments with online but, if you can imagine yourself sharing a random conversation over a couple of beers, then everything is good

EDIT: Hi Rebekah - Good to see you, too - Hope that you enjoyed the wine and the game. I notice that Montgomery is quiet today!
reply report
87
rebekahELLEposted 15 years ago
HA, I don't know how anyone could truly be upset about that win.
well deserved, well played by saints.

enjoy, have to sign off!
reply report
1. 0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Who is upset?
  I'm tired of the subject. I've been here for a couple of hours.
  
  I don't want everyone to agree with me. I just don't see any reason for two people to follow each other when they are not interested in the same subjects. No big deal for me..so why are you making a big deal? Sufidreamer is fine. I've dealt with some harshness on these forums and he didn't come any where near the others.
  
  You guys have fun trying to figure out the acronym. It doesn't mean anything any of you have guessed. Just a little Hebrew Acronym
  
  I don't use vulgar language so the last post by Sufidreamer is way off.
  reply report
  87
  rebekahELLEposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  the post was made in reference to the superbowl game... not you.
  sufi got it.
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No that's not what was said..where have you been?
  reply report
75
skyfireposted 15 years ago
You were wrong when you said " humans are from chimps". You were wrong when you didn't posted any credible sources of your claims, instead you posted random quotes without references.(oh and without checking the date as well) You're delusional when you claim something you can't back up.

Yeah sure , Someone needs to study evolution(espcially speciation,branching) before asking others to get updated info i guess
reply report
1. 0
  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I've never said humans are from chimps. I was created!!!
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  TTFNB.
  reply report
  59
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Can't you just see her clenching her fists and stomping her feet as she shouts that?
  reply report
72
getitriteposted 15 years ago
...and, still, Intelligent Design advocates have not produced the Designer.
reply report
1. 76
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  ... and that means what exactly?
  
  I mean we who have met with God and walk with His Holy Spirit, have no need to find more proof than that which we live with.
  
  For those who refuse or fail to be able to receive God into their lives, you seek no proof that He exists, merely seek to try and defame His name and works.
  
  You also have no proof that there was NOT a Creator who designed life as we know it.
  
  It matters not one jot whether God created life through an evolutionary process or just spoke it into being.
  
  He still did the creation and He still does do the creation, taking old lives and replacing them with new ones.
  reply report
  75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ok,let's play this way instead of making assumption on creators part with those biblical word salads.
  
  Do you think everything has creator behind it ? then who created creator ? If you think creator can't be created then that is your assumption and can you give any test to validate this ? If not, then creation cycle is ad-infinitum. Yes or No.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Of course it matters sweetie pie. People like you claiming to have knowledge where you do not have been holding us back for centuries.
  
  The onus is on you believers to prove there is a creator. Sadly - that will never happen and your religion will die out soon.
  
  Not soon enough for some of us, but - hopefully, when it does, we can start developing as a species properly and forget this religious nonsense with the systemic abuse of the poor and uneducated.
  
  Sorry sweetie - that is how it is. You can see it coming I know. You think it will be Armageddon and baby jesus will come back to save you, but that ain't gonna happen.
  
  It will not be the death of all things, merely your irrational belief system. The Age of Aquarius is only just beginning to find it's feet, and the old guard - including your bronze age religion - is hanging one for grim death, but to no avail.
  
  Come Soon Lord Jesus!
  
  Sadly - this does not mean what you think it means, and we are not going to need your crutch soon.
  
  I have been to that bar as well.
  reply report
  76
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry Mark, you don't make the rules, and "The onus is on you believers to prove there is a creator." is just a waste of typing time.
  
  You and your concepts are the new kid on the block, you PROVE God did not create it all, when you can do that, the discussion is over.
  
  John
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You are right. I don't make the rules. LOLOLOLO The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion. But - you choose to ignore this in this one area of your life. This is irrational behavior.
  
  If I sold you a car seat for your daughter and claimed it was the safest made - you would expect me to prove this assertion - rightfully. The fact that you need to twist this normal "law" around tells me all I need to know about your belief.
  
  Until you can prove your assertions, they are just farting in the wind sweetie pie. Which is why your religion is on the way out.
  
  If you had not perverted what your so-called prophet said, you would understand this and instead of fighting against the new age would be welcoming it ready for what it has to offer. But - no - you are hanging onto bronze age tribal thinking.
  
  Mark
  reply report
  76
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Mark, if you sold me a car seat for my daughter, and told me it was the very best, I would examine it and compare it to the one I already had, and others that may be available, then based upon the knowledge I had or that could be acquired, I could make an informed decision as to whether you were a liar, weak salesman trying to make a buck (or Euro in our case)or a good guy with a decent product that I needed.
  
  I wasn't aware that you had written any hubs about car seats, are they a good market?
  
  Then you say "The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion" - well that would be you in this instance, for you are the one questioning ID and my faith and trust in Christ, I am assured that the earth had a creator, I've met Him, in Spirit at least, and eagerly await meeting Him in person.
  
  So I am sure, you are doubting, you are making the assertions, you provide the evidence that my understanding is incorrect.
  
  As for your New Age aspirations, good luck to you, I hope you enjoy being part of the New World Order, and I must admit that you are absolutely prime material for their ideas.
  
  Unfortunately you obviously have no real ranking yet, or you would not be posting here openly declaring your boasts, so I would guess you will be used by them, rather than a user.
  
  Enjoy.... it will make hell a viable and attractive alternative!
  
  reply report
  76
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  ....and note this Mark, YOU assume that I would actually ask YOU to prove your car seat, when in reality the wise man proves the facts for them-self, they do not rely upon others to prove what they say, especially when they are selling something to you!
  
  Why are you trying to sell me this crock?
  reply report
  0
  wordscribe41posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You're not understanding the logical fallacy you're making here. It's been covered before: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/21027
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Dear me. I have cut out all the melodramatic crap that you have been preying for all this time and point out that you are the one making the assertion. I am indeed the one doing the questioning.
  
  The burden of proof is yours. I am no ignorant goat herder prepared to accept your word when I have made my own investigations - and discovered that you are either mistaken or lying.
  
  Either way - the result will not change - we both agree your way is on the way out. I choose to think it will present an opportunity to grow - you prefer to tell me I will be damned. But that is just pride f****** with you. F*** pride.
  
  reply report
  59
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Amen.
  reply report
  61
  defenestratethisposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I dont know, I mean Im not religious..but still, whatever the "New World' brings, I hope people will still have the freedom to practice whatever branch of faith they desire. To prohibit releigion would be no better than condemning science, as they did in the past. I wouldnt want to live in a world where either one of these things were censored. Wasnt it also Einstein who said (something like) "There are two ways to live your life, 1) As if everything is a miracle 2) As if nothing is a miracle." I guess thats my religion these days...EVERYTHING is a miracle. And I dont care who or what is responsible for how we came to be, I am simply amazed on a daily basis. Whether I thank evolution or a supreme being for all that exists is unimportant. The important thing is to honor life itself. How I choose to do so is my business.
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And this God you speak of, where is He? How can you give me an answer with no proof? I wasn't born yesterday. Please produce the designer, or you could be talking purely from conjecture, which will not suffice. I want to be sure.
  reply report
  76
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You want to be sure!
  
  Ask Him to come into your life, just surrender your authority over your life, stop your rebellion against God and cease for a day to be the lord of your own life.
  
  You will not dare, your little demons will not allow you to do that, they would be too afraid that you will see the truth.
  
  Or stay in ignorance, it's your choice!
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Really?!! You want me to surrender my authority over my life to an imaginary entity. And it is clearly delusional to say that I am rebelling against a being that you have yet to produce. Do you see how delusional this mode of thinking is? Please produce this being, FIRST, or don't ask me to do anything as drastic as surrendering my life to it. Sounds like a scam.
  reply report
  76
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sound like you are afraid of the result, how can you be scared to submit your authority to something you deny exists?
  
  Sweet dreams sunshine!
  reply report
  72
  getitriteposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ok! Do you really think that makes sense? Stop putting words in my mouth. Did I say I was afraid of your imaginary improbable being?
  reply report
  76
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think it makes perfect sense that you refusal to submit to something that you say does not exist is a sign that you cannot be sure what would happen if you did, with total honesty, say to Christ "I submit my life authority to you and give you total control over my life, I surrender my rebellion against God and give you complete authority to take away from my life all those things which cause me to deny you"
  
  What could possibly go wrong?
  
  Give it a try if you ever get up the courage.
  reply report
  0
  wordscribe41posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Many of us have, agua... There's no fear here, not sure where you're getting that. I'm more in the camp that it's the religionists with the fear. Fear that it's hard to admit they're simply animals, that when they die there's no afterlife, fear of admitting they really do run the show in their own lives and as Mark said, theyre as significant as a grain of sand on an immense beach.
  reply report
  76
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I have no confusion about my relevance to things, I live on a beach, I see daily the relevance of grains of sand and when one surrenders to Christ, and is in filled with the Holy Spirit, self importance goes out the window, indeed self anything disappears when that happens.
  
  I accept that many have had brushes with religion and even called upon the name of Christ, given their altar calls and been inscribed in the local church, but like its said, going to a zoo does not make us animals, there is something much deeper about a relationship with God through His Son Christ.
  
  I'm sorry if you've tried it and been let down in the past, maybe you time was not for then!
  
  As for the supposition that we are merely animals, well sorry, we seem to be slightly more advanced than any animal (excepting possibly the dolphins)and it seems that Gods instruction to exercise dominion over them has been fulfilled.
  
  My definition is human I believe.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Why don't you try proving Zeus doesn't exist or is less powerful than your god. Or Odin, Allah, etc. Prove any of the past hundreds or thousands of gods are any less real than yours.
  reply report
61
Dave Mathewsposted 15 years ago
As any good lawyer will tell you. You never ever ask a question that you do not know the answer to. Therefore to discuss Intelligent Design you must first be willing to admit that it is what it is.
God is the author and creator of all living or dead. How could anyone believe that we as humans moved from living in the sea to land. What happened to our gills and why can we not sustain ourselves under water now without scuba gear. Which fins developed into legs and feet and which developed into arms and hands?
reply report
72
waynetposted 15 years ago
Intelligent design must be better than unintelligable designs!
reply report
83
Tom Cornettposted 15 years ago
Jane Goodall filmed a monkey fishing ants from a hole with a stick....therefore proving the monkey used a tool....monkey happily eats ants.

5 million years later....ancestor of monkey...goes to public school...gets married....gets ass deep in debt... files bankruptcy...loses wife....starts drinking....becomes alcoholic...sleeps in park...becomes bum....fishes out McDonald's sack from dumpster with stick...complains about the f***ing ants being on it...sits on curb...happily eats fries.

Sorry...I just don't see the evolution here?
reply report
0
Deborah Sextonposted 15 years ago
OK this is how it really happened

God created humanity as male and female. He gave them type O blood.
One night a man got lonely and went to a Monkey Bar. After drinking a little beer he met a very pretty Chimpanzee wearing stilettos. Her name was Kimba. They started dating and had a baby. Because Kimba had type A blood, so did the baby girl.
But, the man didn't like the Chimp that much because she was too short. He went out for a walk and met a tall beautiful Gorilla named Stephanie. They got together and after dating for a while, she also had his baby. Since Stephanie was blood type B, so was her baby boy.
Years later the baby girl and baby boy got married and had children. Their children had blood type AB.
Then it became the fashion for humans, gorillas, chimps, and hybrids to date and marry each other. .thus the branching and the four blood types in humanity...I rest my case.
reply report
1. 83
  Tom Cornettposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOL...hey...I know that bar...my ex-wife got beat up by a midget there! Last time she tried to sit a beer on someone's head.
  reply report
2. 75
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Deborah tired ? I told you not to read too much ID stuff. See, now.
  reply report
71
Cagsilposted 15 years ago
That I would have to say, happens to be one of the most pathetic posts I've seen you put up Aqua.
reply report
71
Cagsilposted 15 years ago
Hey Aqua, you're already sold on the biggest scam on earth, trying to sell you a car or anything else is moot.
reply report
1. 72
  getitriteposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  ...and he still hasn't produced this God he's trying to sell me. I think he's trying to swindle me!
  reply report
76
aguasilverposted 15 years ago
Good to see the gangs all here, hope you all enjoy yourselves, but frankly I cannot be bothered to play with you all tonight, besides, I have a hub to write still in my 30 in 30 quest.

In a court of law I am presumed innocent until proven guilty huh!

Not in France, and not in Spain, and not in many other areas of the world where the 'Old World Order' ruled (The Roman Empire).

I have no need to prove God to myself,or you, as I have stated I live with Him and have many friends who also know He is real.

Your collective spiritual blindness is something that I cannot cure for you,especially as you enjoy it so much.

So have fun children and don't stay up too late.
reply report
1. 72
  getitriteposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It seems you have no faith in your delusion. Sorry you could not swindle me. Run away now!
  reply report
2. 0
  wordscribe41posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I wrote this in another post, so here it is again:
  The following post is in response to a statement made by another hubber and the many posts I've read using logical fallacies:
  "the burden of proof" is NOT on the believers. There is no burden to prove He exists because it is by FAITH that we believe. It is by faith we called on to believe. The "proof" you seek in order for YOU to believe, you already have known. It is as God stated in Romans, since the beginning you have known God is. it is really the indoctrination of sin which deludes you to Him as of now. It is your lack of faith which demonstrates exactly what God said it would..”
  
  The absolute, bar non worst and most fallacious argument a believer in God can propose is the “negative proof” argument. It goes like this. The non-believer says: “Prove God exists.” The believer say: “Prove he DOESN'T. Obviously, it is impossible to examine every nook and cranny in the universe, or to examine every subatomic particle to find "God". I've run across some that will then go on to say: “Well, then it's true.” This is called the argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy:
  
  Others simple stop and thankfully don't go on to state that: “Well, then it must be true.” But, there's the implication (or outright claim) that the burden of proof is NOT on the believers. As it's impossible (and unnecessary) to prove a negative, the onus of proof lies on the one making the positive statement: “God exists”.
  
  We can, of course make an analogy to science. The burden of proof is always on the scientist to prove whatever he or she is claiming to exist, actually does in fact exist. If he or she cannot provide such evidence, then it's widely accepted that the assumption of nonexistence is to be accepted. It's called the Laplacian principle. The case for the existence of anything comes from positive proof. Once that has been done, THEN the burden of proof can be shifted to the one continuing to make the claim for the nonexistence. Their task is then to show how the evidence is not credible.
  
  We operate this way in our courts/legal system. One is presumed innocent until he or she is proven guilty. This premise is how investigations are created. Imagine going into a courtroom being charged with a crime you are completely innocent of. You are then given the task of proving you are NOT guilty. How unfair would that be! It's reminiscent of the weapons of mass destruction debacle where Rumsfeld attempted to shift the burden of proof.
  
  Bertrand Russell makes this case beautifully: “If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.” From Is There a God?
  
  If you are to provide such proof, make sure it doesn't come from the Bible, as that is the mother of all logical fallacies called circular reasoning. God exists, I know because the Bible says so. I know the Bible is correct because it was inspired by God.” This is circular reasoning, fallacy of redundancy, tautology. Please don't use: “You can't see air, but you know it exists!” Ummm, sorry air can be scientifically probed. And finally, having faith isn't proof. It's tantamount to saying: “Just trust me.” Faith is not subject to proof. When I am provided with said proof, as the burden is on the believers, I will THEN shift my belief system. Then we will have a real debate on our hands.
  reply report
3. 71
  Cagsilposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  WOW! If that wasn't a show of ineptitude for understanding life, I'm not sure what is?
  reply report
75
skyfireposted 15 years ago
Another assumption. Can we get back to your stuff that you can prove against us even that blindness attack one.
reply report
72
getitriteposted 15 years ago
I have to go now, but I wish I could have seen this God...or maybe Satan. Maybe Aqua will have proof when I return.
reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 15 years ago
it is obvious: the fear.
like rabid creatures caught in a cage, snarling, hissing, gnashing teeth and howling for freedom with nowhere to go. so they stay.
reply report
59
Mark Knowlesposted 15 years ago
Well, I don't know about any revelations. I had never heard of the Cathars until last year when I was invited to meet one of them.

Most odd - but my argument resonated with them - oddly enough - they seem to feel the same way about the church as I do. I will be publishing some of it here when I have made head or tail of what I have because I need help with translating the documentation I have been given. I do have help but will take a while because I need to earn a living as well. They declined an upfront payment of any size.
reply report
1. 76
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I have a short piece of info on them from a book called 'The Torch of the Testimony' which traces the 'real' Jesus believers through the history of the 'traditional church', I'll scan it in and send it to you.
  
  I definitely identified with them when I found out who they were and what they stood for. I have no idea if current Cathars would be in the same mould, if they were I would like to meet one!
  
  I have a 'tame' Monsignor in my local RCC nest, I'll ask him about it, and I will also ask my Jesuit 'friend'(he's 86)as he is a mine of information.
  
  Thanks,
  
  John
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Please do. I am starting my own inquiries and they have provided me a local (120 miles away) translator.
  
  Odd to hear you say what you just said because their beliefs seem radically different to yours and their operation - what little I have seen is more like a military operation. But I am learning why that may be.
  
  Their beliefs are more in line with mine as far as I can tell so far. They do not even believe that Jesus was fully on this earth and absolutely dismiss the idea that he died. In fact - they dismiss all church dogma. But they have some pretty weird ideas that clash with mine as well.
  
  Procreation is a sin.
  
  I am learning as I go.
  
  I am also fairly sure that your tame RC priest knows more of them than I do at the moment.
  reply report
  85
  WriteAngledposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  My understanding is that the Cathars, at least the Cathars of the middle ages, held to a dualistic concept of God, namely that there was an evil God and a good God. The evil God was the Old Testament Jehovah. The good God was more hidden, and could only be known and approached by those who were pure.
  
  The material world was considered to belong to the evil God and thus was itself evil. Hence, extreme asceticism and refusal to procreate was seen as a way to remove oneself as far as possible from the evil of physical existence. Some went as far as to starve themselves to death and were thought to have achieved sainthood.
  
  Jesus was seen as the Logos (word, emanation) of the good God. Therefore, the Cathars saw him as pure spirit and denied that he had an actual physical, human existence. They rejected most of the Old and New Testaments, associating these with the evil God. They did accept the gospel of John, primarily because this emphasises Jesus as Logos.
  reply report
  87
  Sufidreamerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting - that is similar to studies I have been doing into mysticism and the Greek Orthodox Church. I still have much to research, but it seems to be very heavily influenced by the Zoroastrianism of dualism.
  
  No surprise considering the historical links and cultural exchanges between Greece and Persia.
  
  Throw in a little Gnosticism, and it becomes very complex
  reply report
  76
  aguasilverposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Mark,
  
  Like I say, I've never met one to find out whether we would agree in all things! - but what I have read about them to date (and you may produce additional material that could change this) has been acceptable to me.
  
  Remember I did not come to my beliefs by being taught them in any doctrinal circumstance, I have always (since coming to faith) seen churches as places where I am safe, but not where I get taught or learn stuff in reality.
  
  Most of my belief systems come from external learning and study, not from any denominational church system.
  
  I hold the bible to contain the truth, even though we sometimes cannot see what that truth actually is, but my conclusions on what it contains are not constricted by religious doctrines.
  
  I happen to concur on many things that form the basis of traditional religion, after examination, not rote learning or tuition.
  
  Most of the folk I share fellowship with are aghast that I mix with such a broad spectrum of believers, but for me I know that ALL sections of the church contain SOME truth, but none contain ALL the truth.
  
  In other words I'm a pain in the butt for any church I'm in!
  
  But I do know my scripture, and I do know where they have flaked it.
  
  John
  reply report
73
earnestshubposted 15 years ago
The same "thinking" that the ancients had. Sun comes up? Must be magic, lets kill something!
reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Is evolution an intelligent design where everything is relevant or random mutations where nothing is relevant or both?
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Is evolution an ignorant design, an intelligent design, or no design at all?
  reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
If evolution has no design, how would scientists trace back the evolution of humans? So this only leaves 2 options, correct? Evolution is ignorant or intelligent design?
reply report
68
goldenpathposted 15 years ago
Through intelligent design all creatures will have a grandeur and magnified place in existence to a degree and on a level that cannot be fathomed by the mortal human mind.

Through intelligent design the muscle making gene, that is active in apes and enables them to have powerful jaws yet small craniums, is not active in humans allowing the cranium to grow and develop up to about age thirty. This mortal "design" involving this gene has enabled man to reason, create art and to be inspired.

Does any of science "prove" we derive from apes? Not in the least. I find the discoveries intriguing and I claim no fault in them. However, they, in no way conflict with intelligent design. When one sees them as working together rather than trying to pin one against the other one will gain a much greater appreciation and understanding of the Author of intelligent design.

Genetically, there is at most 1% difference between humans and apes. This proves nothing about our "springing" from the ape community. We are all raw material here. The spirits of apes were assigned and placed within the flesh of apes. The same with birds, fish, humans and even the trees of the field. Biological life continues to grow and develop and even mutate from time to time but inevitably will always conform to it's spiritual origin.
reply report
1. 61
  Hokeyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Who is the author?
  reply report
  68
  goldenpathposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The Author is the One whom the entire thread is centered around but not directly addressed - God. Through His knowledge, which is far superior in all fields than ours, He is able to produce, physically, a mortal housing to accomodate the spirit of that creation. Not just humans - but all creation. For every creation there is a spirit origin.
  reply report
  61
  Hokeyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Which God?
  reply report
  68
  goldenpathposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The God the ancient Hebrews knew only as "I Am" because their God needed no name. His power, authority and intelligence is beyond even a name.
  reply report
  61
  Hokeyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  From the bible?
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  no hokey, from Tor`ah. The actual phrase is: El; translated: everything, fullness, singular, he.
  the only reason He gave that 'name' was so Moses could tell the people who sent him and why, also to tell Pharaoh who Moses was talking about.
  reply report
  73
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes the Torah is full of gods love!
  You crack me up!
  reply report
  85
  WriteAngledposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  But Genesis also refers to Elohim, which is a feminine plural
  reply report
  61
  Hokeyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  ...and my point is this is all written by humans so is subject to lies and corruption.
  reply report
  85
  WriteAngledposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The Tao that is spoken is not the real Tao
  reply report
  61
  Hokeyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly!!!!! I knew I liked you!!!!
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, El is both male/female in Hebrew.
  There is no distinction. El`Elohim is one version added to the many names associated with Him, for each desire of their hearts.
  reply report
  68
  goldenpathposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  We do have an Eternal Mother in heaven as well as an Eternal Father. I see where this would come in.
  reply report
  68
  goldenpathposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, that is how Moses was instructed to address the people. It gave legitimacy to the Hebrews of the validity of Moses' mission and purpose.
  
  There is much to ponder in "I Am". As we toss posts back and forth debating the existence of deity here we have a title that truly humbles the human heart and for a moment enlarges the understanding and gives the host a small peak at the magnitude of He who claims His place as "I Am".
  
  I have my name and through that name encompasses as my deeds, thoughts and beliefs. For Him that cannot be claimed except our finite definition of "God". It is really far beneath His stature and intelligence. In fact, in pondering this title it actually enhances the vision of intelligent design. We give the the title, "God", in order for our minds to grasp Him and place Him in some sort of context. In actuality, though, this cannot be done and at the same time come close to affording Him the credit due.
  reply report
  61
  Hokeyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  . It doesnt bother you at all that you base your life on a book written by humans?
  reply report
  68
  goldenpathposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Not really, and I do appreciate how you pose a question. It is not demeaning or condescending as other exchanges I've had. Thanks.
  
  The language used at the time is not like ours today. It centered around imagery and symbolism. These things represented ideas or the state of a people. They were really not a "story" writing people. Laws and dictates were primary uses of writing. However, there were those who were inspired to stand out of the norm and to produce acts and deeds before the people and to keep a written record according to His design. Their ministry was not well received by many and was proven time and time again through death.
  
  I understand your question, and it is valid. However, when you have several ancient records from several different continents that all complement each other in doctrines and time lines it is very difficult to automatically discredit these records on the basis that they were fashioned by the hands of humans. The human hand wrote them but it was the oversight of the Spirit that provided "what" to say.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

12 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Your views about Intelligent Design ?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Your views about Intelligent Design ?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies