Why do some people insist that there must be a "god" behind everything? That sort of crude thinking would of been fine thousands of years ago, but this is the 21st Century!
Might be immaturity
or just the wish to have a daddy to protect and to have a feeling of 'being special'.
It is good science, to look at what would be a sufficient cause for an effect we see in our universe, or planet. Evolution, just as an example, is not a sufficient cause, for the effect we see in the world, in regards to origins. We can't apply our brightest minds on this planet in all of history, to even begin to duplicate what would be needed in the beginning. Its actually rather scientific, reasonable, and logical to ask, "what could be a sufficient cause for all we see?" Has anything ever been offered in that regard?
So the irony I see, is that the idea of an uncreated creator is actually not incongruous with science, in terms of explanations. One may not like it, or agree, but its not crazy or stupid like some suggest. Its actually the best idea, that has been offered, that is in keeping with what we see in our universe. I do see a lot of asserting of opinions and ideas though, filled with much emotion and vitriol. Not much explains that either, except.... guess what?
Nonsense. A belief in a creator is not something we see in our universe at all, quite the opposite. As an explanation, it is well beyond crazy and stupid.
I was hoping for a response to some of my points, with other points or reasoning as to why you disagreed with me.
Also, it doesn't make sense to me what you said, that "a belief in a creator is not something we see in our universe at all, quite the opposite." I didn't say that, and not sure what you mean by it.
So no responses....ok. Thanks for sharing your opinions and assertions, however. I was hoping for some discussion on what you disagreed with. My experience is the same as Janesix says below, that its not often I get actual responses to particular points from most devout atheists....but I wanted to give the chance. I am sure if there were real rebuttals, they would be given.
No, you weren't looking for discussion, you were looking to push your irrational beliefs about creationism.
If you were actually looking for discussion, you would learn something about the subject matter, first.
For example, you should have started this thread with a question such as, "What are the basic postulates of evolution?"
Troubled Man, you are just asserting and reasserting things. That doesn't work by the way, those things don't count as points made. They are just opinions or things being thrown out there. For instance, you say that I need to learn something about the subject matter first, when you haven't pointed out, not once, where I have been in error in anything I have said. You can't just say, that I don't know anything about the subject matter, or need to learn it, without establishing the fact that I have given you a reason to say so. Just being on the opposite side of me, isn't sufficient reason.
So again, I will politely continue to not return your behavior in kind, and request you stick with some facts and reasoning of this discussion, rather than play these silly games.
You wont get responses to your actual points from devout atheists.
Because there is God behind everything!
It's called "Philosophical Theology," the science of deducing the existence of God by observing the world around you.
Are you suggesting evolution is completely random?
Life is not random. Evolution doesnt randomly select itself into shapes and processes that follow phi. Shells, the sequences of leaves on plants, the shape of your face all follow the golden mean. How is that random?
No jomine. That is an example that life is not perfect. If that child survived, had children, and what we perceive as a defect was passed on to its offspring...eventually changing the species; I would chalk it up to evolution.
Exactly, life throw out a myriad of forms and the one that fit the surroundings survive and continue as species, and if changes accumulate enough to differentiate it from its ancestor or its brother that is in another place we call it specification. There is no design. But people want to think that they are special and the whole world occurs just for them(especially those people who don't have to bother where their next meal come from), so they think it is a design by the designer just for them, otherwise how can they feel they are special?
Meanwhile, third-world countries are almost exclusively atheistic...
They never think and fight in forums, they just follow what they are taught!
There is a hell of difference between following tradition and thinking.
But I don't except a theist, who is practically brain dead, to understand that.
Fascinating. Throw out a couple more ad hominems, would you? I think I'm still one or two unprovoked, uncalled-for insults away from caving to your wisdom.
Foolish statements need nothing more than contempt.
Show me one example of life that was thrown out there randomly that didnt fit into a specific niche.
Gawd you religious people are funny. The ones that did not fit the niche died out.
Sorry you don't understand biology.
Then surely you can provide evidence for this.
It is a fundamental part of evolution. Do we really need yet another thread explaining evolutionary theory and the data it is based on.
It would be quicker if you just Googled it.
Yes indeed. A little research on your part will discover this for yourself.
Sorry you don't understand biology. It must be very frustrating for you.
Was that picture not enough?
Just consider humans.
Around 40 million sperms, just a few reach the ovum. A good majority has difference (defect) so don't even reach. Out of the million that reach ovum only the lucky one can fertilize(just lucky to reach a few milliseconds ahead) with the ovum and form zygote. Out of the zygotes form only a few reach maturity. Even those that reach maturity(read some embryology book if you want to know about birth anomalies and defects) some may be different to grow into adult life. Some that reach adulthood, still are infertile.
That is for every healthy human that manage to survive and there are a million that is different and not able to do that.
And since they are not able to do that they are not SEEN.
If you survive that is just a lucky random chance.
That's not Photoshop, that's anencephaly:
defects were not designed by God. Defects are results of sin way back from Adam and Eve.
When I hear such idiotic and foolish arguments, I think there is a god and either he deliberately made fools for others enjoyment or it was a 'divine mistake'.
Was this the sin of cow eve and bull adam?
or was the human Adam practicing bestiality?
I don't think they've read up on genetics and have no idea of the goings on, on the smallest internal level. It's insane to think there was enough material to make eve from a rib... It's preposterous. The ideas are outdated and only serve to enslave the minds of a greater and greater audience.
If you go back to Genesis, you will see that God created everything in such a wonderful state, no sickness, no pain and no abnormalities. However we come across to Genesis 3 where we find the fall of man into deliberate sin and as a result all creation have fallen into pain, struggles death and chaos.
No matter how man deny this truth, it will continue to reverberate across land and seas because it is the truth. Why many people ignore this? because they are blinded by the lies of the Devil so that they will not see their need of the Savior.
which has nothing to do with this discussion which was about SCIENCE - quoting mythology doesn't change the fact of evolution
We tend to ignore it because it's stupid...
The only persons who believe the Nonsense you just posted are Brian dead, Good for nothing, trolls.
a photo designed by a photo shop expert? kidding aside, abnormalities is a result of sin way back in the garden of Eden.
Yeah right. All the talking snakes fault! What does sin, god,garedn of eden, adam, eve all have in common? A result of someone's wild imagination.
you are excluding God from the created world. well, the bible tells about your unbelief even before you were born.
Yea, the sin of your god, that this god of yours is just a moron. Or is it you? Because I rarely come across people who post like they are absolute idiots and have studied nothing but bible and have never used the 'thinking' part of their brain.
When we rely just on our brain to understand the wonderful product of God's wisdom and power, we will end up to the wrong conclusion. But when we allow Him to instruct us and give us wisdom to see the beauty of His enormous work, we will best appreciate how excellent is His awesome majesty. We will see at best the how and why in this created world.
How did he accomplished this "creation"?
"There is no GOD! I wish there was but there is not. There is no evidence to support a god of any sort. In fact, there is more evidence to support the complete fabrication of god then there is of an existence of GOD. But good luck with delusional thinking it is bound to influence your behavior for the rest of your life especially guilt and shame plus it will keep you separated from other cultures and in complete denial of the truth."
Ha ha ha ha ah ha. That's both funny and sad at the same time. I'm sure you won't understand why.
the scientific method is the only reliable, evidence based system we have for discovering the way the world works. trusting the inner voices may be the murmurings of a devil, a god, or just the effects of a bad plate of shrimp
I get banned for months at a time for things far less offensive....you must be hidden staff, or in the right political circles.
Instead the picture is in lieu with the forum topic and I chose the picture from wikipedia(I've more gruesome pictures) a public site.
Anyways - the notions here are all illogical.
1. Intelligent design - we're all going to agree that that means "God Did it."
2. If we believe in a God, then it is obvious he is more intelligent than us - we can't create much of anything..certainly we can not design worlds, ecosystems, and create unique species of life.
4. - so since we are admitting (should we agree to the notion of God) that our human knowledge is exactly shit we:
5. ...can't say that a deformed or aborted fetus is not the will of the intelligent designer, as we can't comprehend "his" mind.
Most human mothers would love to have a child and hold it in there arms. Most parents love their children, help them grow up, walk, learn to talk. But when they learn to walk there is the potential to fall down and hurt themselves.
Human touch allows us to hold children, hold a rose, hold and use delicate surgical instruments, or play a violin. None of this is possible unless it is also possible to burn our fingers on a hot stove. It is illogical to say, "one circumstance is bad" while another circumstance is good, -because it takes all the possibilities to accomplish these things.
No human mother wants a solid granite baby. They want a real baby. To get real babies they have to reside in "reality" not wishes. Deformed babies happens when you deal with reality. A reality of harsh environments and nature. Yet it does in fact produce healthy babies that grow up to be doctors that cure human problems. Perfection isnt a wish, perfection is something that actually works.
Yes, and you're missing the point - if someone believes in a creator, then they must accept that his purposes are beyond their understanding.
I do not subscribe to that because of my beliefs. God endowed me with a mind, it would be an insult to willfully neglect or abandon such a gift. I do not claim to know His purpose, but I do claim to see the logic of it.
Hey that is really cool - create your own universe to show that you are the equal of God, and then we'll discuss this more, K?
Sorry, I could not sit by and let this pass, Mr/MS Phoenix. This is a contradiction. Without your "beliefs," God wouldn't be in the equation at all. What you assume is logical is simply an attempt to justify your beliefs.
But I'll ask anyway. What logic is god using to justify anything? And why would a god require logic at all? There are no laws governing him or what actions he takes in any instance. Explain the logic of giving humans "free will" but threatening them with eternal suffering if they do not do as he wants them to.
What is the logic of running a scenario which he already knew the outcome of since forever? Even those born far into the future have their outcomes known to him long before they are born. You claim to know the logic of this, so now's the time to show off your "gift".
Don't question him, you'll be forced to hear nonsense!
Its Mr. thank you.
Mr Shaw said: if someone believes in a creator, then they must accept that his purposes are beyond their understanding.
I just didnt agree with that. I personally don't see an argument that the above is true. If Mr Shaw were to run an argument by me, I may or may not agree. But it seems to be an assertion that God is so far advanced intellectually that we cannot possibly speculate on any of it. Mr Shaw could extrapolate to where I can be shown wrong in my understanding of what he meant. I can only draw upon what he wrote in that post but I do in fact understand that he may have meant more to it than what I read. It is difficult to understand a persons thoughts and ideas out of just one post.
What I meant by "my beliefs" in that regard was that I have a belief where I should "always be ready to give an answer to any man that asks me the reasons for my hope"....or beliefs." which would be my "personal" doctrinal support for my answer to Mr Shaw.
My claim was to "seeing" logic and about His purpose which was specific,(our world, design, evolution etc) however my beliefs can extend to your questions as well.
I gotta admit Mr Godwin that your questions are much deeper and hopefully the OP wont mind that its slightly off topic. ( I dont mind at all and glad you chose to discuss with me, I appreciate it)
I believe in a somewhat deterministic reality. I think freewill is a convincing illusion for the most part. The universe comes and goes it begins and ends or possibly even lasts forever for all I know for a fact. My belief that I have choices or belief that I made choices, wont change the out comes.
I know that you will think this is a cop out, but it is 1;20 am here and I was headed for bed when you asked me questions that the greatest philosphers pondered for centuries. I also took two blue tylenol PMs that are kicking in.
I will do my best to pick this up tomorrow, if you like. I would like that and I will wait till I see you in the forum and give what answers a country kid can on your rather deep questions.
Thanks for making your gender clear, Mr. Phoenix. I suggest you at least put this on your profile if nothing else. Although your gender isn't really relevant to the discussion here, it helps to be able to refer to you without having to use the he/she indication rather than the gender.
And althoug I consider Wesman a friend here on HP, I cannot agree with his statement either. But I'm sure he understands this as he is a good guy and welcome to his opinion, as are you and I.
Our differences are not so great, it seems. Time passes and life goes on, or not. Because I am student of the past and collector of ancient Native American artifacts--many over 10,000 years old--I tend to be a bit more simplistic in my view of this planet and those who once ruled it. We live as best we can, no different than the other animals on our planet. While others seem to wish humans to be special and have souls, I see no such distinction other than brain power between the two.
Evolution takes place and has done so since life first appeared on this remote world. Perhaps it's just the method a god would use to do things. But so far. I cannot imagine a deity bored or cruel enough to waste his time on such.
But then, I'm merely a pore old dirt farmer from the country and may be wrong in my view of the world. I believe our own experiences and attained knowledge decides our beliefs, not an invisible god invented by man.
It was a pleasure to discuss with you. As far as merely an old dirt farmer from the country that may be wrong on views, dont feel alone, Im just a poor country guy with bunches of opinions that are probably wrong too so dont feel alone. I think sometimes honesty is better than being right at times, so we are doing good.
I guess the above is really a response to:(Or the thread in general.)
You are telling me this is designed?
Yes I believe it is designed. A design of perfection in fact.
Anencephaly, hydrocephalus, syndromes, conjoined twins, birth defects, cerebral palsy.... are all perfection, indeed.
You can imagine a better universe? I want to play the violin although I have no talent and I never want to burn my fingers on a hot stove. When you have created something like that, simple as that-let me know.
What is this nonsense about? I certainly can Imagine a universe without diseases.
What else would you micromanage? Old age? Population? I hear titanium is a good building material- no diseases. People dont want to get around people that are sick, normally. I think you would be surprised how many people would avoid anything that "could never get sick"- it wouldnt be human. The honey suckle smells wonderful this time of year, but having a big nose like mine makes me susceptible to hay fever. I guess that is the nature of being alive. Uhm I already dont wanna be around your creation that never gets sick, sounds creepy.
Sounds creepy? That is because you are describing nature, not some superhuman's design.
Your no disease design enabled a population of 500 billion human beings that exhausted the resources and died of starvation.
Wanna tweak the design?
The Native Americans didn't have even the common cold, measles, mumps, etc.! They had been here in the Americas for at least 13,500 years and some now think up to 40,000 years. So this pretty much blows your "no disease" theory out of the water, or when the first Spaniards came here both continents would have been overcrowded in the extreme.
Why did god design some people with tourettes syndrome but not everyone?
Is it perfect to have tourettes syndrome or is it perfect to not have it?
It is perfect to live in a reality where tourettes syndrome is possible. They tried making these beings one time that only said what they were programmed to say without any cases of tourettes but the batteries didnt last but 2-3 years so everyone voted for the full human life span, but alas it came with tourettes you %%$F!!! JK
Are you saying that god punished 0.1% of humans because of what some guy did at the beginning of time?
Jesus christ dude. I mean really.
By the way, you never answered the question as to which person is perfect. The one with tourettes or the one without?
But god is random! There have been so many of them and you cannot prove they weren't random too, can you?
Paul, are you serious? Evolution has countless examples of 'design'. From the first nasty pool came the higher order of gunk, then fish, then......and so on. If that ain't some sort of 'scientific design', then I've never heard of anything that is.
What I'm saying is there's no need for a god in this "design". Saying "god made this or that" is mentally laziness and now we have the science and technology to explain how things came to be. Life today among living things are a result in millions upon millions of years of trail and error (evolution and in some cases interbreeding) which is still not perfect. If you are an expert in biology, for example you'll know why humans are the only animals that that suffer lower back problems and giving birth is incredibly painful. So the human body is far from perferct.
Millions of years of trial amd error dont produce perfect phi ratios in every aspect of the human form, down to the very shape of your dna.
It seems that part of the argument (that some are suggesting) against some god being possible creator of things, is that life needs to be perfect, never having any defect or problems (like pain, etc). That is one opinion to have.
I also observe an ignoring that people that believe in a god, also very often believe in the evolution we all observe and see. Its not a rejection of science that I see among theists, but it is made to look that way by some. Is there a benefit in that somehow?
design is a CONSCIOUS mechanism - evolution is random and undirected. organized lifeforms may emerge but there's no intelligence involved
Troubled Man said, "There isn't anything random about evolution, which shows you have no understanding of evolution"
Evidently not all atheists agree on evolution and whether it is random or not. If I am wrong in assuming you both are atheists, let me know. His comment was directed at me, after I showed how randomness doesn't negate an intelligence involved, necessarily.
first, why do you assume that anyone who understands evolution is an atheist?
some people may not understand that evolution is random - that doesnt change the FACT of evolution
Cascoly, I do not assume that anyone that understands evolution is an atheist. I asked a genuine question about not wanting to assume about people being atheists. I ask in part, because of the responses I am seeing, and the lack of points being addressed, and the tone, etc.
My points go unaddressed. I am not sure which facts you agree with or disagree with in evolution, but if you notice, I have not once denied the fact of evolution we observe in science. Hope this helps.
So a few of you disagree in here about randomness in evolution....
I think of evolution as trial and error, if one design doesn't work, then the species must adopt a new strategy or method of survival... So if there is an order you're looking for, forget it. As our environment constanly changes, so shall we. These changes might not always be physical, sometimes the design is good enough, it just needs a better engine... Or by our current design, a better computer.
"So a few of you disagree in here about randomness in evolution...."
No, people are using the word in different ways.
1. Made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision: "a random sample of 100 households".
2. Governed by or involving equal chances for each item.
Evolution has several distinct components required to make it work, some of which are random ("governed by or involving equal chances for each item") and some of which are not.
The word random can also be used in the sense of "made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision" to differentiate evolution from something that is planned or designed.
I observed that when I pointed out how the randomness of evolution doesn't necessarily negate an intelligence involved, was when I got the response that surprised me. The quote from a Troubled Man said,
"There isn't anything random about evolution, which shows you have no understanding of evolution."
Do you agree with him then? Or disagree? Its a pretty cut and dry statement as I see it. I was very surprised based on what everyone else was saying. He didn't seem to differentiate or care what kind of definition was being used for random, and assumed I just know nothing about evolution.
Well, I obviously can't speak for A Troubled Mind, but I interpreted that statement as referring to the "governed by or involving equal chances for each item" definition of random, which evolution is not.
Mutation occurs by random ("governed by or involving equal chances for each item") chance, but which mutations spread to the population and which die out is governed (primarily) by natural selection, which, as twosheds1 explained earlier, is not random ("governed by or involving equal chances for each item") at all.
However, both mutations and natural selection are random in the sense of being "made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision," and so is evolution.
Einstein didn't think so :
The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.
Seriously, Jomine? There is no design to evolution? I must beg to differ.
Evolution does not work to create us or anything, it is just the adaptation of organisms to procure food and procreate. The one better at that survive, that does not, perish. It doesn't matter whether organism is simple or complex, it only matter whether the genes can replenish itself.
Nonsense. Sorry you don't understand biology. It must be very frustrating for you.
You probably believe that genes and traits can only be transfered from parent to offspring due to random, accidental mutations.
You probably believe in majik, because I believe no such thing.
GAWD you believers are funny. Uneducated, but funny.
Eph 2:2-3 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: (3) Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
We were just like you before Christ made us see the truth. You are denying it now and even sarcastic to it because their is no wisdom in you.
Yes, we understand the only answer believers need to hear is that god dunnit and that everything else is irrelevant.
That would make it anti-evolution. Evolution is a designerless process.
Ok. I dont have any other word to use besides evolution. I still believe life evolves, it just has to follow a pattern. I could be wrong that it is a DESIGNED pattern. But there is a pattern. It is not random.
Evolution is widely accepted to mean: random variation + natural selection.
So, you need to use a different word.
Actually, evolution is the OPPOSITE of random. If you have a million monkeys typing at typewriters, you will never have one of them type out, say, a Tale of Two Cities. Never. However, if you set those same monkeys to typing, and kept each correct letter as it appeared, you'd get ATOTC rather quickly. For the first letter "I" you'd have a 1 in 52 chance (26 letters in two cases). Once you get the "I," you'd go on to the next letter, with another 1 in 52. Heck, with a million monkeys, if you divided up the chapters, you'd probably have the whole book within minutes.
That is how evolution works: good results are kept and expanded upon, bad results are tossed out.
janesix, which camp are you? Do believe in God who created everything or a believer of a self existing creation?
Not exactly. Evolution simply says that the development of life was subject to the whims of whatever mutations occurred and whatever factors contributed to one genetic makeup surviving over another. It makes no stipulation that I can see as to what those forces are.
On the contrary, by definition the evolutionary process must be subject to any and all possible external forces, regardless of what they are or where they come from. So it all comes back to the individual's belief as to whether God exists and thus could have been involved in the process or not.
A cell is a great example of something that is designed, something that we never see just happening.
A process is another thing
Forget a god for a moment. Are there any things in this world, created by a human that can be set up to be random after the fact? Do we know of anything like that?
That was said, assuming I was going with the "there is no design in evolution" comment.
Of course not, something like a cell takes millions of years to evolve. It's one of the most common misunderstandings of believers who are unable to grasp long periods of time.
Hi Troubled Man, curious about particular points I made that you disagree with ans why if you do. I think you missed my points actually. I don't have trouble, by the way, of grasping long periods of time. Nice of you to care about that though. I didn't even mention time. To be fair, I should have said, a cell seems to be designed. You don't find things like cells randomly happening in nature, when there wasn't anything there before. This is where I was coming from.
What matters even more than a cell evolving even over a long time, is how it gets to the point it can evolve at all. Where does the stuff that the cell is made from, come from?
My point kind of echoes the first point, (which gets ignored in many threads), that the idea of ID, isn't anti evolution.
You're assuming that since we are unsure now, that we'll never know the answer. But actually, organic molecules are abundant in the universe, and the early Earth was bombarded with them. Chemical reactions in these molecules are what is believed to have led to self-replicating RNA.But this is not a guess, it is a scientific consensus that has withstood experimentation.
I can see how you maybe assumed I assume that, but I do not. If there ever is a time where there is more data and evidence to support such ideas, then that would "be the case."
The earth did seem to be the one place where life could flourish abundantly, which is rather interesting. I don't have any issue with organic molecules in the universe, (which seems an odd thing to say but I do all the same, lol). You mention the word believed, and that is fair as when one considers a lot of non atheistic, ideas, it comes down to that. I was more just wanting to help correct the misconception that a belief in an intelligent being is somehow incongruous with small changes over time or evolution.
A lot comes down to reasoning, and what could best explain what we see, that is in keeping with factual science. Assuming all is true, what accounts for the process being set into motion, what allows for chemicals in the first place. Both sides put faith into things, is another point that can be made.
Yes, evolution is incongruous with intelligent design. You would know that if you actually understood evolution.
Troubled Man, Please show how evolution is incongruent with intelligent design, then I will know why you say what you said there. Thanks.
What would be the point of going into a long explanation that would have to include teaching you all about evolution because you haven't taken the time to understand it in the first place.
Your agenda is obvious, you are pushing creationism because that is your belief while you deny an explanation you have no concept of understanding.
It would show if you care about the facts and are truthful or not. It appears you just like to say things without backing them up, then put others down, laugh a lot, and not say what you disagree with. It is fine, but it doesn't help you have much credibility. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, and seeing if you were up for a discussion or not. I guess not.... If you change your mind, do share what your actual issues were with anything I have said. As of now, you have not done so.
My understanding of intelligent design being, that something intelligent is the cause for the effect we see now. How is that incongruous with what we see in the world.
If I create a child, said child is not born equipped with adult reasoning. If evolution is a fact and so is an intelligent desinger, then evolution is nothing more than a global learning process.
How does one have an "understanding of intelligent design"? That's hilarious.
It means that you understand what intelligent design is, as an idea. You have shown this board that you lump ID with Creationism, for instance. Creationism can fall under ID as a more detailed example of it, but you share that you aren't really concerned with the facts in some of these matters. Since you post a lot here, I assumed you cared more about the facts of what Creationism is, what Intelligent Design is. If you know what they are, then we can discuss them coherently, instead of the maniacal laughter, lol.
They are pretty much one and the same.
Creationism/ID is faith based nonsense, cannot be discussed coherently and only deserves maniacal laughter.
Ok, thanks for sharing your opinion.
You are sure that both Creationism and ID are faith based nonsense, nor can be discussed coherently, and deserves maniacal laughter... Have fun with that.
Your reasserting the same things over and over as fact, will never make them so in reality, even if it is sufficient for your personal needs. An idea has to actually BE incoherent, for it to be incoherent. Sad I need to point out the obvious, but it needed to be pointed out. I seem to need more evidence than you do on that kind of thing.
Oh, I meant to add too, we could always discuss what exactly you think is so incoherent about an intelligent being putting a universe into motion, over a non intelligence doing so. Then we could get somewhere. Again though, you need to know what the thing even "is" to be discussed. That might be a better place to start.
How about lack of evidence coupled with irrational belief in superstitions and myths? Does that help?
Its not letting me respond any further in this thread, as it has gone pretty deep. Your bring up a whole new question which could be its own thread. I think my point has been made however, that you don't address the current points in threads, and rather just put people down instead. That isn't scientific, factual, logical or reasonable from a person that tends to say they esteem those things over others.
If you want to point out what I have already shared that was so wrong or incorrect, please do so.
There's still just enough mystery about abiogenesis that you might be able to get away with saying some supernatural being was involved.
If you want to argue that evolution was guided, though, that's kind of difficult because once you get some supernatural force mechanically moving base pairs around to enact a desired result, it ceases to be supernatural and becomes natural, and thus testable. We have no evidence that such a thing has ever happened, and if it did, it's rather curious that an omnipotent, omniscient supernatural being would choose to do its fiddling in such a way that it appeared to be entirely random. (Just to be clear here, I'm talking about mutation, NOT natural selection, which, as twosheds1 explained earlier, is not a random process at all.)
Scientists know the average mutation rate, for example, and thus are able to estimate the length of time between two related species and their common ancestor by comparative DNA analysis. These estimates have been upheld by the fossil record to within a reasonable standard of error.
"The earth did seem to be the one place where life could flourish abundantly, which is rather interesting." Ah, the old Goldilocks hypothesis. Life came about on Earth BECAUSE life could come about on Earth. It couldn't come about on Mars, so, as far as we know, it didn't. It's like if you went up in an airplane and sprinkled fish eggs over a large area. Most eggs would land in places that wouldn't support them growing into fish. Some would land in puddles where they might hatch, but not go much further, and just a few would land in a pond or lake where conditions were right for them to hatch and mature. That lake=Earth.
ID is an extension of what is called the "Argument from Incredulity." It assumes that life is too complex to have come about without some entity to help it along at some point. The problem is, the origins of life are pretty well understood, and evolution is understood about as well as any other theory in science. There are literally mountains of evidence intertwining across many disciplines that support it, and offer not even a hint of an intelligent designer.
I suggest reading Richard Dawkins' books "The Blind Watchmaker" and "Climbing Mt. Improbable" for better explanations of evolution than I am able to give here.
I'm reading a fascinating but rather rambling book right now called Ghosts of Vesuvius whose author says you can whip up pre-biotic compounds in your kitchen in less than a day if you know what you're doing. He cites Claire Folsome's experiments and says all you really need to do to get started is to get carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen in the same place and add energy. He suggests that it would be much more surprising if life hadn't begun on Earth, and he believes it existed on Mars at one point and probably still exists on Europa, Triton, and a few other places in our solar system. Coincidentally, some scientists just announced that we probably found evidence of life on Mars back in the 70's and just didn't have the tools to recognize it at the time.
An argument of incredulity is better than an argument from stupor or an argument of denial. You are narrowly defining a definition of ID so you can say- Is evolution correct or incorrect? If it's correct then no ID.
Dawkins is not a cosmological theorist and is a poor philosopher. Instead of actually being a scientist he wants to be an atheist, and an anti-believer, first.
Evolution is not a cosmological model. Evolution is not a cosmological model.
First the universe had to exist. In your above response you obviously sidestep -where did the chemicals come from? New universes haven't popped up recently or in billions of years somewhere near jupiter. The fundamental laws of our universe Do Not seem to have existed before the universe. Unless someone would want to argue that "laws exist" prior to application for no apparent reason. Our universe coming into existence seems to defy natural occurrence, otherwise we would be wondering how do Physical laws apply - beforehand? The argument could be made although it is "rare occurrence" and that possibly there was an unnatural occurrence, doesn't necessarily mean it was a " intelligent supra-natural occurrence.
It is not a miracle for a set of dice to constantly and infinitely come up for a total of 7. It would defy odds of course but it would be no miracle. Claiming that dice just sometimes appear on tables is because they "evolved there" is silly.
First you have to have a universe that will allow life. Next, the material provided by the universe must be capable of have the raw material that constitutes RNA or DNA. This material is the "blueprints and chemical instructions for creating more sophisticated life".
Vacuous assertions of "it takes million and billions of years" have no relevance. If I build the most sophisticated computer the universe will ever know, am I on a deadline? If Appl, builds a computer in 5 minutes and it takes me 10 billion years but mine in the end is a billion times faster and better, then I can still brag correct?
Likewise, expanse of time has no relevance, because life does exist. In the computer example APPL takes for granted that plastic and metals exist beforehand to make their products. But they have not been building circuits forever so even the basic material had to develop to be used for computers.
First a universe has to exist. Out of all that material RNA and DNA developed. These in turn developed into sophisticated biological machines that ponder it all. Evolution is not a cosmological model. Evolution may only near abiogenesis, but that is about it. There is the obvious claim that evolution has had effect in the development of more and more sophisticated life. From bacteria -to people that study bacteria. But then we come to claims- all this just happens if you give it enough time and ignore confusing cosmological theories?
Life exists in our universe and this life in some cases is intelligent. The answer is "oh it just happens"? That is not scientific answer. "oh it just happens" if you give it enough time? That is not scientific answer.
The universe does in fact work. The material for life was provided. Life proceeded and grew out of an extravagant amount of what should be considered noise (as is being claimed) to create mozart.
The fact of the matter is that it got undeniably done. It sure did work well for being stupid and never existing before.
I am sorry I do not have that much "blind faith".
No, Dawkins is not a cosmologist, but I was referring specifically to evolution. For an explanation of the origins of the unvierse, try "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss and "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking.
I apologize if I seemed combative because you seem civil. But what I have seen so far on this thread and other topics in the forum similar to this is thus-
ID= creationism and we all know creationism = young earth creationism and we all know YEC = strict personal fundamental interpretation of Genesis and we all know strict personal fundamental interpretation of Genesis = Westboro Baptist Church and we all know Westboro Baptist Church = Phelps, calvinism and homophopia- so ID = homophobia.
Next is you are too dumb to understand evolution. Evolution is NOT random. Evolution is ALL random. You are too dumb to understand the definition of random. What is the definition of definition?
What I believe is this. I see the old story from India. Where the blind men think they are being presented with rope, a wall, tree branches, pipe, pillars, etc and all here "claiming" IT IS NOT AN ELEPHANT.
Earlier you said: Evidence, theories, understanding, understandable, but NO hint of intelligence.
I see them as the same analogies. In a world of evidence, theories and understanding etc with biological machines that have come from blueprints and smaller biological machines,that are logically weighing that evidence etc and that this all came from nonsensical noise that happens from time to time "inexplicably"- the claim of No Hint Of Intelligence seems like a general opinion based upon what? It is the based upon what that is the question here.
We have a universe that produced intelligent life= lots and lots of time as an explanation does not cut it. Claims of "yall just dont understand it doesnt cut it". Endless litany of strawmen arguments does not cut it.
Why do you not see the elephant?
If we awoke after a million years and came out from our sleeping chamber to the surface of the moon and found a lunar rover, can you see that - you just dont understand evolution or what the defintion of random is, or lunar rovers if given enough time just appear from time to time- just does not cut it?
The facts of the matter is that intelligent life got undeniably done. It sure did work well for being stupid and never existing before.
How do you explain that? Read a book by dawkins?
I suggested you (and others) read books by Dawkins, Krauss & Hawking because they're experts in their chosen fields, and I am not. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. The fact that he is also an atheist is beside the point, and both of his books I mentioned don't discuss atheism at all (well, they discuss it only in as much as they explain how a creator is not needed).
But besides that, I really don't understand what you're talking about. I understand evolution just fine. Dawkins has said many times "Evolution is the exact opposite of randomness," and he was the one who used the typing monkey analogy first.
And honestly I can't tell you favor evolution or ID.
Evolution or ID are not equitable. That is a strawman. Honestly I can't tell if you like mud pies or mud cupcakes? Which one? Its either or isnt it?
Is the cause of our current reality- big bang, physical laws, DNA, reasoning, logic, does it have intelligence? Is our understanding of intelligence itself complete?
Intelligent life got done- supposedly it was stupid and all of our physical reality did not exist hypothetically before- but it did get done, and it works.
I think Abe Lincoln said that if you see a bunch of notched wood and hammers and saws and nails, a little common sense would suggest that someone is building a cabin.
In our reality the logs are "actually " speculating and wondering why the saws and hammers seem to have the ability to construct cabins "of their own accord". Some logs are suggesting that the saws and hammers just do that from time to time and expect others to quietly accept it.
Of course ID and evolution are not equitable, because ID is bollocks! It is not science. It is barely a hypothesis. I don't know what you mean by saying intelligent life was "stupid" before. Is a squirrel stupid or is as intelligent as it needs to be? They survive just fine in my yard without knowing maths or writing their own squirrel literature.
Your logic is so incoherent I can barely tell what argument you're trying to make. Are you saying that intelligent life (or just life in general) is too complicated to have come about through natural processes? If so, you have very little understanding of thse natural processes, though I suspect it may be willfull ignorance on your part.
Your arguments have thusfar been one big straw-man and "how bout reading a book" and now ad homs.
This is your argument- this actually means that (when it doesnt) and (lets all read a book). Those arent arguments.
Recapitulation theory is bollocks. Piltdown man is bollocks- read JRR Tolkein.
There is no substance in your debate. You are barely one step ahead of Trouble Man.
That just goes to show how little you know about Dawkins.
The fact that our physical laws came into existence as a result of the Big Bang does not mean the BB was not a natural occurence.
What do dice have to do with anything? Strawman.
Now, those are indeed vacuous assertions.
That would be the misinformed answer you are providing as a strawman.
Phoenixv, that is a great post, brilliant even. Thank you so much for sharing those thoughts. You bring up things that make sense, based on things we know for sure in the world.
Distinguishing what is good science and what is bad, shouldn't need to be pointed out when it seems fairly obvious. However, when arguments and threads get SO far from the basic points, it needs to be done. Excellent post. I hope it is read by many.
How can that post make sense when it's complete uninformed nonsense?
It makes complete sense, is logical, and you asserting that it is uninformed nonsense could be proven by you simply stating how the things said were wrong. Show better reasoning, for example, other than your opinion. Show some facts, prove it wrong.
You seem to have a habit of just stating something, without backing it up. It appears that you hope your assertions just "stick" but that doesn't work. Anyone can just be on an opposing side of something and put people down, that is easy to do. Anyone can be on an opposing side against another, and just say things, try to be the last word, and never offer helpful facts, logic or reasoning. It doesn't get anyone anywhere, except to expose that you maybe really don't have better facts, reasoning and logic. If you did, you would use that.
That is what happens when someone is holding a worldview that is failing them, by the way, and is meant to be a clue that there just might be a better worldview that doesn't have to rely on such tactics. A good worldview, holds its own, makes sense, doesn't lack logic, and is truly beneficial. Its a worthwhile endeavor to seek a better or best worldview, in this short time we have on this planet. One needs not do so, but I think its a good idea, and much more satisfying.
"First the universe had to exist. In your above response you obviously sidestep -where did the chemicals come from? New universes haven't popped up recently or in billions of years somewhere near jupiter. The fundamental laws of our universe Do Not seem to have existed before the universe. Unless someone would want to argue that "laws exist" prior to application for no apparent reason. Our universe coming into existence seems to defy natural occurrence, otherwise we would be wondering how do Physical laws apply - beforehand? The argument could be made although it is "rare occurrence" and that possibly there was an unnatural occurrence, doesn't necessarily mean it was a " intelligent supra-natural occurrence."
1. There is some evidence that there may be multiple universes, thus you can't suggest with any claim to scientific accuracy that our universe's existence is rare or unusual in the slightest. It may well be that universes pop in and out of existence all the time.
2. There are no chemicals in a singularity. The chemicals came after. Most of the elements that actually make up life came from stars. For billions of years after the Big Bang, the universe was almost entirely hydrogen and helium and you could fit the amount of solid matter in the universe into the palm of your hand. The heavier elements came from fusion reactions in stars. We are all, literally, stardust.
"Vacuous assertions of "it takes million and billions of years" have no relevance. If I build the most sophisticated computer the universe will ever know, am I on a deadline? If Appl, builds a computer in 5 minutes and it takes me 10 billion years but mine in the end is a billion times faster and better, then I can still brag correct? Likewise, expanse of time has no relevance, because life does exist. In the computer example APPL takes for granted that plastic and metals exist beforehand to make their products. But they have not been building circuits forever so even the basic material had to develop to be used for computers."
I am not sure what your point is, but the time scales involved definitely are relevant. There's only been enough solid matter in the universe to make the formation of a terrestrial planet like Earth possible for 9 billion years or so, and there's only been enough to make it likely for about 5 billion years.
On the life front, it takes tens or hundreds of thousands of generations for enough genetic differences to accumulate between two species that split from a common ancestor to make them unable to breed with each other. The mutation rate is average, not fixed, so it might be possible to do it faster, but it's about as likely as your hypothetical dice that eternally throws 7s. If a Plesiadipus gave birth to a human, that would be a very strong argument against evolution.
"Life exists in our universe and this life in some cases is intelligent. The answer is "oh it just happens"? That is not scientific answer. "oh it just happens" if you give it enough time? That is not scientific answer."
No, it's not, but if you point me to where an actual scientist says "it just happens" and leaves it at that, I'd be interested to see that. Simple physics ensures that if you mix a bunch of stuff together and add energy, the stuff will become something else. If you've got carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen, you can start getting amino acids in less than 24 hours. If you keep it up for a billion years...
DNA CAN develop into intelligent human beings on the surface of the sun- all we need is a lot more time and "lots and lots of multi-suns popping into existence! Voila!
And because things pop into existence a lot; seemingly ex nihilo and use the material to create machines/blueprints that then "go on" to create higher thinking intelligent organisms- this can't possibly mean there is any intelligence behind it because---- drumrolll- I Said so!
I forgot you are obviously an expert. When is your book coming out, Professor Phoenix? At least I can admit to not being an expert. It takes a lot of chutzpah to call someone out who admits to not being an expert, and refers you to actual experts on the very things about which you are arguing. And rather incoherently, I might add. Would you care to reference some books that might enlighten me to your position?
I am not claiming to be an expert. I am not going to use an argument from alleged authority either.
What I am definitely not going to do is claim- everything we see does not denote intelligence because "I want it to be that way". Nor will I claim I know for a fact that all we see does suggest an intelligence because "I want it to be that way".
Life cannot exist in big bang time. So life did not exist before. It doesnt matter how many previous big bangs we had before because life cannot exist during a big bang. Now life and intelligent life does exist. It exists because the material is here, the environment is not completely hostile, and it generated DNA that has the ability to contain the information and act upon it to create even higher or more sophisticated biological entities that can think. To me this infers a method and a sequence of events and intelligence, that worked. The obvious evidence is that we had a sequence of events that produced intelligent life. It sure worked well for being stupid, because we cannot allow ourselves to think otherwise correct?
It sure worked well for being stupid, because we cannot allow ourselves to think otherwise correct?
There isn't anything random about evolution, which shows you have no understanding of evolution.
You are attempting to ask questions to answers well beyond your understanding of even the very basics of evolution. Start from the beginning and try to gain some understanding of that first before wading into deeper waters.
Troubled Man, lets back off of the randomness, as it wasn't my point initially, but others were pushing for it.
Your attempting to know so much more, while not being able to address the points you disagree with, makes me doubt what you say there in your put downs. Lets give the benefit of the doubt however, and have you show me where I have gotten the basics of evolution wrong, in anything I have said. If you show me to be genuinely wrong, I will give you that. Not just for the asserting that you know so much more than me. You disagree with me, show where and how you disagree. Thanks.
Why should I do that when you're too lazy to take the time and learn something instead of just bleating your irrational beliefs?
I observe that you are not really interested in debating intellectually, as you keep making incorrect assumptions, and putting down. In my experience, that is just another form of "a white flag waving" a surrender. You accuse me of what you are actually doing, as well. Another red flag. You can't say I didn't try to engage you, and assume you wanted to have a discussion. If you change your mind, and want to discuss actual points, like some others have done, please do.
For starters, share with us one of my irrational beliefs, and why you think anything I have said is irrational. Or am I the one that is too lazy, as you state? The irony is strong, for those that care to see it. (Throughout)
That's rich. You come here with absolutely no understanding of evolution with the agenda of pushing creationism and then accuse others of not debating intellectually. Classic!
Well, you are pretty easy to read and figure out. You like to assert things that aren't true, and that you haven't established at all, as fact. You like to repeat those assertions over and over, and laugh a lot, then say I don't want to debate intellectually. I can't make that true of you, but you have convinced me with evidence and your repeatably observable behavior.
It doesn't work, that you say someone has no understanding of evolution, when you can't back up your most basic of points. If you could have shown me wrong, in anything I have said, I know you would have by now, surely. Instead, you don't like that I point that out, and hope no one else notices because of your maniacal laughter? Ok....
Intelligent Design, no matter how much you disagree with it, means something in particular. If you can't deal with that, sorry to hear that.
Yes, an irrational belief, in particular.
You say above, that I have no understanding of evolution, when I have stated several times that I agree with the evolution we observe in the world. That is one example that proves me right that you seem to not care about facts of matters at times. Also, your responses show me that you count your opinions (and I daresay emotion and feelings about things) AS fact, which is fine but doesn't work in the "reality department".
No, you wish to promote creationism and have no understanding of evolution. You cannot agree with that which you have no understanding.
Troubled Man, your assertions don't count as fact, remember? You have to prove points with reasons and facts. You show how little you really care to debate rationally or intelligently when you keep on counting your assumptions and assertions as facts. Don't you know, that everyone has those?
You keep accusing me and others of what you are actually doing yourself. That kind of thinking and reasoning doesn't work, sorry. You haven't proven your points, nor answered questions, nor proven what you say about me with anything I have said. You are wrong, and don't seem to care. You can't say that I don't understand the evolution we observe, as that doesn't even make sense. Rather, you seem to not want me to understand, is that it? Would that make you feel better, if your untruths were true? (Even though my posts show otherwise?)
Classic dishonesty. You believers come here with nothing but assertions, no science, no facts, nothing but beliefs and then have the nerve to accuse others they aren't interested in "debate rationally or intelligently"
It is obvious to anyone who actually does understand evolution that you have no idea what you're talking about and are just propagating nonsense.
Your insisted upon, self deception of the situation in this thread is incredible to observe. Your untruths about others, no matter how many times you keep restating them, will never be truth.
If you cared about truth, you would back up even one thing you say with fact. You say I am dishonest, but are unable to how (for a reason, I haven't been.). You say I come here with assertions (which I see you doing non stop) yet cannot show one. There is a reason for that too, I haven't done that. You assert that you understand evolution, and that I don't know what I am talking about, yet cannot show either of those things to be true, and even disagree with other atheists about evolution!
Telling untruths tenaciously, will never equal a win in a debate about anything. Putting others down, unwarranted as you do, shows you are actually the one doing the very thing you accuse.
I don't know why you do these things, but I have an idea. Only one of our worldviews even explains it. That itself is nearly an evidence of its own. Clues to truth, for those that care to see it.
Just wanting others to be wrong, isn't enough reason to call them wrong. You have to show how. If you had shown one thing wrong that I have said since entering into these discussions, you might have a point. You just repeat your put downs and untruths. Anyone can look back up in the threads and see that you haven't answered questions, or debated reasonably or rationally. Even when others request that you back up your statements, you do not. Not much else I can do to try and help.
Oh? You dont seem to know anything about mutations and genetic drift or any aspects of evolution. You dont really know anything about evolution do you? You know how to use Ad hominems and strawmen arguments of ID= creationism and then another ad hominem. Is that all?
Obviously you are mistaken. He can use smileys as well.
There really isn't any reason to get upset over believers who come to public forums with their ridiculous beliefs in an attempt to diminish or deride scientific theories and fact, especially when they haven't got a clue what they're talking about, it's just plain laughable.
You havent offered any science or facts. You just keep claiming you know them when you obviously dont and then use an ad hom-like above. Anything else? You obviously dont know anything about evolution.
First time I saw this thread. I am not going to read through the 76 accumulated posts (so far). She is right! The concepts of intelligent design and evolution do not conflict!
I was reading a book recently about extraterrestrial intelligence and it is alleged that an advanced extraterrestrial being informed humans that the theory of natural selection, although it undoubtedly exists, does not explain all the anomalies on Earth. For example, why would a deer need antlers in order to survive in it's environment? It then claimed that such anomalies was due to intervention by advanced extraterrestrial intelligence. It's certainly not proof but it definitely makes sense.
Antlers are secondary sexual characteristics used to display strength and attract mates.
Some species also have antlers offering additional benefits. They can be used for defense against predators. Reindeer and caribou use them to help dig through snow to find food, which is probably one reason both male and female members of those species have them. Moose seem to use them as natural hearing aids - their antlers are so large they act like parabolic reflectors!
Jomine is right, evolution is specifically thought out to not have any design function to it, other than the "immediate need."
I don't think I agree with Jomine about much, but I do agree with him about that. If Jomine is a him, if not, I apologize.
There can be no valid answer to your question. Evolution could be masterminded by God, or it could be simply adaptation.
Your honesty is refreshing Sir, and I could almost agree that simple adaption would give rise to entities that have a staunch and unassailable position on what is valid and that same willpower would allow it to dominate a planet over some organic eating bacteria that multiplies exponentially.
There is no GOD! I wish there was but there is not. There is no evidence to support a god of any sort. In fact, there is more evidence to support the complete fabrication of god then there is of an existence of GOD. But good luck with delusional thinking it is bound to influence your behavior for the rest of your life especially guilt and shame plus it will keep you separated from other cultures and in complete denial of the truth.
If you have not guessed I am agnostic when I am down and an atheist when I am getting laid.
Hi Janesix-I know we've had our problems in the past, but the past is just that-so here, I am in complete agreement with you. Intelligent design is not anti-evolution, it may, in fact, be in God's design.
Why should an invisible man up in the sky get all the credit? No one can prove his existence but yet HE gets all the credit? That's an insult to mother Nature. You can't be amazed by the process of erosion that took place on a rock..but you can thank God for created such beauty? Really?
Invisible man? Did i ever mention an invisible man? I dont remember doing that.
Pretty well sums it up, except for the "can't prove He exists." Not everyone accepts the proof, but He's proved Himself to many people.
I suggest that not only do some forms of life follow the same phi pattern, but ALL life does. If this is the case, then mutations have to follow in the same pattern. Which means evolution is ultimately predictable. No mistakes allowed.
janesix - You make a valid point regarding mutations however the word mutation itself would suggest a deviation from the pattern. It can't be both ways. Either it's a mutation or it follows the pattern. It stands to reason that mutations would struggle to survive and I'm curious, now, to see research into this area. Do genetic mutations, in fact, differ in pattern or lack thereof?
The individual may appear to be a mutation but may actually still follow the golden mean.
Yes, i could probably use a different term like change instead of mutation. But then im not sure if people would know what im trying to get at
no one said there was no patterns found in life -- but there is no designer - now if you want to interoppre the word 'design' to mean a pattern, like we see in ice crystals, then you've moved away from the definition used in 'intelligent design'
I am the next species to follow homosapiens. I have decided to interbreed with white homosapiens in an effort to speed up the evolutionary process. If anyone is looking to assist me in my endeavor - I am available.
I think trying to discuss evolution with someone who hasn't familiarized themself with the three basic parts of its suggested mechanism is pretty pointless.
The fractal nature of the universe says that there is a design...more than one actually...I wonder who cut the master template?
evolution as an argument for the existence of things we now see is pointless.
I'd hardly see teaching a dog to aid in hunting, as a pointless venture. Without the propensity to learn, evolution would be useless. Without any logic or rationality, religion is useless. It would appear that many theists are not self critical, why else would they see their belief as trumping reality?
A thing can never exist by itself. teaching a created thing to act accordingly is not an evolution process.
The process responsible for thought is... Do you honestly think we were always this smart? Where did all the cell phones and tv's go in the bible? If evolution didn't occur, we'd still be using sticks to eat terimites.
who made cell phones anyway? isn't man? who created man? God. Man is endowed by God with knowledge to make things not create things. can you your ancestors? if you're smart
All the way back to gothic Germany, Austria, Norway, England, Scottland and Ireland. I come from a long line of Europeans, funny I have an eastern mindset...
so you don't trace back your ancestry from nothing to fish to apes and so on.good for you. thanks for your time mischevuiosme. nice to meet you.
That's a loaded question, I could just as soon answer that, as you could prove your God exists. How, if other than by words, could you ever prove the existance of God? How could I, if by words alone, defend evolution? It's almost a sociological stalemate, one of right over wrong, logic over reason and vice a versa.
Actually, it's pretty easy to trace our ancestry back as far as fishes. You'll lack a lot of the individual species on the way, but the general outline is pretty well understood.
It's getting from single celled organisms to fishes that's harder - fish were the first vertebrates, so what came before didn't preserve very well and fossil evidence is sketchy.
In other words, according to you, facts are pointless.
a bit off topic, but did anyone ever hear of the Creationism masked as Intelligent Design plot to get Creationism taught in school alongside Evolution in Dover, PA earlier in the 2000s? I just finished watching a great PBS video on it today, very cool. Brings up great points on why evolution is a highly regarded theory, too.
^ in case anyone is bored and wants to watch something interesting
A pointless theory? Did you complete basic middle and high school biology courses? It's certainly not pointless. I'm sorry you feel that way, it's a shame. Perhaps if you'd given more thought to the topic and learned a bit more you'd think differently. Oh well.
TheMagician- I guess there is no point of arguing with you either but I would like to point you to the offer of salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ which ultimately the issue of evolution denies. God loves you, He wants to save you from the damnation in hell as a result of man's sin. The offer is free and simple. John 3: 16-18 if you will.
Thanks, but I don't need your hand outs. I have my faith as a Christian, but I know the difference between logic/knowledge and faith.
For example, the fact that there's no solid evidence that the bible was written as the word of God. For all you and everyone else knows, someone or a group of people could have decided to write it just for kicks or to make their own following. This makes sense because (1) too many things in the Bible are contradictory to both itself and facts in the world, and (2) it doesn't address dinosaurs or early human beings, as in the real ones that we've found fossils of.
As an added note, anyone who wanted to create their own religion would of course add in a scare tactic, the "believe in me or you're burn for eternity" if you will.
The issue of evolution also does not defy God or Jesus Christ in any way. It just defies the lack of logic the bible poses. God could have very well created the universe and the first source of life, which could also just as well have been some archaic type of bacteria. You can't know, and you'll never know. So there's really no point in arguing about it.
There really is a rather simple solution to this argument. Does evolution follow a path? Simply, NO. If it did we wouldn't have had dinosaurs for million and millions of years. There is no reason for them to have been here. They just were and now we are here. Why would a designer have made parasites? To keep our population down? Kind of a cruel way one would think. Ever heard of the Filarial Worm. No designer in his right mind would design that and unleash it upon humans.
There is nothing random in nature. Everything follows mathematical laws, which is of course a pattern. The laws of the universe were set at the moment of creation.
Nature is completely random. Someone walks too close to a lion and gets eaten. Random.
Nature can hardly be exempt from the physical laws that formed it. There is an appearance of randomness only because we have an incomplete understanding of them.
So you claim to know how nature works even though we don't understanding it and I'm wrong.
Interesting how they can make a claim and then when show them how silly they sound they say it's not a claim it's a belief.
I dont think its silly to suggest that evolution follows a mathematical pattern like many other things in the universe. Just because something hasnt been proven doesnt mean it wont be sometime in the future. I have said more than once that these are my beliefs. I could care less that you have miopic views of the world and cant think for yourself.
Can't think for myself? It is you who is suggesting that evolution has a designer because someone told you there was a designer. Someone told me there was a designer as well, but I thought for myself. It's not me who trying to distort science to give homage to an old novel.
Once again, i am not a christian and i dont believe in the bible. I decided for myself that there was a designer.
You decided for yourself. You have never heard of a designer? It just came to you.
Of course i have heard there was a designer. I just didnt decide there was one from reading the bible or any other book.
God let me know through direct experience. The rest i am figuring out for myself.
No. There was no talking involved. There is no way to explain the experience with words.
I dont expect you to believe what i say. Im just here to get things off my chest, in a place where i dont care if im judged as deluded .
Just because you think something happened doesn't mean it did. We have all had déjà vu, but most of us know it's simply a misfiring of the brain. But seems real.
Interestingly, the only way her post could be referring to deja vu is if she had said she was there in the beginning. I didn't get that impression.
I think you misunderstood my statement or I did not articulate it correctly which is the most likely scenario. I only meant all is sometimes not what it seams.
I understood where you were going with your statement. But, equating experience to a 'misfire of the brain' as you put it isn't much better.
I know, from experience, that some things defy understanding. I don't know much, but I do know that simplistic attempts at explanations can be frustrating.
Without full knowledge of the circumstances, or the person, jumping the gun to attempt to analyze it doesn't really serve the purpose you might hope it will.
There really is no such thing as "random." What we perceive as random is actually just something that happens where we can't readily identify all the the causes. Take a die roll. It seems pretty random, but there are many components that influence the fall of the die. The position on release, height of release, surface on which it is rolled, temperature of the die and surface, etc. It's just that we usually don't control all those parameters that it seems random.
Of course, since we don't control those, it might as well be random. Makes it easier.
You're right, evolution has no design to it. That's the point. But if you can look at the history of the world and actually see the design, then whether or not you believe in God, it puts doubt about evolution in your head.
I'm a Creationist, so I say with conviction that the reason we Creationists like ID is because it fits well with what we already think. But I disagree with many of the ID scientists because no matter WHAT anybody says, most of them are not religious and are certainly not pushing a Christian agenda. IMHO they don't go far enough.
No Chris, It puts doubt in YOUR head, not mine. If you had never read the old myth book you could look at evolution with an open mind. As it is, I'd wager you are comparing evolution to the first theory of our beginnings you were ever taught. Or am I incorrect in my assumption?
ID scientists? How does one get a degree in ID? Attend a religious college or what? And where does one find the information concerning which religious affiliation these "ID scientists" adhere to or don't?
Randy, at least in regards to me, you have so far been pretty wrong in almost all your assumptions.
However, let me be sure I get you right. Evolution is supposed to be random, right? That's what I was taught. I'm not up on all the lates evolutionary theory, so if I'm wrong I will happily admit it, but that's what I was taught. I'm a Creationist, I already doubt evolution, so you're comment about, "No, it puts doubt in YOUR head," was a bit, ah, unnecessary. And all the ID "proponents" (since you don't want to allow the word scientist, even though most of them are accredited scientists and were at least well respected before they started espousing ID,) I've heard, I've parsed what they say and I haven't heard one of them say, "It was God."
I'm familiar with the Supreme Court decision (vaguely) that Eugenie Scott loves to "quote." The only thing I'm going to say about it now is, Dred Scott should prove to everyone that it's always a good idea to let lawyers decide what is science and what is not!
No - he has been bang on in his assessments. You are dishonest and make things up as needed to defend your irrational beliefs.
There are no ID "scientists," any more than there is a ton of evidence that Jesus existed.
We evolved. Evolution is not driven by an Invisible Super Being. Sorry.
Knowledge should not be about christian agenda. If knowledge is found not to fit into the christian agenda it should still be knowledge and not changed to fit your agenda. Trying to change the theory of evolution to fit your agenda is doing just that. At least the Catholics understand this.
This is how the old myth book causes those who would normally look at the world with inquisitive eyes instead try to make it all fit their preconceived notions.
Anyone who cannot see this is true is doomed to remain ignorant of the beauty of life itself. Nature is so much more wonderful than any god could make it. Much less destroy it for silly reasons because of a lack of self esteem. God contradicts his own words many times in the old novel. Acting in a "godly" manner is against the law these days.
But what if the knowledge doesn't fit the evolutionists agenda either? What if it happens to fit into Christian knowledge independent of any agenda?
Scientists and biologists are trying to disprove evolution. That's how science works. They are right now trying to test Einstein's theory of relativity by testing the speed of neutrinos. Science doesn't care about religion. Their agenda is to find the truth.
To your question "But what if the knowledge doesn't fit the evolutionists agenda either?" - Then they get a new theory.
To your question "What if it happens to fit into Christian knowledge independent of any agenda?" Then it happens, but that has not happened yet. There was a time when science was controlled by Christianity because they only wanted knowledge that fits their agenda. It didn't work. Why are you still trying to control knowledge?
Seriously, that's news to me. To read what other evolutionists in these forums are saying, real scientists spend their time finding new "proof" for evolution, and anybody who either accidentally or on purpose comes up with a theory that MIGHT, MAYBE disprove or disagree with evolution is NOT a real scientist. One guy literally said as much, that ID scientists are not "real scientists."
As I said to someone different, as a Creationist, I don't think ID scientists go far enough. I've listened to several of them and none of the ones I've listened to are particularly religious, let alone Christian.
That's almost but not quite accurate. The fact is that the early scientists were Christian because they wanted to explore the universe that God had made. (I assume that muslim scientists wanted the same thing.) And although most people will point to Galileo, the facts are not quite as advertised. The church was certainly resistant to Galileo, but it wasn't an out of hand rejection. If Galileo had been patient, his paper would probably have been published, just not as early as he wanted. Yes, there were those in the church who wanted to suppress it for various reasons. And I'm certainly not pro-catholic, but it's not exactly as if the church has been against the truth for the entirety of it's existence.
Where did you find the info about early scientists being Christians, Chris? It wasn't exactly "kosher"--to use a Hebrew word--to let it be known one was an atheist back then because of being labeled a heretic by the church. Or perhaps you were simply not aware of this "fact"?
I've heard that one before. I stand by what I wrote. Even Galileo was a professing believer. The assertion that some, many or most of the early scientists were secret unbelievers who couldn't afford to come out is based entirely on the assumption that any halfway educated person would axiomatically become a nonbeliever. If anyone has the evidence (I mean that Galileo and Copernicus and Newton and others) were secretly unbelievers, I'll look. Many educated people are believers. They're just not usually as loud as Dawkins.
Are you serious, Chris? What idiot would freely admit to being an atheist during that time period? It would asking for trouble in the worst way. C'mon, you're smarter than that I think!
Okay, I do think that there were some unbelievers. There were people who moved to parts of the world where their doubts were better tolerated. No, I don't think that every single early scientist in the West was a Christian. But neither do I believe that most of them were unbelievers. People can have a wide variety of views on things and still believe in the basics (God exists, Jesus died for our sins and rose on the third day.)
So while your basic point is correct, that freely admitting atheism would invite all kinds of trouble, it doesn't automatically follow that most educated people were closet atheists. Even Galileo. It goes to not being able to prove the negative, since admitting atheism would have brought trouble, then you don't admit it. So 100, 200, 300, 1000 years later, people who tend to believe that education breeds atheism assume that educated people were closet atheists, while people who believe that most people at that time really did believe make a different assumption.
Current statistics suggest that the majority of scientists in the US do not believe in the Majikal Super Being.
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Sc … nd_atheism
Not unreasonable to extrapolate that backwards is it?
Thanks for that Mark, I'm not surprised by the Math people. I know a few of those and they don't think like same as most. Bordering on autism does that.
No, it's not at all unreasonable to assume that people throughout the ages all thought exactly the same way and only now are we smart enough to realize that just because all those books written hundreds of years ago reveal very different thought patterns and that even slang had different meanings than we moderns assign to them means nothing.
History is therefor junk.
Thank you Mark, without your superior wisdom I would never have come to that conclusion.
Sorry facts bother you so much. Please don't be angry at me - it is not my fault you don't understand basic logic and reasoning.
You armchair historian you.
Mark, I reiterate, you are a genius!
Facts bother me much less than they bother you. I'm not sure why I bothered with this one because you've proven in the past that word meaning and civil conversation are not your pimary concerns.
Yes, I'm an armchair historian. Again, if you'd read more of my posts or my Hubs, you would know that.
But why do research when you can just laugh? Why bother with actual facts when you can just decide what things mean for yourself and attempt to steamroller people accordingly?
I shouldn't have yelled at you, though. You can't help it.
What, exactly, is a "greater" scientist? I tried to google it but couldn't find anything.
You must be forgetting the inquisitions. I do like your comment "but it's not exactly as if the church has been against the truth for the entirety of it's existence." Not exactly, the catholic church understands that evolution is real. But for the last 1500 years they have resisted science. Now it seem the fundamental christians are left.
Galileo was out of hand rejected and so was Darwin. When you tell someone that is you don't repent you will kill them that does seem to reveal a rejection. Both these men were correct.
No, I haven't forgotten the Inquisition, or the Crusades, or any other thing. I have never shrunk from history, and I have always admitted that terrible things were done by people claiming Jesus' name. They will answer for that on Judgement Day.
Darwin was rejected out of hand, I'll give you that one. But on the other hand, it's not like Darwin (and more to the point, Huxley) didn't relish the fight. Darwin's own religious views were a bit more complicated than most people want to believe, but Huxley's weren't.
As my source on Galileo, I cite a piece I heard on National Public Radio (that noted bastion of pro-religiosity) several years ago. A man who wrote a book on Galileo (who was not a Christian) talked about how if he had shown a little patience the church would probably have sanctioned his paper. As it is, he died in his bed, not on the fire.
galileo DIED without the church accepting his theories - in fact, it was only in the 20th century that the pope admitted galileo was right - meanwhile the cathlic church murdered scientists who showed the truth
but as to ID scientists, the point is there just isnt any ID science to report - there are some scientists who support tID, but they have NO research to back them up - instead they just make fallacious arguments about evolution
finally, many experiments in biology are attempts to disprove evolution - that's the whole point of the null hypothesis and the scientific method. but unfortunately for creationists, they just kleep finding more evidence FOR evolution.
I SAID I'm not pro-catholic. I'm not catholic at all. And I've never shrunk from history. Nevertheless, Christianity is not automatically anti-science. The early scientists (including Galileo) were exploring the universe God made and how it works!
Be that as it may, and I stress "may," it's also not religious, the marvelously neutral Eugenie Scott notwithstanding. I am religious, and ID is a scientific hypothesis, not religion.
You're the second person to tell me that in a week. You're also the second person to tell me that ever. I have been busy with other things, so I may not be the most informed person on the planet, but I find it interesting that I don't find out about these things for forty-five years. Not from pro-evolution, not from anti-evolution. But I believe you.
Let me be the third, that's what science does. Science has an idea and tries to disprove that idea. Just like trying to prove Einstein was wrong by testing the speed of neutrino's.
And I'm glad to hear it, but not because I'm anti-science. I stick by what I've written, that ID is not inherently proof of religion, that I have as yet to hear a single ID scientist utter a truly religious statement, and that people like Eugenie Scott hate ID because it sounds to them like it supports religion.
Nevertheless, I'm very interested in science. I simply don't have the time to read even the layman's writing on it. But I still find things like dark matter and anti-matter and even evolutionary theory very interesting.
Of course ID is not religious! It's not like they are saying God did it all. Are they? Because that would be religious. Look, ID was invented as a way to teach creationism in science class that why they don't say GOD right away, but eventually... Good thing it didn't work.
You know, I understand why is seems that way. Really, I do, because believers like me WANT to use ID to teach Creationism. But ID is NOT religion, it doesn't matter whether the Supreme Court says it is or not (and in fact, I don't know for sure what they did. Eugenie Scott has a habit of saying things like "the Supreme Court said it's unconstitutional!" which is pretty bizarre even on the face of it.) Which case was that? I know it's on the Web but I don't have too much time to look for it right now.
But what nobody doubts is that ID does open a door for a Creator God. But I haven't heard or read any of the scientists who propose it make claim the ID ipso facto proves the existence of God, let alone that Jesus came to die for our sins. If anyone has the actual documentation that they have, or even that most or just a couple have, I'm willing to look at it.
Come ON, they couldn't teach creationism in science class so they reinvented in under a different name and that very name is the clue. Intelligent Deign. Both those words imply someone did it. The only reason it wasn't allowed to be taught was their science didn't back it up. It fell apart in court. Real science proved them wrong.
Let me put it this way, if ID is religion, then most if not all of those ID scientists are going to have a very difficult time on Judgement Day because they didn't take the opportunity to openly say that the Intelligent Designer is God.
of course not since REAL scientists dont have time for pseudoscientific religious quackery. you're the one who keeps claiming ID is legitimate science but you have yet to provide ANY actual scientific evidence FOR your claims.
ID was CREATED by the Discovery Institue [an intellectual embarrassment for Seattle] SPECIFICALLY to get around court rulings that said creationism could not be taught in science classes. it'sjust warmed over creastionism - some of their printed materiasl is the SAME as earlier stuff, with 'creationuism' replace by 'inteligent design'. lickily the Dover case squashed this flimsy charade too
so while there is no explicit religion in ID, the ONLY purpose of it is to promote a religious idea -- there is no ID research, there are no articles about ID in scientific journals.
obviously you have nothing to support your silly claims - you refuse to present any evidence for your position - can it be you didnt think anyone would call your bluff? it's pretty clear you're running on empty
Although this seems a lost cause, let me be blunt and state it one more time...
I do NOT claim that ID should be the law of the land! I don't need to present evidence because I'M NOT DEFENDING ID!
Did you actually read what I wrote or do you just figure that if someone is a Christian then they must be on some kind of crusage and whatever your knee-jerk reaction is is okay?
yes i've read your posts - have you? here's a refresher:
===Really, I do, because believers like me WANT to use ID to teach Creationism
=== I am religious, and ID is a scientific hypothesis, not religion.
===I'm a Creationist, I already doubt evolution,
==== And all the ID "proponents" ... are accredited scientists and were at least well respected before they started espousing ID,)
YOU are the one who keeps claiming that there are ID scientists, but you refuse to name them or provide references to their published research.
You're rather intense, aren't you?
If you can stop the cherry-picking, you would remember that what I said was that ID is not religion, and I say that because I AM religious. That was the sum total of my point. If you choose to hear that as ID IS Science and SHOULD be taught in schools, that is your choice but it's not what I said.
Exactly. And what about extra drippy ice cream? No intelligent designer would ever create ice cream that drips down the cone and gets all over our fingers.
Nor bible thumpers who drip down into everyone's business either.
You would have an actual argument if you weren't in a religion and philosophy forum, correct?
An "actual argument" depends on one's perspective and whether one considers it so. An argument does not have to be based on facts, as those of religious folks plainly exhibit.
Do you go to the cooking forums and complain about people posting recipes? Yet you implied something about Bible thumping although this is a religion forum and I have posted absolutely no chapter, verse or scripture of any kind whatsoever? I will take your whining as an apology and I accept it. Future whining will be considered further apologies and I accept those too in advance because I dont think you can help yourself. If you dont want to be bothered by religious discussion dont come to a religion forum would be my advice.
The topic is intelligent design and if life, evolution etc have intelligence behind it or not. Do you have an opinion that you arent afraid to share on the topic? Trolling is an automatic loss.
This is not only a religious forum and it isn't limited to such. And please point out to me where I said you were a thumper if you like. You mentioned ice cream in your post. As you said. this isn't the cooking or recipe forums.
Take what you please as whatever. Who cares? I've no concern what you take or don't. And you know where you may store your advice.
I suppose I missed the post where everyone elected you forum hall monitor. Or is this a self appointment? What I share need be no concern of yours, Mr/Ms. anonymous account holder. Afraid to use your name, yet you refer to me as a troll. There's a name for such folk, it's right on the tip of my forked tongue.
Once again you had the opportunity to discuss the OP and chose to whine instead.
Are you afraid to discuss the original post?
Is putting people down that are actually discussing the topic the best that you can do?
I merely responded to your post admonishing me for what you took to be my accusing you as a thumper. Honestly, did you really think you were going to get away with that? But carry on with your earth shattering revelations. I'm sure everyone is waiting with bated breath for your words of wisdom.
I enjoy discussing this particular subject. But it is constantly derailed by people that have no intent on discussing this topic. You dont want to be "lumped in" with some of these others do ya? I wont even waste my time on them but I thought you had class.
y u kare wut us kwishians think duh? we just bible thumpppers dat cant yuse fax in r-guments.
I thought you was a southern gentleman with class and grit.
Look lady, discuss at will if you like. No one requires you to respond to my posts. Your admonitions are uncalled for, as I need no advice from you on what or how I post.
What did I tell you about trying to think? Whether I have class or grit is not for you to decide alone. My rep is no concern of yours, nor yours mine. As I said earlier. Carry on with your fascinating diatribe. I will not interrupt your important lesson again!
You posted to me remember? Let me know if you ever want to debate or discuss the original post, if you think you can. Have a wonderful evening lady.
No thanks! I will simply stand on the sidelines and let you expound at will. Perhaps no one else will interrupt you this time.
Probably good advice. Best to stay on the porch. If people are just here to put other people down its just rude and immature. Some of these people I am guessing are Christian women and ladies, and they have to put up with constant put downs by idiots that cant even carry on a civil discussion? Why should Men put up with that? If a person discusses their opinions and thoughts on the matters, we can all perhaps learn something. If their thoughts or opinions arent well formed or thought out, they can learn better arguments. No one will laugh if they recognize they are new to it and are trying. They laugh because they cant even make the attempt and all they can do is put people down? <--see (make no mistake we do laugh about it)
I would suggest reading Leibniz; particularly "best of all possible worlds". Why would would a designer create bacteria? At first thought it seems like a pretty negative thing. But who would want to be neck deep in road kill that we have to wait for it to erode by wind and water and lots of time? Bacteria takes care of that.
Life really really wants to thrive. It wants to duplicate itself, yet our environment is sort of harsh and life has difficulty sustaining itself individually againts the sun, rain and time. One could say: good grief the sun is a fusion bomb irradiating everything, yet it does make the flowers grow.
When some life gets out of control we will often see the checks and balances kicking in. Too many insects and it makes for a great condition for frog populations to explode. Too many frogs and we get other predators. Microscopically if we get too many populations exploding we get disease.
Now, I think it's not a good argument to say- we see stuff that looks bad, now why would God do that? Then if we see that without that same stuff it would be much worse. But can either be attributed to an intelligent designer?
We have an amazing amount of balance in these systems. We have the material to begin with, we have systems, we have balance. These things should be considered for ID in my opinion rather that the already existing systems. For an analogy I would compare it too looking for mechanics inside of auto radiators. Common sense says we will not find a mechanic inside of a radiator right? We could say- OMG there is super hot under pressure water inside, how will that ever work to cool an engine? Who ever thought that idea up! Then we understand the mechanics of it all and how it actually works, yet there will still be no human mechanic inside of a radiator.
I apologize if my "extra drippy icecream' answer was inconsiderate although it made the point in a much quicker and easier way.
I don't think you looked up the Filarial Worm. It's a nasty creature that no one would plan if they had compassion. There is no way to convince me that God planed the Filarial Worm for if he did I'd take a second look at the one you worship. Do a simple google search for 10 worst human parasites the come back to me an tell how wonderful everything is designed and God layer all this out for us.
So if there is anything in the world that seems bad to you then it lacks compassion so there can not be any intelligence behind it? But all that is good in the world "has compassion" and that is indicative of intelligence?
Or is it some kind of maltheism, because you perceive bad things, but ignore good things- so unless God only makes a sterile world of indestructible robots, he has to be "bad".
Is your idea of compassion good? What makes your compassion possible?
What I am saying is, if there is an intelligent designer he would not have introduced such a horrifying creature as the Filarial Worm. Address this so we can move on. I'll take the good with the bad, but you must do the same.
If there is an intelligent designer he would have never introduced man. He causes wars, he murders, rapes, robs- you name it. But I'll take the good with the bad.
Now, What makes your compassion possible? Is compassion a noble quality?
What makes compassion possible? In a sterile, indestructible robot world, there would be no need for compassion, would there?
Do you think that a world without the need for compassion, a sterile, indestructible robot world sound like a good place?
You dont like Filarial Worms. After they are gone what would be next? Something else I bet and we would be back to - God must be a bad guy or a bad designer because of -this, then -that, then something else, right?
Teenagers (or any age really) fall in love, yet sometimes it is unrequited so they will commit suicide or get into drugs. What kind of God would create beings that love or love itself?
Studying and eradicating Filarial Worms may help in solving other parasite problems. That may save lives- If that is the case then your logic was not compassionate or sound.
Life thrives because their is conflict and because there is competition. Noble qualities like compassion can only exist if their ARE problems.
All this talk about how perfect the world is and God must have planed it, and I show you that it's not perfect so you say well it's not perfect for a reason. BS
C.elegans is a much more interesting worm when it comes to evolution.
G. StearothErmophilis is another example of predictability on wvolution.
by marinealways24 8 years ago
Is Evolution an Intelligent or Ignorant Design?
by Zelkiiro 5 years ago
...while real in the presence of sort-of philosophical drivers, is, nonetheless, a philosophy of ignorance."http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epLhaGGjfRw&t=00m19sAn extremely interesting and enlightening look at the history of science and the gradual phasing out of religiosity in it,...
by Ron Karn 7 years ago
If all life forms evolved from a single organism, where did the first organism originate from? It seems to me that to classify the science of evolution as scientific fact that they would need to establish a basis from where to begin, with an answer to this question. My research has led...
by Jack Lee 23 months ago
For the evolution scientists, which came first the chicken or the egg?I don't think this dilemma has been fully explained or explored. All evolution scientists and biologists, please explain...
by kirstenblog 2 years ago
Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes...
by John Sarkis 3 years ago
What do Evolutionists really mean by "Intelligent Design?"For example: if you believe in Einstein's "Big Bang Theory" - then wouldn't the universe/cosmos had to be "Intelligent" enough in order to bring itself into existence? I've oftentimes heard...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|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.|
|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.|
|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.|