Einstein Versus Darwin..........

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by Bonnie, Jun 2, 2005.

  1. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    Intelligent Design Or Evolution?
    May 30, 2005
    By Tom Barrett


    more

    http://conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2910&PHPSESSID=21e257ba99440af07f62007fb905f65c
     
  2. ThomasPaine
    Offline

    ThomasPaine Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2005
    Messages:
    399
    Thanks Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +66
    Now Darwin could kick Einstein's butt through "survival of the fittest", however, I'm thnking, and my money's on Einstein, that Albert would find a left hook of extreme "relativity" and coldcock the way outta him.
     
  3. USViking
    Offline

    USViking VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,452
    Thanks Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC USA
    Ratings:
    +69
    Einstein did NOT believe in a personal God who intervened in human affairs, or took any interest in human life, so he is not an ideal authority for those who who claim intelligent design necessarily contradicts evolution.

    And he certainly DID believe in a universe and Earth which were millions if not billions of years old, which would further damage his position for those who hold an inerranist view of Biblical revelation.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. IControlThePast
    Offline

    IControlThePast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    470
    Thanks Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +21
    People need to get their facts strait. Herbert Spencer (also famous for Social Darwinism), a rival of Darwin's, was "survival of the fittest."

    Wrong, Darwin said Evolution was non-directional.

    Archaeopteryx, Eohippus, and Ambulocetus are a few examples of transition fossils.

    The author comes close to understanding! If it is to be debated, it is in humanities because ID is unscientific.

    It would shock me to hear someone claim ID was a scientific theory because it fails to meet Occam's Razor, falsifiability, and the Intelligent Designer is neither observable or repeatable. It isn't taught as a valid counterpart because it fails to meet the qualifications of a theory, and is unscientific.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  5. ThomasPaine
    Offline

    ThomasPaine Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2005
    Messages:
    399
    Thanks Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +66

    The arrogance of lefties never ceases to amaze me...
     
  6. IControlThePast
    Offline

    IControlThePast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    470
    Thanks Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +21
    posts don't have.
     
  7. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    I don't see your refutation of ICTP's points.
     
  8. nosarcasm
    Offline

    nosarcasm Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    931
    Thanks Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Idaho
    Ratings:
    +68
    weak reply
     
  9. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    I've seen several so-called transition fossils. Many of them have proven to be creatures that still exist while others look more like a sort of hybrid. Is the platypus the missing link between ducks and beavers? I think not.

    No more so than evolution.

    Evolution fails to meet the same. The idea that such complex creatures just sort of happened is hardly the simplist solution. That's like proposing that a 747 appeared in a junkyard because a tornado went through and the parts just sort of fell into place, except the 747 incident is far more likely. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by falsifiability, but many many fossils claiming to be the missing link ended up being manufactured and the rest have been disproven as above. Also, evolution isn't observable or repeatable. We can't go back in time and see fish turning into frogs, nor can you reproduce it in a lab. Even if it were true, the process seems to take such a long time that repeating it within the life span of a single person would be impossible.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616
    It is just as scientific to work to disprove a theory as it is to attempt to prove a theory. To say that ID is not "scientific" is politic and based on personal opinion rather than actual survey of scientific method.

    If we cannot find evidence that something was created by intelligence then Archeology is a waste of our time, you cannot prove that a pot of clay was not made by chance rather than by intelligent design.

    Searching for evidence of Intelligent Design, and thereby proving one theory while disproving another theory, is just as scientific as attempting to prove that Evolution is the way life was created.
     

Share This Page