I want some answers

[Mr. P]

... It just amazes me to see how all this phony bullshit is taught in schools as fact, when the hard evidence shows that Darwin was and always will be a fraud. If you think about it, evolution sounds as remarkably ridiculous as the old belief that rats sprang magically from garbage, or that maggots come spontaneously from rotten meat.

Yeah, those damn Dinosaurs!

 

[MissileMan]

Actually, I don't think I posted that article, but okay... creationism involves geology and anthropology too. What you were talking about here was the primary cause, what happened in the beginning. The two theories we must juxtapose are Creation Week and The Big Bang. Neither of these can be observed/experimented upon.

As we move into geology, we can employ the scientific method for both working hypotheses. Observe a rock formation. We see thousands of strata with some polystrate inclusions (Stuff stuck into the rock which spans many layers). We test this observation against both working hypotheses.

Evolutionists/materialists believe that rock layers were laid down one at a time over millions of years. How to explain the intrusions? If they were stuck in the the outcropping as it formed over millions of years, an intrusion such as a stick or an animal would have rotted away at the top before the next layer could have been deposited. Or if it had been intruded after the rock layers formed, there would be evidence of cracking/breakage around the intrusion.

Creationists believe that rock layers were deposited very quickly, laid down wet, and dried together (as would have occurred in a global flood). Intrusions pose no problem for this theory. They can exist intact because they had no time to rot. There is no breakage around them in the rock formation because the entire formation was wet when it was deposited. So we test this even farther. Is it possible for several layers of rock to form simultaneously? This is something we can experiment with, and scientists have. In labs with water tanks and I even read of one experiment where they dammed up part of a beach to test this on a larger scale. In both cases, scientists found that water has a sorting action, and different types of sediment/debris will sift itself and form layers simultaneously.

Anthropology: I have a soccer game to go to. If you would like to provide a scenario, I would be glad to apply Creationism to it.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. You are implying that the theory evolution is unsound because it hasn't been observed due to the length of time involved. I posted the quote from your link about scientific method that explains how theories are derived in other fields where vast amounts of time are involved, like geology, paleontology, astronomy, etc. not through experiments, but through analysis of the evidence on hand.

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

Yeah, those damn Dinosaurs!

What about those damn dinosaurs?? Is there one under your desk giving you a hand job or something?? You'll have to explain.........

 

[Mr. P]

What about those damn dinosaurs?? Is there one under your desk giving you a hand job or something?? You'll have to explain.........

No, I don't think I do.

I'll say this though, you CAN'T prove ID and neither can someone else prove evolution to be 100% correct. If we accept that no one really knows, for sure, based on FACT, maybe we can look for the answers and stop this I'm right you're wrong BS. It goes nowhere.

 

[Hobbit]

That's the stance I take. I don't want to try to make you believe ID, just that it is a plausible theory instead of being told I'm stupid for not swallowing evolution hook, line, and sinker.

 

[Annie]

That's the stance I take. I don't want to try to make you believe ID, just that it is a plausible theory instead of being told I'm stupid for not swallowing evolution hook, line, and sinker.

Well that's 3 of us...

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Look...that's just silly. Be serious now. Logic would not lead you to believe in anything other than evolution.

Logic wouldnt lead you to believe anything but evolution ISNT POSSIBLE as a means of the creation of life.

Irreducable complexity, the problem has not been answered. NO EVOLUTION possible, only alternative is an intelligent creator.

 

[MissileMan]

Logic wouldnt lead you to believe anything but evolution ISNT POSSIBLE as a means of the creation of life.

Irreducable complexity, the problem has not been answered. NO EVOLUTION possible, only alternative is an intelligent creator.

The vast amount of diversity between all of the forma of life on this planet IMO speak volumes against there being one intelligent designer behind the whole thing. An intelligent designer would not have come up with the varying methods of reproduction for example. An intelligent designer would have applied the same method to all species. All animals would lay eggs, or give birth to live offspring, or would be marsupials, etc.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The vast amount of diversity between all of the forma of life on this planet IMO speak volumes against there being one intelligent designer behind the whole thing. An intelligent designer would not have come up with the varying methods of reproduction for example. An intelligent designer would have applied the same method to all species. All animals would lay eggs, or give birth to live offspring, or would be marsupials, etc.

Im presuming this is sarcasm

If anyone wants to believe a single reproducing living cell was able to form out of some primordial soup, have at it. I suggest you pick up an encyclopedia, and check it out.

The single cell is declared the irreducable simplest form of life for our biological system by all the scientists of the world.

Its SO COMPLEX that scientists devote their entire lifes studing it, and dont fully understand it.

Its so complex that only an intelligent being can create one.

ALL the chemicals would have had to come together to form a nuclei (which tells the other parts of the cell what to do), a mucous membrane (that only allows certain materials into the cell--I wonder how the hell , or should I say , heaven, it would "know" what to let in and what not to), golgi matter would have had to form, it has to have a nucleolous withing the nucleus which also has a nucleous membrane, ribosomes, smooth ER, rough ER, cytoplasm, centrosomes, golgi matter, mitochondrion, vacuole, lysomses,
and DNA

Why the heaven would it know it wants to reproduce?

And the DNA itself is so bizarrely complicated and complex, its beyond any reasonable logical deduction to conclude it could have accidentally formed on its own.

The idea of a single cell coming together by chemicals floating in some primordial soup, is akin to taking all the parts of a house, throwing them into a lake, and expecting them to form a house, "given enough time",,hahhahahahhahahahahhhahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhaha

AND THEN TO TOP IT OFF, WHEN YOU DISCOVER THE HOUSE, YOU FIND A FULL AND COMPLETE AND SIGNED AND STAMPED SET OF BLUEPRINTS (DNA),

yea, they just accidentally drew themselves...BWHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

It takes a heaven alot more faith and religion to believe that than an intelligent creator.


WHOOOOOAAA !!!!!!!!!! WAIT!!!!!

Now, unless they are gonna try to say that animals evolved from plant materials, they are gonna have to declare this happened TWICE! And in universe terms, at the exact same time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

so they want us to believe that something that is extraordinarally unbelievable is extraordinarally unbelievable TWICE !!!!!!!!!!!

remember, they say "given enough time" i.e. trilliions upon trillions multiplied by gazillions of years,,,,so they would have had to form at the same exact instant practically speaking, both survived, both had DNA,

now the odds of that happening are the odds of putting two flies on the earth at random locations and having them collide at some time during their short life spans.

YEA, and OJ didnt do it, the earth is flat, Elvis is still alive, we didnt land on the moom, and Islam is a peaceful religion (ahhh yes, the peace those who were beheaded must be enjoying now)

However, an intelligent response to this problem eludes the evolutionists. They are really a bunch of anti religous zealots, tools of satan, and they will stop at nothing to promote their lies, and destroy the truth of God. The scientists religion is SCIENCE,,,science is not the end all of everything, and the non scientists, their religion, is unknowingly, the same as the Islamists, satanism. Father of lies.....

 

[Annie]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0510300281oct30,1,1790111.story

Evolution of intelligent design
From prime-time television to courthouses, group gains ground in anti-Darwin effort

By Lisa Anderson
Tribune national correspondent

October 30, 2005

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Fictional presidential candidate Matt Santos on NBC's "The West Wing" recently discussed it, as did real-life President George Bush in the White House, not to mention "The Daily Show" host Jon Stewart, more than three dozen Nobel laureates and numerous school boards across the country.

A decade ago most Americans had never heard of intelligent design, or ID. But, in the last year, the term has surfaced repeatedly in politics, media and education as the rallying point for religious conservatives in the culture war over the teaching of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

Although polls show about half of Americans still don't recognize the expression, the background and meaning of ID are focal points of a landmark 1st Amendment case unfolding here in Pennsylvania's capital.

A very old phrase that gained new currency about a decade ago, ID presents itself as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. It posits that some aspects of the natural world that are not yet explained by Darwin suggest design by an unnamed intelligent agent.

The prime engine propelling the dissemination of ID is the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank whose $4 million budget is heavily funded by conservative Christian donors. Discovery's Center for Science & Culture, which used to be the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, laid out its goals in a 1999 fundraising document called "The Wedge Strategy."

Determined to drive a "wedge" into the tree trunk of "scientific materialism," it said, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

John West, associate director of the Center for Science & Culture, pointed out that the wedge proposal was a plan, not a scholarly document.

"That document was about more than intelligent design. It was about the larger cultural context and the anti-religious agenda of some people in the name of science," he said.

Indeed, the document went beyond the scientific debate, extending the argument into the world of politics. It equated Darwin with Karl Marx and others whom it described as viewing humans not as "spiritual beings but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry and environment."

This materialistic conception "eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art," the document said.

The Center for Science & Culture's five-year plan, much of which already has been achieved, called for funding research fellows at major universities, publishing numerous articles and books on ID, generating significant media coverage and getting 10 states to include ID in science curricula.

Discovery says it doesn't want schools to mandate the teaching of ID, but to "teach the controversy."

Most scientists say there is no controversy.

Pennsylvania is the first state to see ID included in a school district's curriculum, but Ohio and Minnesota and at least one district in New Mexico include critical analysis of evolution in their science standards. Kansas is expected to do so this fall. More than 24 state and local authorities have considered similar changes to their science curricula over the last year, according to the National Center for Science Education, a California-based non-profit group dedicated to defending the teaching of evolution in public schools.

A week ago, intelligent design made its European debut in Prague, Czech Republic, at an international scientific conference drawing some 700 people from Europe, Africa and the U.S., according to The Associated Press. Many who spoke at "Darwin and Design: A Challenge for 21st Century Science" were from the Discovery Institute, including Stephen Meyer, the Cambridge University-educated director of the Center for Science & Culture.

Of the Discovery Institute's strategy, Jerry Coyne, a professor in the ecology and evolution department at the University of Chicago, said, "They're smart people, in general, with respectable academic positions and degrees. . . . It's their media savvy, combined with their money. And they have learned a lot of lessons from the old creationists, that is to be much less evangelical."

Critics call theory `Neo-Creo'

Because ID makes no mention of the Bible or the divine, some critics call it "Neo-Creo," that is, a new version of creationism's adherence to the Genesis account of creation.

They view its secular language as a tactic to skirt the Supreme Court's 1987 decision finding creationism a religious belief and banning it from public school classrooms as a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.

Proponents of ID particularly criticize the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection, by which all life, including humans, evolved from a common ancestor over some 4billion years, according to Darwin's theory, which most scientists laud as the cornerstone of modern biology.

Every major U.S. scientific organization and the aforementioned group of Nobelists dismiss ID and say there is no credible controversy over evolution. They consider ID a new bottle with a high-tech label for the old wine of natural theology, creationism and scientific creationism, serial concepts based to some degree on the biblical account of creation.

ID is "creationism in a cheap tuxedo," according to Leonard Krishtalka, director of the Kansas Museum and Biodiversity Research Center at the University of Kansas in Lawrence.

Not so, said William Dembski, a Discovery fellow and leading ID proponent, who directs the Center for Science and Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville.

"Creationism was consciously trying to model the science on a certain interpretation of Genesis. You don't have anything like that in intelligent design," said Dembski, who holds doctorates in mathematics from the University of Chicago and in philosophy from the University of Illinois and a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary.

`Watchmaker' argument

Long before evolution, creationism or ID, there was natural theology, a popular concept based on reason and observation rather than Scripture.

In his 1802 book "Natural Theology," British theologian and philosopher William Paley made his famous "watchmaker" argument. Paley said that if one stumbled across a watch, one rationally would conclude it was designed. So, too, he said, one can look at aspects of nature and infer that they had a designer and that the designer is God.

But after Darwin's 1859 publication of "On the Origin of Species," Dembski said, "The sense that you needed a watchmaker disappeared. The watch could put itself together."

More than a century later, Richard Dawkins, Oxford University's Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, played on Paley's analogy to champion evolution in his 1986 book, "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design."

After Darwin's publication, the term "creationism" arose in opposition to the popularity of so-called Darwinism. It asserted the biblical account of creation. But creationism suffered damaging ridicule after Tennessee's Scopes "Monkey Trial" in 1925.

Eventually, it morphed into "scientific creationism." Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, advanced the concept. It makes scientific claims for the six-day creation account in Genesis, an Earth age of less than 10,000 years, the simultaneous creation of all things, Noah's global flood and the non-evolutionary creation of humans.

Scientific creationism points to gaps in the fossil record, geological evidence of the effects of global flood and examples in nature that give the appearance of design, such as the human eye, as refutation of evolution. It has many supporters: In a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, 53 percent of adults surveyed said "God created humans in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it." And polls consistently show a majority of Americans favor teaching both evolution and creationism.

But after the Supreme Court ruling in 1987, creationism couldn't be taught in public schools.

And it was around that time that the current ID movement began to emerge. It uses a term attributed to British philosopher Ferdinand C.S. Schiller. In his 1903 book "Humanism," he wrote, "It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design."

Whether ID is a scientific theory or a religious belief is at the heart of the 1st Amendment case Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District in central Pennsylvania, the apparent inspiration for "The West Wing" script earlier this month.

Parents of Dover students sued the district and school board over a requirement that 9th-grade biology students be informed of ID as a scientific alternative to evolution. The parents, who claim that ID is creationism in disguise, contend that such a requirement is religiously motivated, thus violating the constitutional separation of church and state and the Supreme Court's ban on creationism in public schools.

Attorneys for the school district argue ID is not a religious belief but a valid scientific theory and that the school district intended only to expose students to views critical of and differing from evolution. The case, in its sixth week, may influence how biology is taught in public schools around the country.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

HMMMM, color me purple.

I just re read the entire Constitution of THE United States of America, and I dont find "seperation of church and state" in there anywhere.

Ok, ok, I dont want to hijack the thread, just had to say that though

 

[Annie]

HMMMM, color me purple.

I just re read the entire Constitution of THE United States of America, and I dont find "seperation of church and state" in there anywhere.

Ok, ok, I dont want to hijack the thread, just had to say that though

Freedom of religious practices though is in there.

I think the point was that unless the 'scientists' can find a religious basis, ID is going to get into the curriculum. I'm not saying I agree with that, but I think the Tribune writer has this correct.

 

[Hobbit]

The vast amount of diversity between all of the forma of life on this planet IMO speak volumes against there being one intelligent designer behind the whole thing. An intelligent designer would not have come up with the varying methods of reproduction for example. An intelligent designer would have applied the same method to all species. All animals would lay eggs, or give birth to live offspring, or would be marsupials, etc.

This has got to be the weakest argument I've ever heard for evolution. YOu know, "The Lost Vikings" and "Warcraft II" were both made by the same 'intelligent designer' but are two totally different games with absolutely nothing in common, not even the platform they were designed on.

 

[MissileMan]

Im presuming this is sarcasm

As with most of your presumptions, this one is wrong also.

If anyone wants to believe a single reproducing living cell was able to form out of some primordial soup, have at it. I suggest you pick up an encyclopedia, and check it out.

The single cell is declared the irreducable simplest form of life for our biological system by all the scientists of the world.

Its SO COMPLEX that scientists devote their entire lifes studing it, and dont fully understand it.

Its so complex that even an intelligent being can create one.

Did you mean only?

That's a really nice hypothesis you have there. The problem is you have absolutley no evidence that remotely supports it.

However, an intelligent response to this problem eludes the evolutionists. They are really a bunch of anti religous zealots, tools of satan, and they will stop at nothing to promote their lies, and destroy the truth of God. The scientists religion is SCIENCE,,,science is not the end all of everything, and the non scientists, their religion, is unknowingly, the same as the Islamists, satanism. Father of lies.....

Oh Gawd! Science is the tool of the Debil! Medicine is the tool of the Debil! Knowledge is the tool of the Debil! You'd have made a great judge during the Salem witch trials, but you suck as a 21st century thinker!

 

[MissileMan]

This has got to be the weakest argument I've ever heard for evolution. YOu know, "The Lost Vikings" and "Warcraft II" were both made by the same 'intelligent designer' but are two totally different games with absolutely nothing in common, not even the platform they were designed on.

Yes, but they didn't create an entirely different computer to run them on. Take cars for instance. Over the course of a hundred years, they have evolved in performance and appearance, but they still have the same basic structure...four wheels, an engine, passenger compartment, seats, etc. An intelligent designer would have applied the first successful form of reproduction to all species. There would not have been a need to totally redesign a perfectly working system.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

As with most of your presumptions, this one is wrong also.

Did you mean only?

That's a really nice hypothesis you have there. The problem is you have absolutley no evidence that remotely supports it.



Oh Gawd! Science is the tool of the Debil! Medicine is the tool of the Debil! Knowledge is the tool of the Debil! You'd have made a great judge during the Salem witch trials, but you suck as a 21st century thinker!

You must be in charge of writing bumper stickers for the liberals. (see, I can make cute little remarks that have no basis in fact too! )

And you only prove my last paragraph, that you will have no arguement to provide,,,

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes, but they didn't create an entirely different computer to run them on. Take cars for instance. Over the course of a hundred years, they have evolved in performance and appearance, but they still have the same basic structure...four wheels, an engine, passenger compartment, seats, etc. An intelligent designer would have applied the first successful form of reproduction to all species. There would not have been a need to totally redesign a perfectly working system.

You are trying to prove their isnt an intelligent creator by using two examples where we know for a fact there were intelligent creators??? hahahha

Ok,,, well, we do have electric cars dont we? Didnt exactly evolve from the internal combustion engine, now did it? Before you make analogies between electric cars and gas cars,,,I can make the same analogies with various species with different forms of reproduction.

Fact is, the electric car would have eventualy came into being if there were no gasoline cars at all. Hence, it didnt necessarilly evolve from the internal combustion engine, otherwise you would have to conclude that all things with wheels evolved from the first one.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

This has got to be the weakest argument I've ever heard for evolution. YOu know, "The Lost Vikings" and "Warcraft II" were both made by the same 'intelligent designer' but are two totally different games with absolutely nothing in common, not even the platform they were designed on.

I couldnt agree with you more ! IN fact, the post was sooo weak I couldnt believe he actully meant it, hence my "sarcastic" question,,,"I assume this is sarcasm?",,,,

To conclude an intelligent creator cannot create more than one form of reproduction is ........well, baseless in logic. In fact, if God had created all species to reproduce using the same method, evolutionists would then be declaring thats "proof" it wasnt an intelligent designer, they all evolved from each other, and an ID would have created many various forms of reproduction.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Freedom of religious practices though is in there.

I think the point was that unless the 'scientists' can find a religious basis, ID is going to get into the curriculum. I'm not saying I agree with that, but I think the Tribune writer has this correct.

Yes, I understand what you and the author is saying.

I will say Im a bit dissappointed they have backed off the issue of having anything religous in schools.

School choice would solve the entire problem, and if the anti Christian gangs were forced to accept anything religous in schools they would be more willing to accept school choice.

But instead, they want to FORCE us to send our kids to public schools, and then FORCE us to not allow anything Christian to be taught.

 

[Annie]

Yes, I understand what you and the author is saying.

I will say Im a bit dissappointed they have backed off the issue of having anything religous in schools.

School choice would solve the entire problem, and if the anti Christian gangs were forced to accept anything religous in schools they would be more willing to accept school choice.

But instead, they want to FORCE us to send our kids to public schools, and then FORCE us to not allow anything Christian to be taught.

If you want Christianity taught, go to a Christian school or homeschool. BTW, I have little against vouchers, with the exception that it's an opening for the gov't to tell private schools what they have to do. Have to pay the piper, ya know.