Intelligent Design threat to evolutionists

[Isaac Brock]

The world works in such delicate subtle ways, every process has a subtle sub-process and it all works intricately together.

If for the sake of argument one choses to believe a great power, God, whatever divined the world, given the nature of everything we can see and observe why would it be done is some collosal ok-everything-is-there fashion. When a billion years is nothing and time is not of consequence to God, a God of infinite patience, it seems more likely to me that God set the chains of creation and let it loose to follow natural physical laws. Given the universe, under this assumption is God's creation, so would the natural laws.

I just don't see God needing to circumvent God's own natural laws in order to bring about creation.

 

[kurtsprincess]

I would certainly hope that we, as humans, are evolving in some manner.

Unfortunately, it seems at times that we are devolving.

 

[Powerman]

It’s sad but true—dinosaurs are probably used more than anything else in an attempt to convince children and adults alike that evolution is fact. So much so, that for many, the words “dinosaur” and “evolution” are almost synonymous.
------------------------
This is lunacy. Talk to any respected scientist about evolution and they won't mention dinosaurs. Dinosaurs don't prove evolution. They disprove Genesis. Reality and Genesis are 2 different realms. If you can't see that then you are a brainwashed fundamentalist.

 

[-Cp]

I would certainly hope that we, as humans, are evolving in some manner.

Unfortunately, it seems at times that we are devolving.

What a great observation..... while humans continue to improve in areas of longevitiy, science and other cool things - our "human (sin) condition" will continue to decline - pretty rapidly too I'm afraid...

 

[Powerman]

What do you mean by a sin condition? Humans have sinned since their existence. And what exactly constitutes a sin? Something that you disagree with?

I'm being serious here. What do you think constitutes a sin?

 

[-Cp]

What do you mean by a sin condition? Humans have sinned since their existence. And what exactly constitutes a sin? Something that you disagree with?

I'm being serious here. What do you think constitutes a sin?

Once again... a thread on USMB starts to go "off topic".... wanna start a new thread for that discussion?

 

[Powerman]

Personally I don't see the problem of a thread getting a little sidetracked. I don't like the idea of tunnel vision threads anyways. But if you would like to start a new thread debating what is and is not a sin go ahead.

 

[MissileMan]

You must live under a rock. Try telling Powerman and Nucular that evolution is just a thory, and that's just two people on this message board. I see people every day who I swear would use thumbscrews to make you believe evolution if they thought they could get away with it. However, I don't think it's a movement in and of itself. It's a tenet of the secular progressive doctrine. Evolution, atheism, and abortion are sacrosanct and they shove it down everyone else's throat as fact. If you haven't seen this, you really need to get out more.

The fact that some people strongly believe that evolution goes beyond theory is not evidence that evolution is a religion.

 

[MissileMan]

Also, there is a lot of evidence (such as carvings and paintings of dinosaur-like creatures)—and (unfossilized) dinosaur bone with red blood cells—that makes sense in the light of the biblical account of history.

The only people claiming that there have been unfossilized dinosaur bones unearthed are the ID/creationists. The bones you are referring to are dated at 60-80 million years old. The "soft" tissue was found deep in the middle of the fossilized bone.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Statists hate religions because they offer hope outside of the state, and thus weaken loyalty to the earthly power seekers. Dig on it.

 

[Gabriella84]

Are we not men? We are DEVO!

 

[-Cp]

The only people claiming that there have been unfossilized dinosaur bones unearthed are the ID/creationists. The bones you are referring to are dated at 60-80 million years old. The "soft" tissue was found deep in the middle of the fossilized bone.

How do you know that those bones are that old? Even scientists can't know for sure... and carbon dating has already known to be non-conclusive...

 

[deaddude]

Ok there have been a lot of subjects on this thread, I will try to cover as many as possible.

Newton’s laws: for all things practical Newton’s laws are LAWS. You can use them to explain and predict the motion of any object as long as you have all of the information about velocity and outside forces. For the glaringly impractical Newton’s Laws break down. For things traveling at mind boggling speeds (say .9 the speed of light) Einstein takes over and bitch slaps Newton’s Laws. This also works in reverse, Newton’s laws have proved ineffectual for predicting the movements of electrons and other sub-atomic particles.

Gravity and Magnetism: We know they exist, we know what they do, we have no idea what causes either. For gravity we have a couple theories. The oldest one is the "go to your home theory" of the classical philosophers (air travels up to the sky, water flows toward the ocean, fire burns up to the sun, earth falls to the Earth), it has been debunked. The two more current theories are Dark Matter or graviton theories and Einstein. Dark matter theories say that there is a kind of particle inside the atom that has a gravitic charge in the same way that protons and electrons have an electric charge. Einstein attributed gravity to the idea that massive objects warped space creating "gravity wells" which pulled every thing toward the object.

Magnetism affects subatomic particles; the rotation of a neutron is governed by magnetism. We know that we can turn electricity into magnetism, we know that light is a self-sustaining bit of electro-magnetism and we know that magneto as played by Ian Macellan was one of the greatest movie villains ever. Yet with all we know we have no Idea what causes the phenomenon at a sub-atomic level.

However the fact that we don’t know what causes them is insufficient to demote them from fact to theory. Another example is combustion, we know it works, but when you get down to the nuts and bolts we don’t know why, it doesn't stop you from lighting a match.

Evolution: Evolution is still a theory, it is a scientific theory. Microevolution is a fact. The fact of Microevolution supports the theory of Macroevolution as an expansion on a theme. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, merely how one kind of life can change into a new kind of life. As a theory you may believe it or not, love it, hate it or ignore it, but it will remain a theory until you can prove it or disprove it.

The Big Bang: Another theory, again it does have some evidence most notably the Red Shift.

 

[-Cp]

You know what's most amazing to me after reading some of your posts here? I just how effective the school system has become at brainwashing its students into believing the THEORY of evolution as some sort of bar to measure other ideas to the origin of life to...

Wow.....

 

[Abbey Normal]

I think the schools have for the most part quietly dropped the word "Theory" when it comes to teaching all aspects of Evolution. Kids have no choice but to assume it is all scientific fact.

 

[Powerman]

You know what's most amazing to me after reading some of your posts here? I just how effective the school system has become at brainwashing its students into believing the THEORY of evolution as some sort of bar to measure other ideas to the origin of life to...

Wow.....
----------------------------------
I guess you folks don't pay attention. Like I said gravity and magenetism are both theories and we teach those. Why not teach evolution. A theory in science is not like a theory outside of science. For something to be classified as an accepted scientific theory it has to be looked at as fact by the scientific community. Here is a link that gives a good explanation of what a theory is because some of you obviously don't understand.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

 

[MissileMan]

How do you know that those bones are that old? Even scientists can't know for sure... and carbon dating has already known to be non-conclusive...

Again, the only people claiming that there's a problem with isotopic dating are the ID/creationists. They make arbitrary claims that it's unreliable with no scientific evidence to back them up. The saddest part is that those who want very desperately for ID/creationism to be true hear this baloney and immediately consider it gospel (pun intended).