Unintelligent Design

[Balloon guy 158]

I have a fun new game... everytime you post something im simply going to type"Evidence"?more often than not this will probably end said line of discussion

I bet you won't

9:32 AM' post='3276584']Like means exact?I guess I was wrong then

2 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)2 Members: Balloon guy, MillsTen minutes later and still no "Evidence?"See?I was right about that also

[Balloon guy 158]

As usual. Natural selection requires variability. That's what we have in reproduction.

The idea that there are only two theories here: one that evolution is true, and the other that not believing in evolution means that you can't believe in adaptation in the species, is why you are confused.It is possible to believe that a dog can adapt, that a horse can be bred to be faster, and that humans have differences without believing in a crocaduck.DUCY?

[Mills 0]

is why you are confused.DUCY?

LOL at arguing science with a scientist

[Balloon guy 158]

I have a fun new game... everytime you post something im simply going to type"Evidence"?more often than not this will probably end said line of discussion

LOL at arguing science with a scientist

LOL at having the attention span of a piece of cheese.

[vbnautilus 48]

The idea that there are only two theories here: one that evolution is true, and the other that not believing in evolution means that you can't believe in adaptation in the species, is why you are confused.It is possible to believe that a dog can adapt, that a horse can be bred to be faster, and that humans have differences without believing in a crocaduck.

I'm familiar with your misunderstanding about what a species is, yes.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm familiar with your misunderstanding about what a species is, yes.

Says the guy in the thread about how vestigial organs are proof of evolution.And I'm familiar with your Jedi mind tricks...they won't work on me.

[Mills 0]

LOL at having the attention span of a piece of cheese.

among the concepts you don't understand, might want to add "hyperbole" to the list

[Balloon guy 158]

among the concepts you don't understand, might want to add "hyperbole" to the list

I'll put it right under: "Why can't evolutionist think a thought through to any conclusion that agree with the laws of logic"

[Mills 0]

evidence?

[Jeepster80125 0]

lol

[vbnautilus 48]

Says the guy in the thread about how vestigial organs are proof of evolution.

I don't think I ever said that they were. Too bad JJJ isn't here to remember.

And I'm familiar with your Jedi mind tricks...they won't work on me.

These aren't the fossils you're looking for. Seriously though: if you think animals can adapt to their environments (within species), why do you think that they can adapt juuust to the point where they would still be able to interbreed but no further? What's the magical line there that stops them from getting just different enough that they are not sexually compatible any more? How much can they adapt before stopping and why?(which is not even really necessary as there are some species which can interbreed: the whole species concept is not really always a firm line, its just a convenient way of dividing up the spectrum of variability)

[Randy Reed 0]

Says the guy in the thread about how vestigial organs are proof of evolution.And I'm familiar with your Jedi mind tricks...they won't work on me.

No one said vestigial orgns were proof of evolution but I see along with the other facts that you made the leap as well. I simply said that if it was designed it was done poorly and not very well. And back to that point will you explain what your God was thinking when he made the Ichneumon wasp species? Let me tell you about them little daisies. The female finds a "victim" like a caterpillar and then paralyzes it. After it's frozen up it lays her eggs inside it. When the eggs hatch they start feeding on it's organs, making a point to save the heart and nervous system for last. It wants to keep it alive as long as possible up until the larvae hatch and eat through it's sides on it's way out. That shit makes the Alien movies seem like the Flintstones and no Jedi mind trick makes it anything less than horrific. I hope the caterpillar doesn't feel pain watching itself being eaten alive from the inside out. So what was your beneficent creator thinking on that one? Just having a little fun creating some species one day? He must be one sick son of a bitch.Now obviously natural selection, however hideous, would explain it. And I love the way you throw things like Eugenics about. Darwin didn't come up with the idea, if your ultimate creator is all-knowing, he did.

[Randy Reed 0]

I don't think I ever said that they were. Too bad JJJ isn't here to remember. These aren't the fossils you're looking for. Seriously though: if you think animals can adapt to their environments (within species), why do you think that they can adapt juuust to the point where they would still be able to interbreed but no further? What's the magical line there that stops them from getting just different enough that they are not sexually compatible any more? How much can they adapt before stopping and why?(which is not even really necessary as there are some species which can interbreed: the whole species concept is not really always a firm line, its just a convenient way of dividing up the spectrum of variability)

Great Dane meet Chihuaha.

[BaseJester 1]

Yea, easy to say: "I would have made the avocado pit smaller", but when you start thinking about how much of creation is in a symbiotic relationship, how physical laws must apply universally and how all things come together in a harmonious symphony of beauty, it makes the task a little more daunting.Maybe enough to even consider the possibility that we aren't up to the ability to judge it?

It's certainly a good enough point to consider it.If at the end of a biology class the final exam was "Write the physical laws of a universe such that sentient life results", I think that would be pretty darn tough and I would become keenly interested in partial credit and how the grading curve works, exactly.However, a big problem with the argument from design is that we don't have any particular reason to think God wanted the universe this way except here it is. It's a bit circular, in fact. Did God want life on Saturn? No, says the creationist, because there isn't any. Did God want dinosaurs? Yes, says, the creationist, for awhile and then not, because there they were and then there they weren't. What exactly would a failure of the hypothesis of intelligent design look like, if we assume by definition that everything exists is what He wanted?

[Balloon guy 158]

It's certainly a good enough point to consider it.If at the end of a biology class the final exam was "Write the physical laws of a universe such that sentient life results", I think that would be pretty darn tough and I would become keenly interested in partial credit and how the grading curve works, exactly.However, a big problem with the argument from design is that we don't have any particular reason to think God wanted the universe this way except here it is. It's a bit circular, in fact. Did God want life on Saturn? No, says the creationist, because there isn't any. Did God want dinosaurs? Yes, says, the creationist, for awhile and then not, because there they were and then there they weren't. What exactly would a failure of the hypothesis of intelligent design look like, if we assume by definition that everything exists is what He wanted?

Exactly like the many failures of evolution theory if we didn't duck and hide behind the anthropic theory?

[Balloon guy 158]

I don't think I ever said that they were. Too bad JJJ isn't here to remember.

These aren't the fossils you're looking for. Seriously though: if you think animals can adapt to their environments (within species), why do you think that they can adapt juuust to the point where they would still be able to interbreed but no further? What's the magical line there that stops them from getting just different enough that they are not sexually compatible any more? How much can they adapt before stopping and why?(which is not even really necessary as there are some species which can interbreed: the whole species concept is not really always a firm line, its just a convenient way of dividing up the spectrum of variability)

The magic line is pretty clear, only a dope ravished brain would be at a loss to find it.Like begets likeAlways has, always will

[Balloon guy 158]

http://www.livescience.com/animals/top10_v...ial_organs.htmlThe list is like a top ten of leftover features that animals no longer need due to evolution. Though if the creationist are correct it could be labeled the top ten features of un-intelligent design. I was surprised the nose didn't make though.

No one said vestigial orgns were proof of evolution but I see along with the other facts that you made the leap as well. I simply said that if it was designed it was done poorly and not very well.

Great Dane meet RR

And back to that point will you explain what your God was thinking when he made the Ichneumon wasp species? Let me tell you about them little daisies. The female finds a "victim" like a caterpillar and then paralyzes it. After it's frozen up it lays her eggs inside it. When the eggs hatch they start feeding on it's organs, making a point to save the heart and nervous system for last. It wants to keep it alive as long as possible up until the larvae hatch and eat through it's sides on it's way out. That shit makes the Alien movies seem like the Flintstones and no Jedi mind trick makes it anything less than horrific. I hope the caterpillar doesn't feel pain watching itself being eaten alive from the inside out. So what was your beneficent creator thinking on that one? Just having a little fun creating some species one day? He must be one sick son of a bitch.Now obviously natural selection, however hideous, would explain it. And I love the way you throw things like Eugenics about. Darwin didn't come up with the idea, if your ultimate creator is all-knowing, he did.

Actually eugenics is a logical furtherance of evolution, as is Nazism et alOnce you remove the ability to place value on morality because you reduce it to a relativistic level, you open the door wide for genocide and mass murders because of the need to protect the gene pool. Add in a few factors such as economic difficulty, maybe a fear of lowering of a standard of living, and you have the catalyst to do those unspeakable things that evolutionist have perpetrated on society a few dozen times, to the tune of a few hundred million deaths. That's 20 times the deaths blamed on religion...20 times in 1/400th the amount of time.Only the Christian influences on society make this currently repugnant enough to stem the natural state of man to hate those that are different. You are welcome for our influences on this society.

[Mills 0]

You are welcome for our influences on this society.

Thanks for putting those homos in their places, they suck.

[Mills 0]

Once you remove the ability to place value on morality because you reduce it to a relativistic level, you open the door wide for genocide and mass murders because of the need to protect the gene pool. Add in a few factors such as economic difficulty, maybe a fear of lowering of a standard of living, and you have the catalyst to do those unspeakable things that evolutionist have perpetrated on society a few dozen times, to the tune of a few hundred million deaths. That's 20 times the deaths blamed on religion...20 times in 1/400th the amount of time.

this is dumb, even for you..

[BaseJester 1]

Exactly like the many failures of evolution theory if we didn't duck and hide behind the anthropic theory?

Failures like what?If we found species (particular complex ones) with no genetic similarity to anything else that would be a problem for evolutionary theory. What could we find that we be a problem for Intelligent Design? Is there any possible hypothetical physical evidence that makes Intelligent Design less likely?

[BaseJester 1]

Actually eugenics is a logical furtherance of evolution, as is Nazism et al

This is just ****ing stupid. Is throwing people off cliffs the natural furtherance of the law of gravity?

[Randy Reed 0]

Great Dane meet RRActually eugenics is a logical furtherance of evolution, as is Nazism et alOnce you remove the ability to place value on morality because you reduce it to a relativistic level, you open the door wide for genocide and mass murders because of the need to protect the gene pool. Add in a few factors such as economic difficulty, maybe a fear of lowering of a standard of living, and you have the catalyst to do those unspeakable things that evolutionist have perpetrated on society a few dozen times, to the tune of a few hundred million deaths. That's 20 times the deaths blamed on religion...20 times in 1/400th the amount of time.Only the Christian influences on society make this currently repugnant enough to stem the natural state of man to hate those that are different. You are welcome for our influences on this society.

Well, regardless of your claims on morality and Eugenics, it has nothing to do with whether Evolution is factual. As you say, "reduce it to a realistic level" which you seem to have a hard time doing. Evolution is not a religon it is scientific fact. Should we disregard the multiplication table because someone "feels" it might be bad for morality?Again you avoid replying to the actual topic of "design" presumably since their is no good explanation on your part.And then you spout off the propoganda about how Evolution is a religon and killed people which is total bullshit and you know it, but not unlike a Christian to ignore facts and go with whatever fits to their own version of history.You can stick your fingers in your ears and chant "pants on the ground" or throw a hissy fit but it never changes facts.It will lead to misleading and ridiculous statements like this one though.

Only the Christian influences on society make this currently repugnant enough to stem the natural state of man to hate those that are different. You are welcome for our influences on this society.

Man got along fine in his natural state long before Christianity was ever conjured up, and though I won't deny the intent of religons to impose morality (being good intentioned) it most often ends up dividing people and inciting hatred more than it helps.

to hate those that are different

Xenophobia, fear of the unknown is a driving force in religon dividing those that are "different". Christians hate the Muslims, Muslims hate the Jews, etc.etc.etc. Wouldn't it be nice if we all recognized each other as being 99.9% alike and stopped dividing people into groups who chase one of the million gods man has made up so far?

[Balloon guy 158]

Well, regardless of your claims on morality and Eugenics, it has nothing to do with whether Evolution is factual. As you say, "reduce it to a realistic level" which you seem to have a hard time doing. Evolution is not a religon it is scientific fact. Should we disregard the multiplication table because someone "feels" it might be bad for morality?Again you avoid replying to the actual topic of "design" presumably since their is no good explanation on your part.And then you spout off the propoganda about how Evolution is a religon and killed people which is total bullshit and you know it, but not unlike a Christian to ignore facts and go with whatever fits to their own version of history.You can stick your fingers in your ears and chant "pants on the ground" or throw a hissy fit but it never changes facts.It will lead to misleading and ridiculous statements like this one though.Man got along fine in his natural state long before Christianity was ever conjured up, and though I won't deny the intent of religons to impose morality (being good intentioned) it most often ends up dividing people and inciting hatred more than it helps.Xenophobia, fear of the unknown is a driving force in religon dividing those that are "different". Christians hate the Muslims, Muslims hate the Jews, etc.etc.etc. Wouldn't it be nice if we all recognized each other as being 99.9% alike and stopped dividing people into groups who chase one of the million gods man has made up so far?

Nothing you say here is suprising because you have bought into the great lie called evolution.It is strikingly similar to those who are believer's in communism.They are raised in a communist country, have only been taught communism is right and capitalism is bad.As such they pretend all the ills of the world come from the decadence of capitalism, and look for the day when capitalism is replaced with communism.They don't understand that capitalism made this world, and that communism is a parasite sucking off the life of capitalism.They ignore the reality that communism only works on paper and continue to support it, even though everything around them tells them they are believing in a lie.To face this reality is asking a lot of them. But those of us on the other side just shake our heads and wonder how they can be self-decieved. Don't they see that what they believe is obviously wrong? That they are forcing all truth through their shaded glasses of communism and that once those blinders are removed they will see that communism only works on paper?Evolutionist are not different. You see all data after you force it through a pair of evolutionist glasses.You see that throughout nature we never see information added to systems without an outside source of intelligence, yet you keep beliving in the delusion that a simple life form became a highly complex one by random forces with no intent or purpose.You look at all the benefits that your Creator gave you in life and attribute these to time honed developments with a purposeless intention.You seek to gain dominance over the whole world, while you lose your souls.Life did not come from non-lifeSimplicity did not give birth to complexityMan did not accidently appear here for no purpose.You might as well believe that a pile of discarded computer parts not only reassembled themselves into a Cray computer, but that this computer also wrote a program on itself that became self-aware and began to try to deduce where it came from.Even if you allowed for the computer to 'fall together' 'given enough time', you can't explain where the program came from.All you are doing here is trying to pretend that parts of the subroutine you don't like lend proof to the irrational opinion that the program wrote itself.

[Balloon guy 158]

This is just ****ing stupid. Is throwing people off cliffs the natural furtherance of the law of gravity?

There is no logic to your comparison.Evolution teaches that certain traits are desirable, that other ones are not.We breed many animals to get the traits we think are better, and try to breed out the traits we don't like.Why is doing that to humans different?Don't couples who go to get invitro do this by selecting one or both of the contributors for their child? Are they not practicing a mild example of eugenics?I understand your repulsive reflex here, you have inside you a God given sense of right and wrong.But on paper, either we protect the gene pool, or we become what the movie Idiocracy predicted. As long as we are randomly formed life forms with equal value to a tree in terms of purpose and value., then the act of eugenics is nothing more than natural selection rearing her amoral head and trying to create the best life form it can through the tools at hand. To deny that is to be irrational to the entire meaning of evolution.

[Mills 0]

There is no logic to your comparison.Evolution teaches that certain traits are desirable, that other ones are not.We breed many animals to get the traits we think are better, and try to breed out the traits we don't like.Why is doing that to humans different?

well, when we intentionally breed two animals together, that isn't exactly NATURAL selection, is it?