On Intelligent Design Part 2

:LOL:

No, I haven't read the article you haven't written yet.

Noted. I don't think anyone has.

I think you're confusing the Theory of Relativity with the Laws of Thermodynamics, specifically the first law which deals with the conservation of energy. "Energy is neither created nor destroyed." Which applies to matter as well.



Worship?

As a verb it means:
1. To honor and love as a deity.
2. To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion.

Nah, evolution isn't worshipped. It's just accepted as a model for the development of life over time. There are no rituals or churches for evolution...trust me, it's not a religion. Atomic theory and gravitation theory aren't religions either...just a heads up.

~Zoo

Basically, they put it in the slot of Creator. That is a very high-ranking position, whether it is acknowledged or not.

 

Ah...thanks, Zoo.  Mystery solved.  I couldn't for the life of me figure out what relativity had to do with anything he was saying.

 

 

But I think you're onto something, Zoo...we could be getting tax free....

 

 

Not so.  If it were in the spot of a creator, then they'd believe in it depite any evidence to the contrary.  It's hard to test that statement because there isn't any evidence to the contrary, and man have a bunch of people tried!  But I guarantee you - if someone comes up with any testable and repeatable evidence contrary to evolution, it (evolution, not the evidence) will get dropped like a hot rock.  That's what scientists do.

    Same with cults.

Hmm...that's not a bad idea. ;)

 

Not at all.  I'm convinced of evolution, but I allow the existence of a god.  I may not be highly religious, but I allow for it.  In no way is a scientific theory approaching the status of deity.  Evolution isn't a being or entity that you can worship, it's a process.

Oh, evolution is a cult now?  Would you like to point out our religious views and practices? 

~Zoo

1. Try it.

2. The Creator is the only thing worthy of worship.

3. Yes. You believe we came from apes, and laugh at those who oppose you.

*sigh*...Yet another misconception. We diverged from the common ancestor of other apes and ourselves. We are apes, we didn't "come from" them.

As for laughing? Only when it merits it. I'll listen to any point of view...but I'd like evidence to back it up before I give it any creedence as a scientific possibility. Belief is one thing, proof quite another.

~Zoo

Wait, so you're saying we are apes? Or did you just forget to shave before looking in the mirror?

We are obviously not apes. We are superior to every animal. We are self-aware.

Obviously, huh? You'd better look up the classification of humans...wait, I'll do it for ya.


Kingdom: Animalia --- Well, we're animals.
Phylum: Chordata ----- Animals with a notochord
Subphylum: Vertebrata ----- Animals with a backbone
Class: Mammalia ---- Animals with hair and produce milk
Subclass: Theria ---- Placental and marsupial mammals
Infraclass: Eutheria ----- Specifically placental mammals
Order: Primates ---- Mammals with opposable thumbs, 5 digits, fingernails
Suborder: Anthropoidea ---- Includes monkeys, apes, and man
Superfamily: Hominoidea ----- Contains apes, including humans
Family: Hominidae ------- All great apes: humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas
Genus: Homo ----- Modern humans and close relatives
Species: sapiens ----- Us

You see how far down the classification scheme we get before we become unique? All the way to Genus.




Not physically, not by a long shot. Mentally, sure. (Though some humans lead me to doubt that...unfortunately) Evolution doesn't address superiority anyway...just complexity.



Several monkeys and apes are self aware. Even some parrots are self aware. They can recognize themselves as individuals, shown by speech in parrots(remember Alex the African Grey) or sign language(exhibited by many gorillas).


Humans are good at thinking and building things. That's what makes us different. However, if you look back you can see the steps that led to it. All easily observable from family and social structure to tool use and planning ability.

~Zoo

Biologically, we are not technically the same as animals.

Second, how many animals do you see in church? Art? Not many.

You can hit me as many times as you want, even below the belt, and I keep limpin' on.

WHAT?!?!?! Evidence, links, articles...I need to see where you got this idea. How are we fundamentally biologically different from animals?



Have you not seen the structures animals build? Even termites build mighty fortresses, birds elaborate nests woven from grass, many things in nature can be considered artistic. If you want "human art"...well, some animals can paint...elephants, for instance.

As for religion? Who's to say what animals believe? Or perhaps religion is just a byproduct of our overactive imagination...ya never know.



I would appreciate some actual evidence to the contrary of what I present here. You can believe whatever you like...I don't care, that's the cool thing about being a free country. However, if you plan to actually compete with a scientific theory...well, there are rules and procedures one must follow. Evidence is a good starting point...I have yet to see any.

~Zoo

How can you say this?  Did you not even look at Zoo's last comment?  If by 'technically' you mean we pollute, destroy and force change on our surrounding environment, then you may be on to something.  But according to biology, we share a lot of things in common with our ape family.

Yeah, I meant that we're worse for the environment.

“I like to be human because in my unfinishedness I know that I am conditioned. Yet conscious of such conditioning, I know that I can go beyond it, which is the essential difference between conditioned and determined existence…In other words, my presence in the world is not so much of someone who is merely adapting to something “external,” but of someone who is inserted as if belonging essentially to it. It’s the position of one who struggles to become the subject and maker of history and not simply a passive, disconnected object.” Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of Freedom



Well, you preclude the idea that the universe created itself. That seems simple. Plus, you need to read my article on what evolution is. You do not seem to understand.



I am God come from the 6th dimension. I created you in my ethereal state as I sat beneath the great walnut tree of existence. Worship me.

I'm of the opinion that it takes a pretty small mind to claim that we have the definitive answer behind creation. Evolution has basis in study. Creationism has basis in history (as a lot of myth-based history is derrived from fact, not to say creationism is myth), most notably ancient written history.

Who's to say that there isn't a being who, compared to us, is supreme? Absolutely no one. Becuase there's no one out there that can definitively proove otherwise. So it's ridiculous to claim that there is no possibility that creationism contains no fact. Just as it's ridiculous to claim that there is no fact in the theory of evolution. To a person of faith, creationism makes perfect sense. To a person of science and rationality, evolution makes perfect sense.

And then there are those of us that can see the patterns and likenesses between creationism and evolution. If (and I believe there is) a being out there who created it all, evolution seems like a damned good method of trial and perfection. In the end, it's about having an open mind and considering all angles. The only real absolute is that there aren't any absolutes.

What is the common ancestor and how did it happen...what was/is the mechanism? It's not random mutation or natural selection. where's the proof of common ancestory?

I say just as dogmatically that God created the apes and He created human kind...two completely different species and never the twane did meet...

Genetic has shown that life does develop but not the way Darwin thought it did...

 

 

 

Look into phylogenic trees, claudistic analysis. Basically, scientists look at the number of mutations between extant organisms to determine, using Occam's Razor, the best possible explanation for how the species diverged from one another.

Buy why not just know they were all seperately created? Why search when the answer is written already. An species can adapt, but can all come from one without divine intervention?

And if not, where did the first life come from?

Despite what the biological establishment believes, apes to man evolution is bunk. I remember being told that most scientists believe life began at the edge of the sea, later they switched it to the big bang....when it comes to Evolution theory...they just don't know...it's all just guessing.

The genome pattern is complete. There is no DNA for any "intermediate" species or "missing link". The biological gulf between the closest species is so great you need thousands of transitional life forms to evolve into the other. The fossil record reveals none of these, absolutely nothing whatsoever.

We can easily conclude that life over time never evolves, it always disintegrates. Why do Evolutionists insist that nature can randomly create brand new more complicated, better life?

We are not descended from apes or related to them in any way.

The most we can say is that we have dominion over them as we do over all the animal, plant and sea kingdom.

 

 

Yes, agreed...scientists study mutations all the time....and come up with explanations...but what do we know conclusively about evidence collected on natural mutations? It indicates species DEGENERATION with no record of of any ever improving themselves.

This is the gigantic rub for Evolution Theory...hundreds of thousands of mutation experiments have been done in a determined effort to prove the possiblility of evolution by mutation, and what they have learned is NOT ONCE, has there ever been a recorded of a instance of truly beneficial mutation.

 

 

 

Examples of Beneficial Mutations.

Amazing what Google can do, Lula.

Or how about Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans.

 

Are you really this ignorant of science?  The Big Bang is a universe based theory it has nothing to do with evolution...try cosmology and astrophysics.  Life is thought to have orignated in the seas...but those theories are about abiogenesis, not evolution.

Yes, there is.  Homologous structure of cell componenets exist: proteins, ribosomes, and a respectable amount of genes as well...up to 98% chimpanzee-human likeness.

There are loads and loads of transitional fossils.  Google it.

First off, it's not "better."  Evolution never promotes one organism as better than another.  More complicated, certainly, but never better.  It's also quite readily apparent that organisms become more complicated.  Looking at the fossil record you see simplicity abounds, as you move up the strata you see more and more specialization and complexity.  It's rather easy to see.

I think the geneticists of the world would strongly disagree.  You can't argue with DNA comparisons.  If people can determine paternity on a talk show with 99% accuracy or admit DNA evidence IN A COURT OF LAW, you think somehow they screw up when comparing ape-human relationships?  It's a funny reality you live in.

~Zoo