The Armor Games website will be down for maintenance on Monday 10/7/2024
starting at 10:00 AM Pacific time. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Forums → WEPR → Intelligent design Vs Evolution
| 388 | 55551 |
I just now found out about this forum and didn't notice a I.D. Vs E. thread so I decided to make one.
I am a Christian and believe in intelligent design is the way the world came to be.
What does everyone else think about this subject?
- 388 Replies
I read this and while it does have many references, he is using his thoughts on the subject as well. He is also using outdated ideas, and making assumptions with less evidence than the ones he is arguing against.
Almost all historical science uses assumptions. That's why it isn't agreed upon by everyone.
That is entirely possible, but modern evidence suggests otherwise.
I read this and while it does not have many references, they are also making many assumptions.
Intelligent design is not even a valid opinion with any type of substance to uphold it. It's nothing more than pseudo science created recently by bible thumping morons to challenge Evolution in school. But this type of self righteous thinking will soon be dead when people finally realize humans are not the center of the universe. How narcissistic to think such a thing.
From your article:
stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time,
It still has nothing to do with a house deteriorating.
Almost all historical science uses assumptions. That's why it isn't agreed upon by everyone.
My point was his assumptions have less to back them than the ones scientists used, you know, in the 1870s when the theory and evidence was provided.
I read this and while it does not have many references, they are also making many assumptions.
Assumptions based on FACT are more reliable than ones randomly made up.
Almost all historical science uses assumptions. That's why it isn't agreed upon by everyone.
While this is true, modern science has confirmed much, and also rewritten much of what was once thought to be true.
It still has nothing to do with a house deteriorating.
That was an example, But it still kinda does.
Assumptions based on FACT are more reliable than ones randomly made up.
Well, if there were facts they could have referenced them in the article.
My point was his assumptions have less to back them than the ones scientists used, you know, in the 1870s when the theory and evidence was provided.
I still don't get how if 5 scientists say something is this way, and 4 say it is another, the side with 5 are right. The majority controls truth.
Ok, so that might explain one part. But There still isn't a lot of "Transitional" fossils.
There are many transitional fossils.
In the things you mentioned you won't find hardly any pro-creation stuff.
That's because creationism isn't science.
Here's one thing.
http://creation.com/whos-really-pushing ⦠reationist
And another thing from the same source.
http://creation.com/creation-scientists
More bs creationist sites, wow I'm so surprised....
how the first (or second) law of thermodynamics seemed to contradict evolution, because I didn't follow that part of it.
Evolution doesn't contradict the second law of thermodynamics. The Earth isn't a closed system.
That's because creationism isn't science.
It is just as much science as theory of evolution .
[quote] Almost all historical science uses assumptions. That's why it isn't agreed upon by everyone.
While this is true, modern science has confirmed much, and also rewritten much of what was once thought to be true.
[/quote]
For clarification:
By historical science i meant:
Stuff that we did not see/observe happening, like if a scientist was trying to figure out how the last dinosaur died, It would be very hard for quite a few reasons and that scientist would end up using a lot of assumptions.
There are many transitional fossils.
Could you show me some that don't have evidence to prove them wrong and are from a non-bias site?
Evolution doesn't contradict the second law of thermodynamics. The Earth isn't a closed system.
And i never said it was.
Our solar system however i would say is. Unless you have a reason for why it is not.
More bs creationist sites, wow I'm so surprised....
Dude, you haven't done a thing to say how those sites are bad.
Could you show me some that don't have evidence to prove them wrong and are from a non-bias site?
And what would you call non bias, anything that says God did it by chance? Which they aren't! Because you sure don't seem to think peer reviewed scientific sources are non-bias, which are!
Dude, you haven't done a thing to say how those sites are bad.
How many times do I have to say the same %^&* thing? I've already explain why. You just refuse to accept it.
It is just as much science as theory of evolution .
It absolutely isn't. Not at all. The apologetics who defend creation and attack theories like evolution are simply deconstructionist. They offer no evidence in favor of their beliefs, but simply seek to undercut the evidence that actual scientists provide.
Maybe creationism is a science by some ancient Aristotelian standard, but I doubt even that.
Could you show me some that don't have evidence to prove them wrong and are from a non-bias site?
A few minutes on the ol' Googler will get you plenty of examples. What I've found is that people who reject evolution find that website explaining how evolution works are biased. This just isn't the case. You can't really be biased in favor of science.
Maybe you're looking for some website that has nothing but data without any sort of interpretation, but what good is that going to do? Judging by your posts, you're by no means a biologist of any kind, so what right do you have to interpret scientific data? For that matter, why right does any theist have to try to refute science?
And i never said it was.
Our solar system however i would say is. Unless you have a reason for why it is not.
Where would you draw the line for where our solar system ends? You're going to end up picking some arbitrary demarcation that will inevitably end up losing energy through it. Because there is no center of the universe and because of the nature of how the universe expanded, we have to treat all points as equals. We have to treat the entire universe as a system because, well, it is.
Dude, you haven't done a thing to say how those sites are bad.
If you're talking about that Christian Apologetic site, then how can you not see the problem in using that as a source for scientific inquiry? There's no explanation going on, just lame attempts at refuting well-established scientific theories.
I don't see how that proves me wrong.
I don't need to prove you wrong if you already are wrong.
The second law of thermodynamics (I think i accidentally said first law before) Is basically: In a closed environment everything runs down, and doesn't get better. For example, you build a building in the middle of the forest. It gets worse than before, Not better.
An ecosystem is not a closed environment. The biosphere is not a closed environment. There is a transfer of energy up the food chain that is going on continuously.
And i never said it was.
Our solar system however i would say is. Unless you have a reason for why it is not.
For the 2nd law of thermodynamics to contradict evolution, the Earth would have to be a closed system. Again with you not understanding the arguments you're parading.
Thanks Moegreche...
you always seem to articulate what I am thinking and trying to say very well.
I was about to type a response then read yours, and you pretty much covered it, plus some more points...
You must be logged in to post a reply!