Intelligent Design ruling

Status
Not open for further replies.
unreal.freak

unreal.freak

Senior Audioholic
evolution is only a theory. there seems to be a majority of people here who believe in it, just like people believe in intelligent design. just because a majority believe in something thought to be scientifically proven, doesnt mean its true. There are many cases of science disproving things that were formally thought to be scientific fact.

If evolution were the sole reason of all that we know, there would be fossils to prove the theory. as it is now there is a big gap between the fossils being found, and where we are today. No fossils have been found to follow or support our evolution from whatever it is evolutionists believe we evolved from.

YOU MAY HAVE CAME FROM A MONKEY...LOL

I know i didnt


Peace,
Tommy
 
Davemcc

Davemcc

Audioholic Spartan
If evolution were the sole reason of all that we know, there would be fossils to prove the theory. as it is now there is a big gap between the fossils being found, and where we are today. No fossils have been found to follow or support our evolution from whatever it is evolutionists believe we evolved from.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
 
J

Joe Schmoe

Audioholic Ninja
If the theory of evolution is true, where are the people that are evolving from apes? I mean... the half ape, half human people. Also why are there still monkeys/apes. wouldnt they all be evolved into humans by now?
The truly apalling degree of ignorance displayed by this question is a big part of the reason the evolution needs to be taught in schools without the confusion of invalid alternate viewpoints.
Evolution (which, by the way, is not "just a theory" but a well-established fact supported by mountains of indisputable evidence) does not say that humans evolved from apes. What it says is that humans and apes shared a common ancestor.
As for the "half ape, half humans", there are many examples of species fitting that description. Get a well-written book about evolution and read it!

Oh, and the main problem with living a christian life is that it involves wasting a lot of time on pointless activities (such as church and prayer.) It also involves skipping some highly enjoyable activities because they are allegedly "sinful".
 
R

rnatalli

Audioholic Ninja
Without reading this entire thread, I will say this. If we're considered to be "Intelligently Designed" then God must have been drinking when he did so. God may exist, God may not, but one thing is clear. If God exists, God isn't all knowing by a long shot; or isn't as benevolent as people believe.
 
Last edited:
zhimbo

zhimbo

Audioholic General
as it is now there is a big gap between the fossils being found, and where we are today.
Modern chimpanzee skull, chronologically arranged hominid fossil skulls, human skull.



Where's that "big gap"?

More information here.
 
MinusTheBear

MinusTheBear

Audioholic Ninja
This is why this thread fails on so many levels and it can be summed up in a few sentences by Freeman Dyson.

"Science and religion are two windows that people look through,
trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand
why we are here. The two windows give different views, but both look
out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is
complete.
Both leave out essential features of the real world. And
both are worthy of respect." ( Physicist Freeman Dyson)
 
zhimbo

zhimbo

Audioholic General
I, for one, have never argued against religion - only against allowing religion to masquerade as science.
 
J

Joe Schmoe

Audioholic Ninja
I, for one, have never argued against religion - only against allowing religion to masquerade as science.
Well put. I am not against any belief that cannot be proven or disproven, and therefore falls entirely outside the scope of science (though, on a strictly personal level, I do find it silly to believe such things.) What I am against are beliefs like creationism (aka intelligent design) which actively contradict science. (Well, that and allowing religions to impose their morals on others by means of the law, eg outlawing gay marriage.)
 
MinusTheBear

MinusTheBear

Audioholic Ninja
I think the point I am brining across is this debate is pointless. One camp can prove they are right with facts however they cannot prove the other camp wrong. You cannot prove a creator of some sort does not exist (even though I do not believe in that). No matter what is said, neither camp will budge and you are stuck at a stalement. What has changed since the beginning of this thread, NOTHING!.
 
zhimbo

zhimbo

Audioholic General
You cannot prove a creator of some sort does not exist (even though I do not believe in that).
I for one am not interested in proving a Creator does not exist, nor was that the point of the court ruling. Indeed, as you say, that isn't even possible.

The court ruling dealt with what was appropriate for public school science classrooms. Other (productive) subconversations dealt with what it means to be scientific and what the evidence is for modern biology.
 
S

spacedteddybear

Audioholic Intern
Spare the personnal insults or don't bother responding at all.
-Matt34
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Adam

Adam

Audioholic Jedi
Come on now, teddybear. Let's keep in clean. No need to go for the cheap personal attacks.

Just curious - are you in college? That's not an insult, btw. I'm just asking.
 
MinusTheBear

MinusTheBear

Audioholic Ninja
I can't really argue with you spacedteddybear because I hold the same views as you. I just do not see any point in debating the rational vs irrational with people.
 
J

Joe Schmoe

Audioholic Ninja
Teddy: Both well said and correct on all points.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top