Anyone see the NOVA special last night:Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

#1

truefan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
2,156
Likes
0
#1
Extremely informative program highlighting the 2005 trial in Dover, PA.

I am more of an evolution kind of person, but would love to hear the opinions of the members of this forum on the issue
 
Last edited:
#2
#2
Extremely informative program highlighting the 2005 trial in Dover, PA.

I am more of an evolution kind of person, but would love to hear the opinion's of the members of this forum on the issue

too much details in nature to be relied on by mutations and chance.
 
#5
#5
too much details in nature to be relied on by mutations and chance.

This is an ignorant statement. Random mutation easily accounts for the variety of species we see in nature when guided by natural selection. I know this contradicts stories of gardens, talking snakes, arcs, and omnipotent designers...but an understanding of the science involved provides a far more reasonable solution.
 
#7
#7
i mean that the details in cells, genes. are so complex, i just can't see how people just say it started by luck.

Where does evolution say how it all started? All it postulates is what happened after life started.
 
#8
#8
This is an ignorant statement. Random mutation easily accounts for the variety of species we see in nature when guided by natural selection. I know this contradicts stories of gardens, talking snakes, arcs, and omnipotent designers...but an understanding of the science involved provides a far more reasonable solution.
an understanding of the absolute limitations of the science, the inherent biases of the scientists and the fallible nature and absurd assumptions of those producing the science helps too.
 
#9
#9
an understanding of the absolute limitations of the science, the inherent biases of the scientists and the fallible nature and absurd assumptions of those producing the science helps too.

I would love for you to list some of these absurd assumptions and obvious biases.

And if we are talking the merits of limitations, it isn't even a game compared with intelligent design, or creationism.
 
#10
#10
This is an ignorant statement. Random mutation easily accounts for the variety of species we see in nature when guided by natural selection. I know this contradicts stories of gardens, talking snakes, arcs, and omnipotent designers...but an understanding of the science involved provides a far more reasonable solution.

but for every THEORY that supports evolution, creation science shoots it down.

let me ask you a question. when a lake freezes, why does the ice float, why doesn't the ice sink?
 
#12
#12
but for every THEORY that supports evolution, creation science shoots it down.

let me ask you a question. when a lake freezes, why does the ice float, why doesn't the ice sink?

First off, water expands when it freezes, making it lighter and less dense than the same amount of water that froze. Hence, it floats. There isn't a mystery there.

Second, what that has to do with evoution or ID is beyond me.

Third, "creation science" is an oxymoron. Name me one scientific foundation for creationism.
 
#14
#14
I would love for you to list some of these absurd assumptions and obvious biases.

And if we are talking the merits of limitations, it isn't even a game compared with intelligent design, or creationism.

how did bats survive if they had to rely on mutations to produce their radar that allows them to eat. just one of hundreds of examples.
 
#15
#15
Don't know enough about Intelligent Design to comment but I don't see the process of evolution at odds with a theory of a creator or creative force.
 
#17
#17
I would love for you to list some of these absurd assumptions and obvious biases.

And if we are talking the merits of limitations, it isn't even a game compared with intelligent design, or creationism.
you still have the enormous problem of organic matter forming from the inorganic. I know you believe there is a simple answer here about life forming in electrically charged puddles, but it's lame as can be.

Spontaneous life is simply a problem that can't be explained or assumed away. From there to a brain with a conscience is simply impossible.

Not worth debate, as you've proven to be as closed minded about this as those you claim to debate, so I'm done with it.
 
#18
#18
Don't know enough about Intelligent Design to comment but I don't see the process of evolution at odds with a theory of a creator or creative force.

I don't necessarily either, but it is absolutely at odds with ID and creationism.
 
#19
#19
Don't know enough about Intelligent Design to comment but I don't see the process of evolution at odds with a theory of a creator or creative force.
agree completely. Certainly addresses some of the huge problems with evolution.
 
#20
#20
you still have the enormous problem of organic matter forming from the inorganic. I know you believe there is a simple answer here about life forming in electrically charged puddles, but it's lame as can be.

Spontaneous life is simply a problem that can't be explained or assumed away. From there to a brain with a conscience is simply impossible.

Not worth debate, as you've proven to be as closed minded about this as those you claim to debate, so I'm done with it.


Evolution addresses none of that. And your right, it is not worth the debate if you are going to continue to confuse evolution with abiogenesis.
 
#21
#21
Evolution addresses none of that. And your right, it is not worth the debate if you are going to continue to confuse evolution with abiogensis.
I'm not confusing anything. Micro and macro evolution are reasonable to me, until clowns start tossing it about as evidence of lack of a creator, which it in no way supports.
 
#22
#22
I'm not confusing anything. Micro and macro evolution are reasonable to me, until clowns start tossing it about as evidence of lack of a creator, which it in no way supports.

You absolutely are confusing the two when your "obvious biases" and "ridiculous assumptions" consist of pointing out things that evolutionary theory doesn't even mean to address.

And I don't think evolutionary theory is evidence that a creator doesn't exist, but it does make it possible to believe that one isn't needed. There is a difference.

It absolutely closes the door on life as we see it being the result of a single act of creation or design.
 
#24
#24
You absolutely are confusing the two when your "obvious biases" and "ridiculous assumptions" consist of pointing out things that evolutionary theory doesn't even mean to address.

And I don't think evolutionary theory is evidence that a creator doesn't exist, but it does make it possible to believe that one isn't needed. There is a difference.

It absolutely closes the door on life as we see it being the result of a single act of creation or design.
it closes the door on nothing regarding life being a single act of creation. Life started somewhere and evolution doesn't explain it.

Nor does it make it possible to believe that a creator isn't needed. That's exactly what it can't do and that's the point of my comments. It has been extrapolated to do exactly that, but it absolutely breaks down in doing so.

Whether evolution happens is not the function of evolution scientists. They've not stopped there. They've spent their lives disproving a creator, which their science, cannot do.
 
#25
#25
I will submit that it takes more faith to believe in evolution, than it does to believe in creation.

Question: If man evolved from apes, why are apes still on earth? Are they special ed or something?
 

VN Store



Back
Top