I find the argument- we're very complex. Something we've never observed before (ET's, god, pink unicorns) must have done it a very poor argument, especially considering that there's no evidence for aliens, God, or Pink Unicorns.
Evolution v Intelligent Design; Should we really teach evolution?
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
I find the argument- we're very complex. Something we've never observed before (ET's, god, pink unicorns) must have done it a very poor argument, especially considering that there's no evidence for aliens, God, or Pink Unicorns.
I'm talking about evolution in the sense of an organism actually transforming into a more complex organism.
Prove THAT to me.
Complexity.
Yes.
Do you find that absurd?
Do you find it a real possibility?
By you throwing pink unicorns in there, you're trying to say God and aliens as ridiculous as pink unicorns. Why do you feel so?
Doesn't have to be more complex, just better suited for the job. Maybe you're a little misinformed on the basics of evolution?
The fossil record of velociraptor type dinosaurs becoming birds is pretty solid. Does that count?
What about dogs that are bred to be very smart? What's so hard to accept about nature selecting rather than us?
What?
We're discussing evolution into complexity, though.
Why do you think pink unicorns are so ridiculous? Is it not possible that aliens came down before we existed and made horses pink and have horns?
I don't get it, that happens in certain cases. What's the point of restricting our discourse to just that?
How are gods any less ridiculous than pink unicorns?
Why do you ascribe to one God, not a whole pantheon?
The ridiculousness isn't the noun we use to describe the hypothesized intelligence that somehow made everything- it's the total lack of evidence (other than the creation) that is ridiculous.
We have bucket loads of all the pieces required for evolution to occur. The fact that we've only been looking for what, 150 years? 200? Over the course of 3 billion years... well, let's just say it's not much of a data set.
So he's trolling, right?
This is what annoys me about atheists the most.
There's a difference between technically possible and being a real possibility. The notion of a higher species developing or guiding our own evolution isn't an absurd idea. I'm not saying I believe it, but I don't see how you can compare that to pink unicorns.
Has anyone else noticed that me and Roman come to the same conclusions and have the same responses almost instantly after reading? This is really quite simple..
So where's the proof of the aliens? Where are their tire tracks and space ports?
Crater chains on Mercury?
Then tigers are the same species as lions, and broccoli, cauliflower, collard greens, and brussels sprouts are all the same species.
The more we learn, the harder it is to define species. It's somewhat arbitrary.
Aren't you agnostic? Without definite proof, don't bother? Pink unicorns have definite proof of not existing where? Links?
See my religion and concept thread.
That suggests that all that cannot be observed, is ridiculous, which isn't the case.
Some things you can work out mathematically or logically, by examining possibilities and probabilities, which is what ID is all about.
I highly doubt any advanced civilization wishing to remain hidden from us would make the mistake of leaving such obvious evidence.
Smart tigers are not a different species than stupid tigers, nor strong tigers to weak tigers.
Honestly, if you can't understand the difference between technical possibilities and logistical possibilities that are actually real viable possibilities, then I'm not going to bother.
Nothing pisses me off more than stupid atheists who can't understand the difference between RELIGION and CONCEPT.
By the way, I just want to paraphrase what Kadark told me earlier. He analogized my disbelief in Muhammad similar to him not believing in my Grandfather. There was no evidence, everything I could have said would have just dismissed easily with a less rational explanation, but still an explanation. I feel this works perfectly for this topic because you need definite proof and, well, there is none(that's 100% definite).
It's not that it hasn't been observed- it is the utter lack of evidence. There is none, whatsoever.
So which mathematical proof says there's a guy in a white mumu stroking his beard waiting to send us to heaven or hell?
Euler's formula is the closest thing that's come to convincing me there's a god.
Look man, if you strip it all down to- "there was a creator", what does that tell us? How is that a workable scientific hypothesis? What predictions can we make from it?
The only reason ID exists is so cretins can justify their backwards beliefs in a bronze age deity that really hasn't any relation to making predictions about reality. The God of the Bible most definitely doesn't exist as a creator, or as anything, most likely. You know, what with the total lack of evidence.