Evolution v Intelligent Design; Should we really teach evolution?

However it has to do more with the question of complexity. Humans are very complex.

Now, intelligent design doesn't have to be by "God"; it's very possible that "extra terrestrial" intelligence could've either sparked or helped the development of humanity. Do you find that idea absurd?

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.
 
http://www.rationalresponders.com/evolutionproof. Also, did you miss the fact that EVOLUTION HAS BEEN OBSERVED? Meaning, PEOPLE HAVE SEEN EVOLUTION, YOU CAN GO SEE IT. I don't know how much more proof you need.
I'm talking about evolution in the sense of an organism actually transforming into a more complex organism.

Prove THAT to me.

Species are poorly defined. It's not necessarily groups that cannot breed, it's groups that do not breed. So you can cross a lot of stuff, but it doesn't happen in the wild due to barriers, whether biological, social, or geographical.

Complexity.
 
All science is theory. You can't actually prove anything in science, only falsify.





Species are poorly defined. It's not necessarily groups that cannot breed, it's groups that do not breed. So you can cross a lot of stuff, but it doesn't happen in the wild due to barriers, whether biological, social, or geographical.

Oh, alright that makes more sense. Sorry guys :eek:
 
You're asking me if its absurd that aliens might have come down from their spaceships before history and altered our DNA and whatnot to make us very complex? Am I understanding you correct?
Yes.

Do you find that absurd?

Do you find it a real possibility?
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.

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?
 
I'm talking about evolution in the sense of an organism actually transforming into a more complex organism.

Prove THAT to me.



Complexity.

Doesn't have to be more complex, just better suited for the job. Maybe you're a little misinformed on the basics of evolution?
 
I'm talking about evolution in the sense of an organism actually transforming into a more complex organism.

Prove THAT to me.

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?

Complexity.

What?
 
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?

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?
 
The fossil record of velociraptor type dinosaurs becoming birds is pretty solid. Does that count?
It isn't proof though.

What about dogs that are bred to be very smart? What's so hard to accept about nature selecting rather than us?
Smart dogs are the same species as stupid dogs.
 
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?

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.
 
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?

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.
 
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.

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..
 
It isn't proof though.

So where's the proof of the aliens? Where are their tire tracks and space ports?
Crater chains on Mercury?

Smart dogs are the same species as stupid dogs.

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.
 
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.

Aren't you agnostic? Without definite proof, don't bother? Pink unicorns have definite proof of not existing where? Links?
 
How are gods any less ridiculous than pink unicorns?
Why do you ascribe to one God, not a whole pantheon?
See my religion and concept thread.

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.
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.
 
So where's the proof of the aliens? Where are their tire tracks and space ports?
Crater chains on Mercury?
I highly doubt any advanced civilization wishing to remain hidden from us would make the mistake of leaving such obvious evidence.



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.
Smart tigers are not a different species than stupid tigers, nor strong tigers to weak tigers.

Aren't you agnostic? Without definite proof, don't bother? Pink unicorns have definite proof of not existing where? Links?

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).
 
That suggests that all that cannot be observed, is ridiculous, which isn't the case.

It's not that it hasn't been observed- it is the utter lack of evidence. There is none, whatsoever.

Some things you can work out mathematically or logically, by examining possibilities and probabilities, which is what ID is all about.

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.
 
Back
Top