Expelled--No Intelligence Allowed Movie lacks intelligence?

[purplehippo]

It amazes me to read all these replies about this new movie and the harsh comments directed at people who believe in a Creator and not a big bang. I have not seen it yet but I plan to. There is so much evidence that makes evolution look just plain stupid. Supposed scientific research that time and time again gets changed. Problems with radiometric dating and just the complexity of the life we can see today. Expelled is an attempt to bring the idea's of Evolution and Creation or ID to a more level playing field. But it seems useless to argue the point because there are those who will not change their mind even with evidence to the contrary. You can put an apple in their hand and they will argue till they are blue in the face that it is an orange. If you are really interested in knowing the truth of how and where we came from you need to at least weigh the evidence with an open mind. I will give you one example that I have been recently studying. The bombardier beetle. Take a look at the complexity of this insect and tell me how it evolved. It just makes evolution look stupid.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: purplehippo
Supposed scientific research that time and time again gets changed.

Your listing this as a criticism of scientific theories is pretty telling. You prefer scientists should not change in the face of evidence showing a part of the current ideas about how things work is imprecise or incorrect? That's religion's job.

You think the complexity of a beetle makes evolultion stupid? I think believing that a benevolent creator designed every species, including the ones that lay eggs in other animals which then eat their way out denotes a pretty sick and twisted creator.

ID posits man was created in his current form some thousands of years ago. Snap crackle pop wave the magic want and there is man. And this should be taught in a school?

 

[neodyn55]

Originally posted by: purplehippo
It amazes me to read all these replies about this new movie and the harsh comments directed at people who believe in a Creator and not a big bang. I have not seen it yet but I plan to. There is so much evidence that makes evolution look just plain stupid. Supposed scientific research that time and time again gets changed. Problems with radiometric dating and just the complexity of the life we can see today. Expelled is an attempt to bring the idea's of Evolution and Creation or ID to a more level playing field. But it seems useless to argue the point because there are those who will not change their mind even with evidence to the contrary. You can put an apple in their hand and they will argue till they are blue in the face that it is an orange. If you are really interested in knowing the truth of how and where we came from you need to at least weigh the evidence with an open mind. I will give you one example that I have been recently studying. The bombardier beetle. Take a look at the complexity of this insect and tell me how it evolved. It just makes evolution look stupid.

I gather you weren't so hot in the science classes at school?

 

[purplehippo]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: purplehippo
Supposed scientific research that time and time again gets changed.

Your listing this as a criticism of scientific theories is pretty telling. You prefer scientists should not change in the face of evidence showing a part of the current ideas about how things work is imprecise or incorrect? That's religion's job.

You think the complexity of a beetle makes evolultion stupid? I think believing that a benevolent creator designed every species, including the ones that lay eggs in other animals which then eat their way out denotes a pretty sick and twisted creator.

ID posits man was created in his current form some thousands of years ago. Snap crackle pop wave the magic want and there is man. And this should be taught in a school?

Like I said - it seems pretty useless to argue the point. Apples and oranges. I've said my peace. Have a nice day.

 

[purplehippo]

Originally posted by: neodyn55

Originally posted by: purplehippo
It amazes me to read all these replies about this new movie and the harsh comments directed at people who believe in a Creator and not a big bang. I have not seen it yet but I plan to. There is so much evidence that makes evolution look just plain stupid. Supposed scientific research that time and time again gets changed. Problems with radiometric dating and just the complexity of the life we can see today. Expelled is an attempt to bring the idea's of Evolution and Creation or ID to a more level playing field. But it seems useless to argue the point because there are those who will not change their mind even with evidence to the contrary. You can put an apple in their hand and they will argue till they are blue in the face that it is an orange. If you are really interested in knowing the truth of how and where we came from you need to at least weigh the evidence with an open mind. I will give you one example that I have been recently studying. The bombardier beetle. Take a look at the complexity of this insect and tell me how it evolved. It just makes evolution look stupid.

I gather you weren't so hot in the science classes at school?

There ya go - personal attacks get your point across very clearly LOL. Apples and oranges as they say.

 

[Vic]

Apples and oranges is mixing creationism with evolution, or deity with big bang.

Originally posted by: Vic
I think the problem here with the ID crowd is that they keep fighting against evolution on an issue that evolution does not cover. Namely, the "genesis" of life itself. Maybe there was a god, maybe there wasn't. To evolutionary theory, that's just not relevant. The same scientific reasoning applies to the big bang itself.
Ironically, I see this same problem with the strong atheist crowd, but from the opposite perspective.

Science does not attempt to disprove God. Everything that science teaches us could be absolutely true, evolution and big bang, and God could still exist anyway. Or not. See, that's the point. Science doesn't care except to seek the objective truth.

What is under attack from science are religion's silly dogmatic traditions, clung to even in the face of all the evidence in the world against them. Which IMO makes it even that much more ironic that someone would attack science for changing as human understanding changes.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: purplehippo
It amazes me to read all these replies about this new movie and the harsh comments directed at people who believe in a Creator and not a big bang. I have not seen it yet but I plan to. There is so much evidence that makes evolution look just plain stupid.

Actually a Creator and a "big bang" do not rule each other out - IF the Creator is limitless Energy .. making matter out of Self is pretty simple - in that case

Evolution is *fact* .. we do adapt, develop, progress .. some call it "variety"; *some* creationists say "god planned evolution"

However the *issue* most hotly debated regards the Origin of Life; imo there are two main "choices" how it occurred [clearly it did]:

(1) Spontaneous generation by random chance

or

(2) Purpose

i started a new thread
Faster Than Light Travel - How to Build a Warp Drive

in THIS thread i have been accused of being BOTH anti-religious AND anti-science

the only science i hate is the "arrogant" egotistical Pseudo Science that Assumes that there Cannot be a god - that it is *impossible* and entire frameworks for their philosophy have been created just to support that premise. - it is not scientific to insist on a premise and THEN start from there

the religion i hate is "organized" and it exists for it's own sake - it hold back progress and should be eliminated - at the very LEAST to OFFEND "god" and prove to the religious people he does NOT esixt

 

[neodyn55]

Originally posted by: purplehippo

Originally posted by: neodyn55

Originally posted by: purplehippo
It amazes me to read all these replies about this new movie and the harsh comments directed at people who believe in a Creator and not a big bang. I have not seen it yet but I plan to. There is so much evidence that makes evolution look just plain stupid. Supposed scientific research that time and time again gets changed. Problems with radiometric dating and just the complexity of the life we can see today. Expelled is an attempt to bring the idea's of Evolution and Creation or ID to a more level playing field. But it seems useless to argue the point because there are those who will not change their mind even with evidence to the contrary. You can put an apple in their hand and they will argue till they are blue in the face that it is an orange. If you are really interested in knowing the truth of how and where we came from you need to at least weigh the evidence with an open mind. I will give you one example that I have been recently studying. The bombardier beetle. Take a look at the complexity of this insect and tell me how it evolved. It just makes evolution look stupid.

I gather you weren't so hot in the science classes at school?

There ya go - personal attacks get your point across very clearly LOL. Apples and oranges as they say.

It's not a personal attack if it can be proven. For example, if you call a child born out of wedlock a 'bastard', you aren't cussing him out, because he fits the definition.

From your post, it seems clear that you don't really understand the goals of science. Especially evinced by the statement about scientific research "changing again and again"

 

[purplehippo]

Originally posted by: Vic
Apples and oranges is mixing creationism with evolution, or deity with big bang.

Originally posted by: Vic
I think the problem here with the ID crowd is that they keep fighting against evolution on an issue that evolution does not cover. Namely, the "genesis" of life itself. Maybe there was a god, maybe there wasn't. To evolutionary theory, that's just not relevant. The same scientific reasoning applies to the big bang itself.
Ironically, I see this same problem with the strong atheist crowd, but from the opposite perspective.

Science does not attempt to disprove God. Everything that science teaches us could be absolutely true, evolution and big bang, and God could still exist anyway. Or not. See, that's the point. Science doesn't care except to seek the objective truth.

What is under attack from science are religion's silly dogmatic traditions, clung to even in the face of all the evidence in the world against them. Which IMO makes it even that much more ironic that someone would attack science for changing as human understanding changes.

If that were true then why is Darwin's Theory's accepted as the absolute truth in the scientific community when there is ample evidence to the contrary? It is a false statement to say Creationists are against science when they use science to disprove these theories. Putting all else and presupposition of a creator or not aside, science does show evidence of intelligent design. If you want to call it something else that is OK. But that still does not change the fact. Enter a God and all of a sudden it's nuts trying to change the world. If science is about truth in the evidence - let the evidence be presented instead of saying woops - it's 46 billion years instead of 6 billion years - sorry we made a mistake. Current curriculum still teaches these older theories without any update to the current learned facts. Teaching our children the truth is the ultimate goal. Since there is no definitive evidence in either direction accept theory, does it not seem logical to teach our children alternativce views of where we came from.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
If you believed your children were in danger of going to Hell because of what they were being taught, what would you do if you weren't cruel?

No Christian that I know thinks their child is in danger of going to hell because they are taught evolution in school.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: purplehippo
If that were true then why is Darwin's Theory's accepted as the absolute truth in the scientific community when there is ample evidence to the contrary? It is a false statement to say Creationists are against science when they use science to disprove these theories. Putting all else and presupposition of a creator or not aside, science does show evidence of intelligent design. If you want to call it something else that is OK. But that still does not change the fact. Enter a God and all of a sudden it's nuts trying to change the world. If science is about truth in the evidence - let the evidence be presented instead of saying woops - it's 46 billion years instead of 6 billion years - sorry we made a mistake. Current curriculum still teaches these older theories without any update to the current learned facts. Teaching our children the truth is the ultimate goal. Since there is no definitive evidence in either direction accept theory, does it not seem logical to teach our children alternativce views of where we came from.

Nothing you said here makes any sense at all. But you have shown a really startling lack of understanding about science.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: neodyn55

Originally posted by: purplehippo

Originally posted by: neodyn55

Originally posted by: purplehippo
It amazes me to read all these replies about this new movie and the harsh comments directed at people who believe in a Creator and not a big bang. I have not seen it yet but I plan to. There is so much evidence that makes evolution look just plain stupid. Supposed scientific research that time and time again gets changed. Problems with radiometric dating and just the complexity of the life we can see today. Expelled is an attempt to bring the idea's of Evolution and Creation or ID to a more level playing field. But it seems useless to argue the point because there are those who will not change their mind even with evidence to the contrary. You can put an apple in their hand and they will argue till they are blue in the face that it is an orange. If you are really interested in knowing the truth of how and where we came from you need to at least weigh the evidence with an open mind. I will give you one example that I have been recently studying. The bombardier beetle. Take a look at the complexity of this insect and tell me how it evolved. It just makes evolution look stupid.

I gather you weren't so hot in the science classes at school?

There ya go - personal attacks get your point across very clearly LOL. Apples and oranges as they say.

It's not a personal attack if it can be proven. For example, if you call a child born out of wedlock a 'bastard', you aren't cussing him out, because he fits the definition.

From your post, it seems clear that you don't really understand the goals of science. Especially evinced by the statement about scientific research "changing again and again"

unfortunately you are confusing "pseudo science" with "science"
- and what are it's goals you speak about as though you really know?

--does that make you also ADD?

every single Great Scientist is also "humble" .. not arrogant assholes who claim to already know it all - that something is *impossible* because it does not fit in with "established" pre-conceived Dogma

These same Types of Morons ruled the scientific community - pre WWI and also Originally Opposed Einstein!

Without "fresh enlightment" and a New Way to Look at the Cosmos, we'd still be discussing Newton and Aristotle
:roll:

Apes in a jungle deferring to their Stupid Shamans - religious or astrology ... same as today

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: purplehippo

If that were true then why is Darwin's Theory's accepted as the absolute truth in the scientific community when there is ample evidence to the contrary? It is a false statement to say Creationists are against science when they use science to disprove these theories. Putting all else and presupposition of a creator or not aside, science does show evidence of intelligent design. If you want to call it something else that is OK. But that still does not change the fact. Enter a God and all of a sudden it's nuts trying to change the world. If science is about truth in the evidence - let the evidence be presented instead of saying woops - it's 46 billion years instead of 6 billion years - sorry we made a mistake. Current curriculum still teaches these older theories without any update to the current learned facts. Teaching our children the truth is the ultimate goal. Since there is no definitive evidence in either direction accept theory, does it not seem logical to teach our children alternativce views of where we came from.

I would love to see the 'evidence' that disproves evolution. I would also very much like to see the 'evidence' of intelligent design.

It does not make sense to teach intelligent design. It is not science, it is not falsifiable, it is religion masquerading as science.

Don't worry though guys, no matter what Ben Stein craps out it is exceedingly unlikely that any school district will have a serious go at teaching intelligent design again. The decision in the Dover, PA case destroyed intelligent design so utterly, so completely, it would take a huge sea change in order for a curriculum that included ID to survive more then 15 minutes in a courtroom.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: purplehippo

If that were true then why is Darwin's Theory's accepted as the absolute truth in the scientific community when there is ample evidence to the contrary? It is a false statement to say Creationists are against science when they use science to disprove these theories. Putting all else and presupposition of a creator or not aside, science does show evidence of intelligent design. If you want to call it something else that is OK. But that still does not change the fact. Enter a God and all of a sudden it's nuts trying to change the world. If science is about truth in the evidence - let the evidence be presented instead of saying woops - it's 46 billion years instead of 6 billion years - sorry we made a mistake. Current curriculum still teaches these older theories without any update to the current learned facts. Teaching our children the truth is the ultimate goal. Since there is no definitive evidence in either direction accept theory, does it not seem logical to teach our children alternativce views of where we came from.

I would love to see the 'evidence' that disproves evolution.

It does not make sense to teach intelligent design. It is not science, it is not falsifiable, it is religion masquerading as science.

Don't worry though guys, no matter what Ben Stein craps out it is exceedingly unlikely that any school district will have a serious go at teaching intelligent design again. The decision in the Dover, PA case destroyed intelligent design so utterly, so completely, it would take a huge sea change in order for a curriculum that included ID to survive more then 15 minutes in a courtroom.

And Yet we have your Pseudo-science, it is not falsifiable, it is also religion masquerading as science.

I would also very much like to see the 'evidence' of intelligent design.

--You are blind imo; perhaps because it surrounds you and you are a tiny part of it although you are clearly ignorant of purpose vs. planning.

Evolution is FACT .. it may have been DESIGNED that way
- but you are way too arrogant to admit it is "NOT impossible"!

a least that is the way i see it

our science is also too primitive to say anything with certainty of our Origins .. and clearly our "logic" is ALL flawed or we would have "answers" by now .. or else we are too small to comprehend it [and that is also doubtful imo]

Now, MY point is to prove - to religious people - that "he" does NOT exist
--That IS easy! Almost too easy. And the answer may not be what scientists want.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: purplehippo

If that were true then why is Darwin's Theory's accepted as the absolute truth in the scientific community when there is ample evidence to the contrary? It is a false statement to say Creationists are against science when they use science to disprove these theories. Putting all else and presupposition of a creator or not aside, science does show evidence of intelligent design. If you want to call it something else that is OK. But that still does not change the fact. Enter a God and all of a sudden it's nuts trying to change the world. If science is about truth in the evidence - let the evidence be presented instead of saying woops - it's 46 billion years instead of 6 billion years - sorry we made a mistake. Current curriculum still teaches these older theories without any update to the current learned facts. Teaching our children the truth is the ultimate goal. Since there is no definitive evidence in either direction accept theory, does it not seem logical to teach our children alternativce views of where we came from.

I would love to see the 'evidence' that disproves evolution.

It does not make sense to teach intelligent design. It is not science, it is not falsifiable, it is religion masquerading as science.

Don't worry though guys, no matter what Ben Stein craps out it is exceedingly unlikely that any school district will have a serious go at teaching intelligent design again. The decision in the Dover, PA case destroyed intelligent design so utterly, so completely, it would take a huge sea change in order for a curriculum that included ID to survive more then 15 minutes in a courtroom.

And Yet we have your Pseudo-science, it is not falsifiable, it is also religion masquerading as science.

I would also very much like to see the 'evidence' of intelligent design.

--You are blind imo; perhaps because it surrounds you and you are a tiny part of it although you are clearly ignorant of purpose vs. planning.

Evolution is FACT .. it may have been DESIGNED that way
- buy you are too arrogant to admit it is "NOT impossible"!

a least that is the way i see it

our science is way too primitive to say anything with certaity of our Origins .. and clearly our "logic" is ALL flawed or we would have "answers" .. or else we are too small to comprehend it [doubtful]

Now, MY point is to prove - to religious people - that "he" does NOT exist
--That IS easy!

Eh? That's not even the argument. Evolution makes no statement as to where the principles that guide evolution came from. What pseudo-science are you claiming I subscribe to?

ID is a fraud. It is completely unsupported and unprovable. The basic argument for ID usually boils down to some sort of attack on evolution. What ID people seem to fail to notice is that even if evolution were to be proven false tomorrow, it would not make ID any more correct.

 

[Vic]

Religion doesn't belong in the classroom. If you want to teach your children religion, then do it at home or take them to church. That's where it belongs for everyone's best interests. That is, unless you want someone else's religion shoved down your children's throats? Of course not.

But if you don't understand the simple, most basic philosophies of science that make it so that ID is not science, then educate yourself first.

I suggest starting with the fact that science does not -- in any way -- threaten the existence of your God. Or your belief in your God. There are many scientists who are religious, in fact. Your faith is not under attack from science. Science is purely agnostic.
Which is the great irony of "intelligent design" IMO. From a religious perspective (bear with me, atheists), the discoveries of modern science have only served to magnify the glory of God. To show that, IF a God exists, then He is far far greater than anyone ever imagined. And yet here come the fundies, so desperate to protect their little traditional beliefs that they put those in front of their belief and humility to God.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: apoppin

I would love to see the 'evidence' that disproves evolution.

It does not make sense to teach intelligent design. It is not science, it is not falsifiable, it is religion masquerading as science.

Don't worry though guys, no matter what Ben Stein craps out it is exceedingly unlikely that any school district will have a serious go at teaching intelligent design again. The decision in the Dover, PA case destroyed intelligent design so utterly, so completely, it would take a huge sea change in order for a curriculum that included ID to survive more then 15 minutes in a courtroom.

And Yet we have your Pseudo-science, it is not falsifiable, it is also religion masquerading as science.

I would also very much like to see the 'evidence' of intelligent design.

--You are blind imo; perhaps because it surrounds you and you are a tiny part of it although you are clearly ignorant of purpose vs. planning.

Evolution is FACT .. it may have been DESIGNED that way
- buy you are too arrogant to admit it is "NOT impossible"!

a least that is the way i see it

our science is way too primitive to say anything with certaity of our Origins .. and clearly our "logic" is ALL flawed or we would have "answers" .. or else we are too small to comprehend it [doubtful]

Now, MY point is to prove - to religious people - that "he" does NOT exist
--That IS easy!

Eh? That's not even the argument. Evolution makes no statement as to where the principles that guide evolution came from. What pseudo-science are you claiming I subscribe to?

ID is a fraud. It is completely unsupported and unprovable. The basic argument for ID usually boils down to some sort of attack on evolution. What ID people seem to fail to notice is that even if evolution were to be proven false tomorrow, it would not make ID any more correct.

[/quote]

the pseudo science that dismisses the very concept of a "god" - a "purpose" - as IMPOSSIBLE .. the One that establishes Evolution on an uncertain shaky basis of "spontaneous generation"
.. more appropriately - spontaneous generation of Bullsh!t for over 100 years

^^that one^^^

ID people are just more rabidly nuts since they have to fight you - the "establishment"

Before your Prophet Darwin arose, it was the other way 'round .. since the Egyptians to Aristotle to Newton and finally .. now .. same stupidity with only a few RENEGADE geniuses that are usually not appreciated until long after they are gone.

crazy planet of the apes

 

[Brigandier]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Eh? That's not even the argument. Evolution makes no statement as to where the principles that guide evolution came from. What pseudo-science are you claiming I subscribe to?

The principles that guide evolution are this: The fittest survive. As the environment changes,t he qualifications for fitness change and new traits are expressed. that is the principle that guides evolution. I believe it's called something like natural selection, or some other nonsense science phrase.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: purplehippo
It amazes me to read all these replies about this new movie and the harsh comments directed at people who believe in a Creator and not a big bang. I have not seen it yet but I plan to. There is so much evidence that makes evolution look just plain stupid. Supposed scientific research that time and time again gets changed. Problems with radiometric dating and just the complexity of the life we can see today. Expelled is an attempt to bring the idea's of Evolution and Creation or ID to a more level playing field. But it seems useless to argue the point because there are those who will not change their mind even with evidence to the contrary. You can put an apple in their hand and they will argue till they are blue in the face that it is an orange. If you are really interested in knowing the truth of how and where we came from you need to at least weigh the evidence with an open mind. I will give you one example that I have been recently studying. The bombardier beetle. Take a look at the complexity of this insect and tell me how it evolved. It just makes evolution look stupid.

You know, i'm not a scientist, i have a good friend that works in an area that is DEPENDANT on evolutionary facts to be true and you know what? They are true, they are true every time they are tested.

How do you think a vaccine for a virus strain that does not even exist is developed? Well evolutionary theory can predict the way it evolves, there is no question about it, evolution is a fact.


You are completely ignorant regarding evolution, big bang theory AND ID, you have no clue what so ever what either one of those things are, what they purport, what evidence is available, what they are used for or even where any of them come from.

It is impossible to put Evolution and ID on a level playing field, one is a theory that has uses in the real world and necessary for the creation of vaccines and other medications while one is just... God did it because it's improbable that it happened without guidance.

What they do not realise is that given an infinite amount of time the impossible becomes possible and eventually true.

There is so much to write about this, what you see is the results, this is the result that we deal with, what you don't see is the infinite amounts of results that didn't happen, this is just one of them and it is so far from perfect that ANY human, even a child could name at least something that could be better, if this is the work of a designer, he's not all that bright, call it UD in that case, Unintelligent Design.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Brigandier

Originally posted by: apoppin

Eh? That's not even the argument. Evolution makes no statement as to where the principles that guide evolution came from. What pseudo-science are you claiming I subscribe to?

The principles that guide evolution are this: The fittest survive. As the environment changes,t he qualifications for fitness change and new traits are expressed. that is the principle that guides evolution. I believe it's called something like natural selection, or some other nonsense science phrase.

NP .. do you see me disagree with it in principle?
- i'd like to add that "society" modified evolution by allowing the "weak" to also prosper ... and not just human society; so it is already NOT "pure evolution"

NOW .. *my point* and i think you need to answer it>


what do evolutionists GENERALLY view as the origin of life?

--God or Chance?

There is a Part two ... and *why*?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Brigandier

Originally posted by: apoppin

Eh? That's not even the argument. Evolution makes no statement as to where the principles that guide evolution came from. What pseudo-science are you claiming I subscribe to?

The principles that guide evolution are this: The fittest survive. As the environment changes,t he qualifications for fitness change and new traits are expressed. that is the principle that guides evolution. I believe it's called something like natural selection, or some other nonsense science phrase.

Eh, no, evolution has no guidance, it has no intent and it has no direction. Evolution is what *happens* given the right circumstances, it does not *try* to get there.

New traits don't just happen, it has to do with traits *already existing* in some individuals making them more prone to breed with others with the same traits (usually because the trait is a good one, it keeps you alive which is pretty important if you want to procreate, this is what is natural selection) and eventually that trait becomes more expressed in the population, eventually leading to differences that makes them so different that they are no longer part of the same species.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Brigandier

Originally posted by: apoppin

Eh? That's not even the argument. Evolution makes no statement as to where the principles that guide evolution came from. What pseudo-science are you claiming I subscribe to?

The principles that guide evolution are this: The fittest survive. As the environment changes,t he qualifications for fitness change and new traits are expressed. that is the principle that guides evolution. I believe it's called something like natural selection, or some other nonsense science phrase.

Eh, no, evolution has no guidance, it has no intent and it has no direction. Evolution is what *happens* given the right circumstances, it does not *try* to get there.

New traits don't just happen, it has to do with traits *already existing* in some individuals making them more prone to breed with others with the same traits (usually because the trait is a good one, it keeps you alive which is pretty important if you want to procreate, this is what is natural selection) and eventually that trait becomes more expressed in the population, eventually leading to differences that makes them so different that they are no longer part of the same species.

why is my name in here? - that is NOT what i said
DarwinDamn Nested Quotes! :|

anyway .. Evolution appears to have a "direction"
--that is the point

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Brigandier

Originally posted by: apoppin

Eh? That's not even the argument. Evolution makes no statement as to where the principles that guide evolution came from. What pseudo-science are you claiming I subscribe to?

The principles that guide evolution are this: The fittest survive. As the environment changes,t he qualifications for fitness change and new traits are expressed. that is the principle that guides evolution. I believe it's called something like natural selection, or some other nonsense science phrase.

NP .. do you see me disagree with it in principle?
- i'd like to add that "society" modified evolution by allowing the "weak" to also prosper ... and not just human society; so it is already NOT "pure evolution"

NOW .. *my point* and i think you need to answer it>


what do evolutionists GENERALLY view as the origin of life?

--God or Chance?

There is a Part two ... and *why*?

Who cares what they view as origin of life, why must you always mix that in with evolution? The post you responded to said absolutely nothing about it.

You have, by far, the most annoying way of debating that i have ever come across on any board, you have pretty much NO post yet without at least one strawman in it.

Keep it on topic, evolution is evolution, it doesn't even try to provide evidence about the origin of life.

If you want to debate the Big Bang, the primordial soup and the origin of the first organism then do that, but don't mix evolution into it, it has absolutely nothing to do with that.

Origin of life if you ask me is when nothing became something, most people can't wrap their minds around that so they turn to God, which does not need such an explanation while not understanding that what they leave behind while doing so is the exact same thing they are turning to.

 

[purplehippo]

I gave you all a clear example that evolution does not make sense, the bombardier beetle. If you are intent that your thoughts on evolution are so true, explain how this beetle evolved. It's a simple point. There are many more examples. But I doubt we have any serious scientific people here. Even Darwin wrote of design in his writings.

 

[Vic]

The only "direction" to evolution is survival and propagation.

It's an observation FFS. Don't try to attach meaning to something that doesn't require meaning.

And hey, can I make my post convoluted and unintelligible and then use emoticon after emoticon to try to imply a deeper meaning too?

:clock::gift::moon:

:wine::heart::beer: