Inteligent Design

[Minimalist]

You do not understand American politics at all. They do not give a shit about 'christ's agenda.

i know that, please read what i wrote/


I read what you wrote. It's irrelevant. The sect which is driving things arose in the rural hinterlands following the teachings of some loony British minister in the 1830's. They are self-declared "christians." That's the whole point. One of the obvious problems with Protestantism as originally laid out by Luther and Calvin was the idea of 'pre-destination'... god's "elect." Since god already knew who was to be saved and who was to be damned the followers had the problem of trying to figure out who was who. They settled on 'material success' as a sign of god's favor but where did that leave the poor shmucks who lived on hardscrabble farms and couldn't make ends meet. Along comes this clown who tells them that all they have to do is declare that they "accept jesus as their personal saviour" and they are saved...doesn't matter how many people they may have murdered along the way! Makes it easier to get into heaven, doesn't it? Anyway, since they just KNOW that they are saved they have lots of time to run around trying to push their silly ass theories (like creationism!) down everyone else's throat. AS I said, these are the jackoffs who control the White House.

Because,

you are left to your disbelief

Good. Life is hard enough without having to pay lip service to some immoral, mass-murderer, petty, vain, insecure little god.

[Guest]

talk about grasping at starws:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060713/ap_ ... NlYwM3NTM-

That's a form of evolution known as character displacement, where natural selection produces an evolutionary change in the next generation,

that is called stupidity in action. what a dumb conclusion based on inacurate application of the evidence. this isn't evolution it is the inability to get food---duh

sorry for being so non-tactful but this is just stupid. no wonder evolutionists need a monopoly, they can survive if they had competition in the thinking department.

[Minimalist]

WASHINGTON - Finches on the Galapagos Islands that inspired Charles Darwin to develop the concept of evolution are now helping confirm it — by evolving.

Just because you can't understand it hardly means it isn't true. You've shown that you can't understand much of anything that isn't related to gods and miracles and magic.

Good for Darwin. Glad to see him being continuously upheld by real scientists.

[Frank Harrist]

talk about grasping at starws:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060713/ap_ ... NlYwM3NTM-

That's a form of evolution known as character displacement, where natural selection produces an evolutionary change in the next generation,

that is called stupidity in action. what a dumb conclusion based on inacurate application of the evidence. this isn't evolution it is the inability to get food---duh

sorry for being so non-tactful but this is just stupid. no wonder evolutionists need a monopoly, they can survive if they had competition in the thinking department.

Duh! You idiot. What the fuck do you think evolution is? Oh I forgot you can't understand anything unless god did it. What a fool! You're showing your own stupidity. Proof is right there in front of you and you won't accept it. Explain to us what it is if it isn't evolution. Pleas enlighten us dumkasses. What a moron!

[tj]

that is called stupidity in action.

You seem to have the yahoo article confused with your own post regarding it.

Wouldn't it bring more glory to your god and add grist to your own mill if you conceded microevolution as a sublime design of your god, denied macroevolution, and noted that pretty profound changes can occur on very short timescales (just a generation or two) thus supporting your view for a ~10,000 year old earth?

Your god is likely disappointed that you really don't exercise the brain that he gave you when it comes to being his apologist. I'll bet he would probably be happier if you just .. well, you know .. KEPT QUIET.

[Guest]

You seem to have the yahoo article confused with your own post regarding it.

not at all, in the article it is mentioned 'when the finches came to the islands' so i did some research and the finches have always been there, at least according to all the websites i could find that would mention anything.

they all focused on darwin and not the birds.

Wouldn't it bring more glory to your god and add grist to your own mill if you conceded microevolution

no, as that would be a compromise and since there is no such thing as evolution, there can be no such thing as micro-evolution. if there was then that would be saying God lied in genesis, which he did not do.

noted that pretty profound changes can occur on very short timescales

as tempting as that is it just doesn't work. let me crudely illustrate. two men are in a desert,one has one arm and the other two soon they become thirsty, (they are not close to each other). they begin diggin and soon the two armed man reaches water and survives, the one armed man doesn't.

does that mean evolution is in process? no. all it means is that one species could not reach the food while the other one couldn't. there is no process involved just ability.

[tj]

two men are in a desert,one has one arm and the other two soon they become thirsty, (they are not close to each other). they begin diggin and soon the two armed man reaches water and survives, the one armed man doesn't.

does that mean evolution is in process? no. all it means is that one species could not reach the food while the other one couldn't. there is no process involved just ability.

I agree that your example does not prove evolution. It does not disprove evolution either. It only proves that you don't understand the theory.

[Minimalist]

two men are in a desert,one has one arm and the other two soon they become thirsty, (they are not close to each other). they begin diggin and soon the two armed man reaches water and survives, the one armed man doesn't.

does that mean evolution is in process? no. all it means is that one species could not reach the food while the other one couldn't. there is no process involved just ability.

I agree that your example does not prove evolution. It does not disprove evolution either. It only proves that you don't understand the theory.

[Guest]

It only proves that you don't understand the theory.

another typical response from an adherent who gets his theory ko'd. i understand the theory alright and that it is designed in such a fashion that anything and everything is evidence of evolution in action when in reality it isn't.

evolution needs the removal of common sense to work and it has so many excuses that a dog picking its own nose is a sign of evolution.

[Minimalist]

You're up against his early childhood training, tj. It's hopeless.

[Guest]

how people interpret the Bible is beyond my control at the moment and your perception should be limited in such a manner that it does not generalize.

[Minimalist]

Nah.

As far as I am concerned you all suck.

[Guest]

THE WEAKNESSES OF EVOLUTION, PART ONE:

1. The Fossil Record-- this has been a thorn in the evolutionist's side as the problems they face are insurmountable. for example a). there is no way to tell which is the mother species and which is the daughter one.

b). there is no ancient written record to corroborate the finds and to substantiate what modern day scientists say. this is a big weakness as evolutionists only have darwin and a few Bible haters to build upon. nothing inthe historic or archaeological record supports the evolutionary theory.

c). there is no way to explain the mass of fossils found in one time period. they try to come yup with plausible stories, like the 4 mass extinctions but they are more fanciful than the Bible could ever be.

2). the Dating Systems-- easily manipulated and corruptible and difficult to corroborate. though the tree ring, the c-14 system and the archaeological record agree that 12,000 years is the top limit many refuse to accept the fact and press to prove their theories, eventhough they can never do so.

3). The Lack of Observation-- this one undermines evolution at its very foundation as nothing is observable that has been declared as evolution at work in the past. to say something created in the lab today (or in the last 50 years) is proof of evolution, is far reaching because there is no way to link it to the process or previous evolutionary developements. such declarations are just wishful thinking. one cannot call it evolution at work, for the time frame to prove it is just too untenable

4). The Lack of Transitional Species Today-- a major problem here as there is nothing that can be pointed to and sy 'there is a transitional species'. there is nothing in the historical or arch. record that even hints at any transitional species were observed, alive, let alone met and ated to keep the process on going.

these are just a few weaknesses that undermine the credibility of the evolution theory. to say that things take millions of years is just an excuse for not being able to provide proof and it is a convenient way to dodge a problem and continue on as you did before.

saying finches in the last 200 hundred years is proof of evolution is just ridiculous because you can't prove it, all you have are mutations, dumb luck and being built differently than a 'cousin'

[ReneDescartes]

It isa lifetime job trying to refute Arch ignorance on matters pertaining to evolution ,so just going back to the latest phrase in his post.Mutation is evolution is long as it is a bonus for the species involved Arch,can you not even understand that .Please try this very simple idea.You admit that there is a thing called mutation ,as you used it as an example.Now what would you call a mutation that proves to be an asset instead of a freak accident of nature ? Would you call it evolution ? We all do.If you don't you must be using a different vocabulary .

[Essan]

THE WEAKNESSES OF EVOLUTION, PART ONE:

1. The Fossil Record-- this has been a thorn in the evolutionist's side as the problems they face are insurmountable. for example a). there is no way to tell which is the mother species and which is the daughter one.

Wrong. There are many examples where fossils of a succession of species have been discovered, each exhibiting subtle changes oin a sequence from an archair form to it's modern counterpart. Horses are an obvious example. If Eohippus evolved from the Arabian Stallion, why is the former found only in ancient rock strat whist the earlist remains of the later go back only a few thousnad years at most?

b). there is no ancient written record to corroborate the finds and to substantiate what modern day scientists say. this is a big weakness as evolutionists only have darwin and a few Bible haters to build upon. nothing inthe historic or archaeological record supports the evolutionary theory.

Er, daft straw man argument - of course there ar eno ancuient written records form millions of years ago. The first written records are only a few thousnand years old.

'Bible haters' is also an objectional ad hom - many evolutionary scientists are Christians. Including Darwin. They believe in God and in the teachings of Christ, but not that Genesis contains an accurate account of early history and that absolutely nothing has been missed out (worth noting that evolution actually fits Genesis if you assume that it's doesn't detail every event in Earth's history, just a simplified summary. Evolution and Genesis only conflict if you believe that Genesis is a complete account of everything ..... )

c). there is no way to explain the mass of fossils found in one time period. they try to come yup with plausible stories, like the 4 mass extinctions but they are more fanciful than the Bible could ever be.

Er, what do you mean? There are no fossil beds in association with any of the mass extinctions. These are recognised rather by the fact that a large number of species disappear completely from the fossil record. Not that large numbers of them are found from that time period. You should study a bit more geology

2). the Dating Systems-- easily manipulated and corruptible and difficult to corroborate. though the tree ring, the c-14 system and the archaeological record agree that 12,000 years is the top limit many refuse to accept the fact and press to prove their theories, eventhough they can never do so.

Top limit for carbon dating etc maybe. But there are many other methids. Valves, ice cores, for example. I've referred you to articles on zircon dating - which can take us back 4,000,000,000 or more yeras, for example, elsewhere.

3). The Lack of Observation-- this one undermines evolution at its very foundation as nothing is observable that has been declared as evolution at work in the past. to say something created in the lab today (or in the last 50 years) is proof of evolution, is far reaching because there is no way to link it to the process or previous evolutionary developements. such declarations are just wishful thinking. one cannot call it evolution at work, for the time frame to prove it is just too untenable

Another staw man. We can't directly observe evolution because to date no-one has manged to live for the hundreds of thousnads of years it usually takes. Although, of course, within recorded histiry we do see the evoluition of the domestic cow (from the now extinct auroch), pig (wild boar), arabian stallion (now virtually extinct wild horse), dog etc etc.

4). The Lack of Transitional Species Today-- a major problem here as there is nothing that can be pointed to and sy 'there is a transitional species'. there is nothing in the historical or arch. record that even hints at any transitional species were observed, alive, let alone met and ated to keep the process on going.

Yet another straw man. Without time travel we have no way of knowing which current species are likely to evolve further in future and which have reached their best adaptation to their environment.

these are just a few weaknesses that undermine the credibility of the evolution theory. to say that things take millions of years is just an excuse for not being able to provide proof and it is a convenient way to dodge a problem and continue on as you did before.

The fossil record indicates a long period for evolution. Although from domestication we do know it can be induced to take place much more rapidly thourgh gentics and selective breeding.

saying finches in the last 200 hundred years is proof of evolution is just ridiculous because you can't prove it, all you have are mutations, dumb luck and being built differently than a 'cousin'

And what is evolution? One species throwing up a mutation which, through dumb luck happens to be better adapted to its environment.