Inteligent Design

[Minimalist]

I don't know what the surprise is, Bandit.....Americans love simple, easily understood, wrong answers to most questions.

Evolution is simply way too hard for most of those morons.

[bandit]

There's also another (better imo) article in the same issue about ID v Sci,
however, I had to return it to the library, and cannot find the article online.

The gist of it was how IDers are attempting to "emotionalize" the scientific community and how slowly it is starting to get that way..it used physics as an example i.e string theory, multi dimension et al. while these theorys cannot be proven, the "emotional" aspect of them has latched on to many peoples psyche.

My grammer is lousy today..sorry.

[bandit]

It sure is a lot easier to understand and accept than one all knowing entity who is obviously a mensa cum laude in everything from biology to geology to every other scientific "ology" known to man...

We got people on this planet who spend their entire life on one subject and still never fully understand it.

This entity must have one hellacious grey matter.

[Minimalist]

How smart do you have to be to blow on dirt to make a man?

[bandit]

well, he'd have to have a working knowledge of at least "cause and effect"
expell air too forcefully you get a ditch...not enough it just gets in your eyes!!!!!

[Leona Conner]

Rene, I think you're beating a dead horse. I believe every one of us has tried in vain to explain to Arch the concept of evolution, but he just refuses to grasp it. He has it planted firmly in his teeny-tiny brain that evolution is something you think about and plan and then do. Like it's some kind of thinking entity with complete control. He has his heels dug deeply into the dirt and will not be moved.

[Minimalist]

Then again.....beating a dead horse is good exercise and it doesn't hurt the horse.

[john]

Quoting you know who :
the concept of intelligent design, in its basic form, is correct. that is the one that God created man in his image. God hates, so do we; God loves; so do we; God feels, so do we...to attribute that to chance, evolution is making a big mistake.
As usual Arch has no comprehension of the mechanismso f evolution .If this ist o constitute proof for creationisù it fails miserably .I dare evensay it constitutes an argument in favor of evolution .Asyou rise on the ladder of evolution you wil not help but notice how patterns of nursing and affectionate behaviour becomes more and morecomplexeven in the animal world .
Simple organismsaswere present at the start of evoltion did not need such behaviour .Bacteria,polypsetc disposing of the very simple forms of procreation such as spores,seeds and large quantities of eggs do not need nurturing and elaborate behaviour towards their offspring .THe survival of the species resides on the survival of the fittest in its most simple form .As we move higher on the ladder of evolution reptiles and other more progressed lifeforms show a more complex pattern of behaviour in providing for the survival of their offspring .A crocodile will make a nest,a turtle will dig a hole in the sand .They lay less eggs than the fish ands so they have to rely more on protecting them against predators.Need I say that this behaviour becomes more and more complex finetuned during evolution .Mammals show an even more complex behaviour which we can all observe around us. Humans as the culmination of evolution at this stage dispose of the most complex tools to perpetuate their survival,motherly love,tenderness,protection of their sibblings.Nobody can deny that this behaviour is beneficial for the species .They are beautiful aquisitions of mankind .

"the deer come for salt, not for affection"


gary snyder


john

[john]

from the shorter oxford dictionary

bigot

1. a. A hypocrite. b. A superstitious person - 1664. 2. A person attached to some creed, opinion or ritual 1661.

bigoted (1645)

Obstinantely and blindly attached to some creed, opinion, or party, and intolerant towards others.


need i say more?

john

[Guest]

How can a scientific theory have emotions

that is the whole point, frank. evolutionists ascribe human/Go like characteristics, attribute, knowledge plus the knowing of right and wrong to a theory or process that has none of those things, nor can even hope to conceive of such things.

thus you are saying that the process can, without possessing any of those things nor has the ability to even conceive of those things, 'create' something out of nothing.

also, it has no ability to know when it got something wrong thus it has no ability to make 'corrections' so there can be no transitional species because it would just be impossible for the process to know when it got something right so it could move on to the next species.

i am not the unintelligent one here

[Frank Harrist]

Bullshit! It's a process. Processes need no emotions. When it gets something right that particular critter thrives. When it's wrong they die off. It's really very simple. No emotions needed. No thinking required. No entity causing it. No god. It works well and has for millions of years.......well except in your case.

[LadyV]

Ya know....a God could of decided to create scientifically....just a thought mind you.

[Minimalist]

Then why would he have told his followers that they were made from little piles of dirt. Would have saved us all a lot of trouble is Genesis read like a microbiology textbook.


(Of course, then it probably wouldn't have been the money-maker that it was down through the years.)

[Leona Conner]

[quote="archaeologist"][quote]How can a scientific theory have emotions[/quote]

that is the whole point, frank. evolutionists ascribe human/Go like characteristics, attribute, knowledge plus the knowing of right and wrong to a theory or process that has none of those things, nor can even hope to conceive of such things.

thus you are saying that the process can, without possessing any of those things nor has the ability to even conceive of those things, 'create' something out of nothing.

also, it has no ability to know when it got something wrong thus it has no ability to make 'corrections' so there can be no transitional species because it would just be impossible for the process to know when it got something right so it could move on to the next species.

i am not the unintelligent one here[/quote]

Physical evolution does not need to think, as Frank said if it's good it stays and if it's not good it will die out. BUT the evolution of our intelligence is another thing. It came about slowly in response to our physical changes. Just because we got the opposible thumb does not mean that we immediately knew how to manufacture tools. We had to learn by trial and error. The same thing goes for "right from wrong." we had to slowly learn what was right (good) from wrong (bad). When it was good and everybody agreed that is was, it was passed down to the next generation. The same for what was bad. Unfortunately, just as today, some never learn.

If you demand links, shove it where the sun don't shine because this is my opinion aquired from many years of reading, etc.

[Minimalist]