Personal attacks.
How is it logistical OR technical that aliens altered our DNA and junk to make us more complex rather than us actually evolving which has been observed?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Evolution v Intelligent Design; Should we really teach evolution?
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
Personal attacks.
How is it logistical OR technical that aliens altered our DNA and junk to make us more complex rather than us actually evolving which has been observed?
Smart tigers are not a different species than stupid tigers, nor strong tigers to weak tigers.
What about social tigers and anti-social tigers?
Or should I call them tigers and lions? They can be bred, yet are wildly different in a whole range of ways- genetics, geographic spread, niche, behavior.
None for either evolution or ID. They are concepts, at best.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).
A lack of evidence means it hasn't been observed or can't be observed. My point was, even for concepts that can't be observed, it doesn't mean they're automatically ridiculous.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?
When in hell did I ever state the nature of a "creator"?
You're making the same stupid mistake atheists make by confusing religion and concept.
That's religion. The concept of a creator, without specificying his nature or making suggestions, but JUST THE FUCKING SIMPLE CONCEPT (geez Im so sick of repeating this) IS NOT ABSURD.
It's a concept. Not every theory is actually testable.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.
Last edited:
Personal attacks.
How is it logistical OR technical that aliens altered our DNA and junk to make us more complex rather than us actually evolving which has been observed?
I didn't say it was MORE logistical, but that it still is a real possibility, and not an absurd idea.
The only reason I'm resorting to personal attacks is because I've repeated this several times but you just don't understand.
I AM NOT REFERRING TO SCRIPTURE!
None for either evolution or ID. They are concepts, at best.
A lack of evidence means it hasn't been observed or can't be observed. My point was, even for concepts that can't be observed, it doesn't mean they're automatically ridiculous.
When in hell did I ever state the nature of a "creator"?
You're making the same stupid mistake atheists make by confusing religion and concept.
That's religion. The concept of a creator, without specificying his nature or making suggestions, but JUST THE FUCKING SIMPLE CONCEPT (geez Im so sick of repeating this) IS NOT ABSURD.
It's a concept. Not every theory is actually testable.
OMG ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID!
I'm so sick and tired of atheists not undestanding the difference between RELIGOIN AND CONCEPT PLEAES GET IT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING HEAD
So you're proposing a useless concept, and get really upset when we tell you it's a dumb idea because it doesn't actually do anything for us?
I mean, at least you could tell more interesting stories. I'm partial to Tolkien, myself.
It's a concept. Not every theory is actually testable.
Gotta be a troll, I thought Norsefire was smart. :shrugs: Every theory IS actually testable, that's what makes it a theory.
Gotta be a troll, I thought Norsefire was smart. :shrugs: Every theory IS actually testable, that's what makes it a theory.
Really? M theory is testable?
Look: when I say creator I simply mean higher life. I never ever stated a white man in a beard with hell and heaven. Just higher life.
what in blazes is so ridiculous about that? What is so dumb about the concept of higher life?
Yeah, I agree with him that you, Roman, did kinda mix up Religion and Concept.
Really? M theory is testable?
Not being a smartass, but what is "M theory"?
Look: when I say creator I simply mean higher life. I never ever stated a white man in a beard with hell and heaven. Just higher life.
what in blazes is so ridiculous about that? What is so dumb about the concept of higher life?
We have no evidence for a creator. Knowledge of a creator doesn't do anything for us. Is it a falsifiable hypothesis? Does it lead to predictions? Can it explain why species do what they do? Can it map phylogenies? Is it useful for genetics work; ie, can we predict what next year's flu strain will look like? Does it explain antibiotic resistance?
It's totally useless.
For a very long time, it was supposed the species were immutable. Now we're finding out that's not true at all. How does a creator help us explain diversity and changing diversity? Why is complexity often not favored? A creator doesn't explain parasites or vestiges or "de-evolution".
Yeah, I agree with him that you, Roman, did kinda mix up Religion and Concept.
I didn't.
I was covering my bases. Most of this ID bullshit is thinly veiled bible crap.
We have no evidence for a creator. Knowledge of a creator doesn't do anything for us. Is it a falsifiable hypothesis? Does it lead to predictions? Can it explain why species do what they do? Can it map phylogenies? Is it useful for genetics work; ie, can we predict what next year's flu strain will look like? Does it explain antibiotic resistance?
It's totally useless.
Then so is trying to find out how our universe even began.
It's the pursuit of knowledge.
I agree that believing in something that has no evidence is not a wise choice. However, I also think relying absolutely ONLY on what you can observe without the ability to think of different concepts is also not a very wise stance.
I didn't.
I was covering my bases. Most of this ID bullshit is thinly veiled bible crap.
Read my "religion and concept" thread.
I'm suggesting a creator in the sense of higher life. I am not referring to any specific scripture because most scripture is imagination.
Read my "religion and concept" thread.
I'm suggesting a creator in the sense of higher life. I am not referring to any specific scripture because most scripture is imagination.
Most? Enlighten us which is not. And what the fuck is M Theory?
Then so is trying to find out how our universe even began.
What does the beginning of the universe have to do with life on earth?
A creator doesn't match the evidence of what the origin of species is (descent with modification). A creator is actually contrary to most of the evidence. And again, it doesn't make predictions! Make a single testable hypothesis that a creator implies.
Nothing really does anything for us, we survive and reproduce. Anything else is meaningless.
edit: don't respond to this
edit: don't respond to this
Last edited: