Conservative Religious Right crosses the line in Florida.

[GrayFox]

[Kosmo]

Kosmo i never started an argument. I told my opinion and my experience then other people laughed at it and told me that i talk shit. That annoys me and its hard for me to shut up in such a situation.

I didn't accuse you of starting an argument, I just pointed out that you should not even go there, let him think he is right, what if he thinks he is right even tho he has not first hand experience about what he is saying, he has just proven that he is more full of shit than he accuses you being.

[Steppenwolf]

You are right

[slicky]

if anyone wants to read an intelligent argument on behalf of intelligent design, google up 'Behe' or 'mouse trap.' It presents a scientifically logical theory of intelligent design. Im not a proponent of the theory nor am i religious at all, i just think its important to keep an open mind in this area.

Be aware that evolution is by no means a perfect theory, there are so many organic systems that transcend simple mutation, in the sense that without the whole system evolving at once, it becomes redundant, like a wristwatch thats missing a single gear. heres some genetic examples;

The eyeball; requires rods, cones, lens, photonic sensors of some sort, an aperture system. Lacking any element its totally useless.

The central nervous system; i dont really need to explain this, just consider the level of conciousness we have as humans, how does that evolve out of a single celled organism.

Einstein never needed to question his belief in god because he took the vast complexity, and perfection (even the very existence) of the physical systems which govern our universe to be a greater proof of divinity than anything.

[Lurker]

I haven't really been following this debate, but I'd like to point out that your eyeball example has a hole in it in that if you have 2 organisms of a species, and one is lacking one of the things essential to its survival (in this case, its eyesight) this organism is more susceptible to not surving. As such, evolution has worked in this sense. In the end, you'd find it more probable the person whose eyesight is good would survive.

"The eyeball; requires rods, cones, lens, photonic sensors of some sort, an aperture system. Lacking any element its totally useless."

Sure, it shows evidence of intelligent design, but it also shows how evolution has worked as well.

[Tequila]

Tequila just because you dont know what i talk about doesnt mean that its shit. You better read some books or make your own experiences before you call it shit.

"Albert Hofmann: LSD - My Problem Child" is a good beginning.

If you dont like drugs try it with meditation or holothrophic breathing.

Guess you missed the smilie. I don't mind drugs, or who uses them, at all. I just found what you wrote to be the most pretentious drivel I've heard in a long while.

Drugs the deepest experience ever? Perhaps for a teenager. Life has more to offer in the long run.

[slicky]

"The eyeball; requires rods, cones, lens, photonic sensors of some sort, an aperture system. Lacking any element its totally useless."

Sure, it shows evidence of intelligent design, but it also shows how evolution has worked as well.

my point was that theres no progressive way for an eye to evolve since it either functions completely or not at all. Not that the genetic trait would propagate and develop in many species (as it undoubtedly has)

[The Postman]

I haven't really been following this debate, but I'd like to point out that your eyeball example has a hole in it in that if you have 2 organisms of a species, and one is lacking one of the things essential to its survival (in this case, its eyesight) this organism is more susceptible to not surving. As such, evolution has worked in this sense. In the end, you'd find it more probable the person whose eyesight is good would survive.

"The eyeball; requires rods, cones, lens, photonic sensors of some sort, an aperture system. Lacking any element its totally useless."

Sure, it shows evidence of intelligent design, but it also shows how evolution has worked as well.

It's another God-in-the-gaps scenario more than anything. The eyeball, the banana and any of the other "proof god made it" things that creationists (which is what intelligent design folks really are) sling out are just poorly educated shots in the dark. There are plenty of sources for the evolution of the eye and various other structures. Did you know that you possess rods and cones inside your brain as well? Near the back. Only in the eyes? Hardly. It's complex, certainly, but so's your circulatory system and hell, even the mitochondria in your cells. They all perform a function and have done so to a slowly better degree over time.

Evolution never stops, it doesn't level up, it doesn't really jump (other than obvious mutations). You yourself are ever-so-slightly evolved from your parents, and they from their parents, and your kids will be from you and your future mate.

[Kosmo]

I think posteh had a really good point in the end, creationism or intelligent design if true would have made us what we are, but we are still evolving, if god created evolution after he created us and animals, is it actually intelligent design? It's like god saying "better not risk it, I have made man perfect but let's just add evolution that he stays that way in the foreseeable future", the so called intelligent design breaks to pieces, god is actually a science kid not knowing what he is doing.

[RD]

The eye is just a cheap trick to lure ppl into believing intelligent design. The eye would work if it had no rods, it would just work diffrently, just like many animals have 'eyes' which work diffrently

It's like god saying "better not risk it, I have made man perfect but let's just add evolution that he stays that way in the foreseeable future", the so called intelligent design breaks to pieces, god is actually a science kid not knowing what he is doing.

All life evolves, not just humans. We just need it to survive, just like our heart. Our heart doesnt break intelligent design to pieces, neither does evolution. I think Grayfox is the living proof that intelligent design has failed :roll:

[Kosmo]

The eye is just a cheap trick to lure ppl into believing intelligent design. The eye would work if it had no rods, it would just work diffrently, just like many animals have 'eyes' which work diffrently

It's like god saying "better not risk it, I have made man perfect but let's just add evolution that he stays that way in the foreseeable future", the so called intelligent design breaks to pieces, god is actually a science kid not knowing what he is doing.

All life evolves, not just humans. We just need it to survive, just like our heart. Our heart doesnt break intelligent design to pieces, neither does evolution. I think Grayfox is the living proof that intelligent design has failed :roll:

How exactly evolution does not break the intelligent design? The intelligent design suggest that to the point where is was created everything was balanced on a tip of surgical knife, it is that what makes it so intelligent after all, and if there is evolution there is no control, if there is no control the whole design fails, it's like designing a car and making the gas a on and off switch, the luck of the driver will decide the outcome of the cruise.

[GrayFox]

I think Grayfox is the living proof that intelligent design has failed :roll:

HAHAHHAAHAAAA!!! (pity laughs)

[Schmung]

he eye is just a cheap trick to lure ppl into believing intelligent design. The eye would work if it had no rods, it would just work diffrently, just like many animals have 'eyes' which work diffrently

Indeed, that eye thing pissess me off. It's touted out all the friggin time and it's complete BS. Think about it, photosensitive cells give you an evolutionary advantage even without any focusing mechanism and so do various other parts of the system. It's all based on misconceptions and false assumptions about the evolutionary process.

[Pericolos0]

"The eyeball; requires rods, cones, lens, photonic sensors of some sort, an aperture system. Lacking any element its totally useless."

Sure, it shows evidence of intelligent design, but it also shows how evolution has worked as well.

my point was that theres no progressive way for an eye to evolve since it either functions completely or not at all. Not that the genetic trait would propagate and develop in many species (as it undoubtedly has)

i remember i scientific explanation of the evolution of the eye that has a purpose for ever small step. I'll look it up for you. Keep in mind that Micheal Behe's 'theories' have been thoroughly refuted, and that he never submitted any of his stuff to peer reviewed scientific journals.

EDIT:

not exactly the one i read, this is much more concise:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/crea ... _time.html

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/crea ... tages.html

[RD]

How exactly evolution does not break the intelligent design? The intelligent design suggest that to the point where is was created everything was balanced on a tip of surgical knife, it is that what makes it so intelligent after all, and if there is evolution there is no control, if there is no control the whole design fails, it's like designing a car and making the gas a on and off switch, the luck of the driver will decide the outcome of the cruise.

Your heart evolves when u get older as well, it grows just like your whole body, but it doesnt break intelligent design does it?

Evolution doesnt mean there is no control. The koran for example describes guided evolution (guided by allah ofcourse :roll: ). One of his billion nicknames is the evolver. And strangely enough... this was written a millenium before the theory of evolution Jesus