NationStates Jolt Archive

Take a moment to consider the Divine Beauty of God's Handicraft at http://winace.andkon.com/designed_organisms/.

The purpose of this pro-creationism essay is to document several potentially unevolveable organisms of staggering complexity and design. As much as evolutionists will try, their (often pathetic) attempts to deny the undeniable, that life exhibits all the hallmarks of intelligent design, inevitably falter when faced with the evidence. As the rest of this document demonstrates, intelligent creation is necessary to explain the mind-boggling complexity of many organisms.

I'm interested in hearing all responses, particularly those of evolutionists; I find it difficult to conceive how even a morally bankrupt apostate could counter the sheer logical infallibility of the claims advanced within said page (replete with many wondrous illustrations and thus comprehensible by even the illiterate). Even Richard Dawkins ("Oxford University Professor of Zoology by day, godless communist sympathizer by night"), that depraved, abyss-condemned agent of sin on earth, has thus been brought to confess biology "the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose by God, but we won't admit that even if he comes down from heaven and slaps us silly." How true.

It is my sincerest hope that the intelligent design evident in such glorious manifestations of the Creator’s ineffably benevolent wisdom as the screw-worm fly will, at the very least, leave you sinners aware of the full extent of your folly as you righteously languish in Hell.

I wish to be the first to lable this thread FLAMEBAIT.

And if I'm going to hell, I'm dragging your prejudiced self into the flames with me, god-boy.

I wish to be the first to lable this thread FLAMEBAIT.

And if I'm going to hell, I'm dragging your prejudiced self into the flames with me, god-boy.

View the commentary in the context of the website.

Take a moment to consider the Divine Beauty of God's Handicraft at http://winace.andkon.com/designed_organisms/.



I'm interested in hearing all responses, particularly those of evolutionists; I find it difficult to conceive how even a morally bankrupt apostate could counter the sheer logical infallibility of the claims advanced within said page (replete with many wondrous illustrations and thus comprehensible by even the illiterate). Even Richard Dawkins ("Oxford University Professor of Zoology by day, godless communist sympathizer by night"), that depraved, abyss-condemned agent of sin on earth, has thus been brought to confess biology "the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose by God, but we won't admit that even if he comes down from heaven and slaps us silly." How true.

It is my sincerest hope that the intelligent design evident in such glorious manifestations of the Creator’s ineffably benevolent wisdom as the screw-worm fly will, at the very least, leave you sinners aware of the full extent of your folly as you righteously languish in Hell.

:D thanks!

"Lions kill stuff therefore they must be designed by someone"

I wish to be the first to lable this thread FLAMEBAIT.

And if I'm going to hell, I'm dragging your prejudiced self into the flames with me, god-boy.
Amen to that, my atheist brother.

I don't think it's flamebait. Do I agree with it? Not in the least. Do I actually have any tolerance for the teachings of Christianity? Not really. I also don't see a deliberate attempt to antagonize the opposition, besides the part in the quoted box that predictably labels the oppositions arguments as 'mostly pathetic,' which is not really actionable.

Considering that we can see space around us that appears to continue for some distance beyond 14 billion light years, I'd venture to guess that at least one of those very numerous stars could harbor the correct chemical combinations for life, to vast degrees of complexity.

That said, I don't generally care to debate creation theory with people who have already made up their minds on the issue. You've clearly taken a leap of faith, but pardon us if the chasm still looks just a little too wide for the most of us. Maybe our legs aren't as strong as yours or something.

View the commentary in the context of the website.

Which part the godless heathens or pathetic evolutionists?

:D thanks!

"Lions kill stuff therefore they must be designed by someone"

Lions (Panthera leo). As zoologists have long observed, these rank among the most efficient terrestrial killing machines on the planet. The lion's combination of speed, stealth, brute strength and state-of-the-art weaponry is beyond repute.

A lesser-known lion fact is that adult males, when they take over a rival pride's territory, seek out and tear apart every one of the loser's cubs. As a result, their mothers come into heat sooner, which lends certain benefits to the males. As before, this instinct is difficult to explain without invoking a design hypothesis. The lions need to track down cubs, positively identify them as someone else's, and only then kill them. How would such an elaborate series of complex instincts...just evolve?

Surely such an elegant reproductive strategy must have been engineered by the Lord?

Two thumbs up for a great topic that very few people will get.

View the commentary in the context of the website.
As far as I'm concerned all credibility made haste out the window when I saw the words "Heathen, God hating evolutionists like..." in the context of what was supposed to be taken to be a legitimate professional essay.

You're not supposed to use ad hominem in these things.

Yes, the fact that Earth isn't a perfectly amazing wonderland filled with chocolate rivers and mountains made of fat free cheeseburgers is perfect proof that there can be no God. After all, that your creator might have a purpose beyond immediate self-gratification for you is imposssible to believe.
This argument (and the whole what kind of god needs worship) are completely assinine and do nothing other than get the person that makes it a few high fives from people who already thought the exact same thing.

This is all tongue in cheek though, right? If this is serious I may have to start killing some people. Everyone does know this (the first post and the essay) us just a joke?

'Some fleas are difficult to remove, therefore they are designed.'


Well, I'm convinced.

Take a moment to consider the Divine Beauty of God's Handicraft at http://winace.andkon.com/designed_organisms/.



I'm interested in hearing all responses, particularly those of evolutionists; I find it difficult to conceive how even a morally bankrupt apostate could counter the sheer logical infallibility of the claims advanced within said page (replete with many wondrous illustrations and thus comprehensible by even the illiterate). Even Richard Dawkins ("Oxford University Professor of Zoology by day, godless communist sympathizer by night"), that depraved, abyss-condemned agent of sin on earth, has thus been brought to confess biology "the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose by God, but we won't admit that even if he comes down from heaven and slaps us silly." How true.

It is my sincerest hope that the intelligent design evident in such glorious manifestations of the Creator’s ineffably benevolent wisdom as the screw-worm fly will, at the very least, leave you sinners aware of the full extent of your folly as you righteously languish in Hell.
Is it a bad sign when my immediate reaction to this is to pray that this guy is speaking sarcastically?

Nah. Whatever you do, you will not change the minds of evolutionist. Like the website said, even if God came down and slapped people silly, people still won't get it.

As far as I'm concerned all credibility made haste out the window when I saw the words "Heathen, God hating evolutionists like..." in the context of what was supposed to be taken to be a legitimate professional essay.true, especially those that call Believers Nuts, crazy, uneducated, simpletons...ect...

but ignoring all barbs and sticking to the main topic...

I've always wondered about those birds and fish that go so trustingly into preditors mouths to clean off parasites... and those preditors that sit so still and let them. Wonder the Evolutionary path that allow that cohabitation to exsist.

what was that far side cartoon, where the Croc was on the Psychiatrist Couch...
"Yah know doc, those birds that walk so trustingly into our mouths... well, I've been eating them like popcorn."

Yes, the fact that Earth isn't a perfectly amazing wonderland filled with chocolate rivers and mountains made of fat free cheeseburgers is perfect proof that there can be no God. After all, that your creator might have a purpose beyond immediate self-gratification for you is imposssible to believe.

And where, I may ask, did I say that?

This is all tongue in cheek though, right? If this is serious I may have to start killing some people. Everyone does know this (the first post and the essay) us just a joke?

I find your flippancy objectionable.

Nah. Whatever you do, you will not change the minds of evolutionist. Like the website said, even if God came down and slapped people silly, people still won't get it.

Quick question. Where does evolution say that it disproves god? Where does evolution say anything about god whatsoever?

I think this is sarcasm that reveals one of the most apparent weaknesses of creationism: that so called "irreducibly complex" organisms need a designer, but that this designer, itself logically having to be even more "irreducibly complex" to manage such a feat as to design "irreducibly complex" organisms, paradoxically does not.

At least that's what I hope it is, because it would be clever if it were. If it's not, then it is shockingly uneducated and illogical.

Nah. Whatever you do, you will not change the minds of evolutionist. Like the website said, even if God came down and slapped people silly, people still won't get it.

Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive.

And I see this term "evolutionists" a lot lately, as if "evolutionist" was as mind-bogglingly retarded as "creationist." How about instead of "evolutionist" we say, "one who is at least somewhat educated in biological science?"

Quick question. Where does evolution say that it disproves god? Where does evolution say anything about god whatsoever?
But the notion of God with a capital G immediately disproves evolution. With that in mind, if God did exist, then evolution can't exist. It's a win-lose situation. There is no compromise between the positions.

Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive.

And I see this term "evolutionists" a lot lately, as if "evolutionist" was as mind-bogglingly retarded as "creationist." How about instead of "evolutionist" we say, "one who is at least somewhat educated in biological science?"

They are. Because of God, there can't be evolution.

You can't say that, because there are Christian biologists.

Nah. Whatever you do, you will not change the minds of evolutionist. Like the website said, even if God came down and slapped people silly, people still won't get it.
I guess that's what you get for believing the evidence rather than believing an ancient book that has no reference material, a bad index, and scanty supporting evidence at best.

People hwo believe in Evolution are the people that put their faith where their minds lead them: they might not be right, but this doesn't mean they're stupid or inept or "pathetic"--remember that since this argument can't yet be proven either way, you're sort of pissing in the wind by calling the other side "pathetic" [that goes for Evolutionists too] when both arguments essentially dissipate to the same core, as-yet-unprovable concepts. One hand has logic and science, the other has faith and crucifixes.

In short, not all of us put more stock in Evolution because we hate religion [though, as a side note, I do harbor an intense dislike for it], but because in the context of science and visible discovery Evolution appears to have the upper hand. For every one shred of visible credibility that Creationism has, Evolution has twenty. For every black mark or inconsistency Evolution has, Creationism has... well, a book full of them.

But the notion of God with a capital G immediately disproves evolution. With that in mind, if God did exist, then evolution can't exist. It's a win-lose situation. There is no compromise between the positions.

Really how does it disprove evolution? I was under the impression that God could have started off the process. I was under the impression that some religions like Catholisism find it logically compatible with God.

I've always wondered about those birds and fish that go so trustingly into preditors mouths to clean off parasites... and those preditors that sit so still and let them. Wonder the Evolutionary path that allow that cohabitation to exsist.

what was that far side cartoon, where the Croc was on the Psychiatrist Couch...
"Yah know doc, those birds that walk so trustingly into our mouths... well, I've been eating them like popcorn."

Some predatory organisms occasionally consume such "cleaner organisms", and flesh-nipping "false cleaners" exist - all figments of God's plan for ecological equilibrium.

But the notion of God with a capital G immediately disproves evolution.


How so?

Oh my God, this could only happen on NS.

Surely such an elegant reproductive strategy must have been engineered by the Lord?
Oft, do I approach woman with small child and kill the small child and then ask the mother for a date. Really. Works wonders. Thanks God!

I guess that's what you get for believing the evidence rather than believing an ancient book that has no reference material, a bad index, and scanty supporting evidence at best.

People hwo believe in Evolution are the people that put their faith where their minds lead them: they might not be right, but this doesn't mean they're stupid or inept or "pathetic"--remember that since this argument can't yet be proven either way, you're sort of pissing in the wind by calling the other side "pathetic" [that goes for Evolutionists too] when both arguments essentially dissipate to the same core, as-yet-unprovable concepts. One hand has logic and science, the other has faith and crucifixes.

In short, not all of us put more stock in Evolution because we hate religion [though, as a side note, I do harbor an intense dislike for it], but because in the context of science and visible discovery Evolution appears to have the upper hand. For every one shred of visible credibility that Creationism has, Evolution has twenty. For every black mark or inconsistency Evolution has, Creationism has... well, a book full of them.

Actually, there is loads of evolution that can't be proven at all. The fossils show dinosaurs, birds, and dinosaurs with feathers. But it doesn't discover a lot of things, like, eyes, ears, brain, skin, scales, bones, muscles etc.

Evolution is really: while organisms may evolve, we don't know how all the individual components came into being - because we can't experiment on them.

And up today, nobody has yet been able to create life with no-life (except sex and cloning, but they're not evolution).

I don't think it's flamebait. Do I agree with it? Not in the least. Do I actually have any tolerance for the teachings of Christianity? Not really. I also don't see a deliberate attempt to antagonize the opposition, besides the part in the quoted box that predictably labels the oppositions arguments as 'mostly pathetic,' which is not really actionable.
(Snip snip...)

I didn't call this thread flamebait because it's about intelligent design, but because of the blatant 'holier-than-thou' attitude of the OP.

I'm interested in hearing all responses, particularly those of evolutionists; I find it difficult to conceive how even a morally bankrupt apostate could counter the sheer logical infallibility of the claims advanced within said page (replete with many wondrous illustrations and thus comprehensible by even the illiterate). Even Richard Dawkins ("Oxford University Professor of Zoology by day, godless communist sympathizer by night"), that depraved, abyss-condemned agent of sin on earth, has thus been brought to confess biology "the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose by God, but we won't admit that even if he comes down from heaven and slaps us silly." How true.

It is my sincerest hope that the intelligent design evident in such glorious manifestations of the Creator’s ineffably benevolent wisdom as the screw-worm fly will, at the very least, leave you sinners aware of the full extent of your folly as you righteously languish in Hell.

This kind of talk really gets my blood boiling, and is truely worthy of the lable FLAMEBAIT. It's even worse when atheists or agnostics do it because it makes the rest of us look bad.

So, in closing, to all you out there who are about to post in order to smirk and tell someone how idioticly wrong they are because of their religious beliefs: Fuck you very much and have a nice stick up your pooper, asshole.

You said "pooper."

Really how does it disprove evolution? I was under the impression that God could have started off the process. I was under the impression that some religions like Catholisism find it logically compatible with God.
Firstly, God explicitly makes it clear the world was created in six days in Genesis. Some may say "God takes one day as one millenium and one millenium as one day". Okay, so God takes six millenia to create the world. That is still too far off from "millions of years". Moreover, God made it clear that one "day" meant "one morning and one evening".

Secondly, God created life with a design. Evolution suggests that life banged into today with due to chance. Two fundamentally different motives for the progression of different forms of life that aren't compatible.

When some Christians are faced with worldly troubles, they begin mixing worldly standards into God's standards and believe it's "okay" to deviate. It's not, and it's very dangerous.

Surely such an elegant reproductive strategy must have been engineered by the Lord?

Of course it was! Amen!
It's like the time when I wrote a letter to the pope after the lord touched my fridge and created life in my piece of expired cheese.

They are. Because of God, there can't be evolution.

Umm. No. Only if you insist on taking the literal account of Creation to be absolute biological truth do you exclude the possibility of evolution. If, however, you don't have a fundamentalist twist, you can believe in God and acknowledge evolution at the same time. It's amazing how (other) people are open minded like that.

You can't say that, because there are Christian biologists.

I CAN say that, because "christian biologist" does not mean "creationist."

Are you just TRYING to be annoyingly contrary?

Take a moment to consider the Divine Beauty of God's Handicraft at http://winace.andkon.com/designed_organisms/.


Wow.


Are you the person who said, "God gave me the task to destroy Darwinism"?

Or are you Pat Robertson?

Oh, and if I go to hell, I'll be sure to save you a seat.

(really, unless you're Jesus, you don't get to say who goes to hell. really.)

"The burden of proof lies with the evolutionists". Yeah, yeah, great and all, but don't creationists also have a burden of proof? Namely, PROVING THAT THERE IS IN FACT A GOD. I'm sorry, but saying that someone else is wrong doesn't automatically make you right.

As to the complexity part, it actually IS explained by evolution. First things first, however, no scientist has ever said that people developed fully functioning eyes, or bees poisonous stings in one generation: even with punctuated equilibrium, evolutionists say that these characteristics take time to develop. But lets take one example, say, lions killing the young of other males to ensure their own reproduction. Many generations of lions ago, there were probably many male lions that didn't have nearly the level of aggression against the offspring of other male lions: however, the more aggressive lions had a better method of ensuring that they would be able to reproduce, so the less aggressive lions had relatively few offspring while the aggressive lions had many offspring, who were aggressive like their parents. After a few generations, with the most aggressive producing the most offspring, the non-aggressive lions basically died out, and even the less-aggressive, but not totally non-aggressive, were few in number. This has carried on into the present.

At least, that is one explaination that doesn't rely on God. Anyway, if someone really wants to learn about evolution, read almost any college, or even high school, biology textbook.

Firstly, God explicitly makes it clear the world was created in six days in Genesis. Some may say "God takes one day as one millenium and one millenium as one day". Okay, so God takes six millenia to create the world. That is still too far off from "millions of years". Moreover, God made it clear that one "day" meant "one morning and one evening".
So where exactly are dinosaurs in this wonderful picture. Better yet where are the different stages of man we have?

Secondly, God created life with a design. Evolution suggests that life banged into today with due to chance. Two fundamentally different motives for the progression of different forms of life that aren't compatible.
So whats the design?

When some Christians are faced with worldly troubles, they begin mixing worldly standards into God's standards and believe it's "okay" to deviate. It's not, and it's very dangerous.
So what we have here is that evolution doesnt invalidate god. It only invalidates your views on god if you take the creation story literally. Evolution does not set out to prove or disprove a god. It only seeks to explain the natural world. You could equate a god having a hand in evolution. And you know there are other christian views that say evolution is compatible with your God. So who's view is right and who's view is wrong yours or there's?

Oh my God, this could only happen on NS.

No, sadly it's happening all over the US.

Ever since the election of Bush it's been fashionable to be stupid. And fundamentalist. Hell, fundamentalism is so popular, even terrorists are into it!

Umm. No. Only if you insist on taking the literal account of Creation to be absolute biological truth do you exclude the possibility of evolution. If, however, you don't have a fundamentalist twist, you can believe in God and acknowledge evolution at the same time. It's amazing how (other) people are open minded like that.

I CAN say that, because "christian biologist" does not mean "creationist."

Are you just TRYING to be annoyingly contrary?


You can't have one thing and another. Read my previous post to understand why I think God and evolution aren't compatible.

Of course it was! Amen!
It's like the time when I wrote a letter to the pope after the lord touched my fridge and created life in my piece of expired cheese.

Praise God! It is only through He that abiogenesis is possible.

I didn't call this thread flamebait because it's about intelligent design, but because of the blatant 'holier-than-thou' attitude of the OP.



This kind of talk really gets my blood boiling, and is truely worthy of the lable FLAMEBAIT. It's even worse when atheists or agnostics do it because it makes the rest of us look bad.

So, in closing, to all you out there who are about to post in order to smirk and tell someone how idioticly wrong they are because of their religious beliefs: Fuck you very much and have a nice stick up your pooper, asshole.
err while at least he's trying to make it into a civil thread, while you call flame bait, be warned, your bolded areas can also be called flaming and trolling as well.

So where exactly are dinosaurs in this wonderful picture. Better yet where are the different stages of man we have?
There is actually some peculiar evidence that the dinosaurs survived Noah's Flood, all the way to the Roman times. And we've only known one stage of man that is alive - US! Can you show me living proof of a "lesser stage of a man"?

So whats the design?
You are the design. Order doesn't come out of disorder and chaos.


So what we have here is that evolution doesnt invalidate god. It only invalidates your views on god if you take the creation story literally. Evolution does not set out to prove or disprove a god. It only seeks to explain the natural world. You could equate a god having a hand in evolution. And you know there are other christian views that say evolution is compatible with your God. So who's view is right and who's view is wrong yours or there's?
Evolution does not exactly explain the natural world. It tries to explain natural history.

Well, if I'm advocating this view, then of course I think I'm correct and everybody else's is wrong. That's what taking a stand means, doesn't it? Well, I mean, I may not be correct, but to me, I'm correct. Ha. Do you get it? Cuz I don't. :p

Praise God! It is only through He that abiogenesis is possible.

Um... he was being sarcastic. Abiogenesis has been proven impossible.

You can't have one thing and another. Read my previous post to understand why I think God and evolution aren't compatible.

Looks like you think they aren't compatible because you insist your "God" is the only possible one. Big surprise there! Not good reasoning however.

Actually, there is loads of evolution that can't be proven at all. The fossils show dinosaurs, birds, and dinosaurs with feathers. But it doesn't discover a lot of things, like, eyes, ears, brain, skin, scales, bones, muscles etc.
I understand that, and if you chose to assume that I follow Evolutionist theory after reading my post, you should have your eyesight checked. My point is, that Evolution and Creationism are at this point exactly as provable as its counterpart.

I tend to prefer Evolutionism because the idea of an interventionalist God is laughable at best. I think one day it may be exhibited to be scientific fact, and when it does Christianity will either have to rewrite its canon [as I'm certain it's already done a few times], cease to exist [very unlikely] or ignore the findings altogether, accusing the responsible scientist(s) of being devil-worshipping sinners trying to dupe us all to Satan's pits.

That's the nice thing about religion: it has a way out of any argument.

Evolution is really: while organisms may evolve, we don't know how all the individual components came into being - because we can't experiment on them.
Scientific knowledge, as with any other type of knowledge, comes with time. We don't know how or why life started because science hasn't gotten that far yet. One day it might, and it's be nice if I could see it in this lifetime.

No reasonable scientist claims to know everything about the origins of life, but interestingly enough their Christian counterparts have no problem with this. Of particular irritation to me are the consistent deployments of Bible verses, most of which can be interpretted to mean something completely different should the reader choose to put his mind to it.

A lot of people accuse Nostradamus [and rightly so] of being ridiculously vague with his predictions so that every time something big happened, it looked like he had seen it already. I'll give you a hint: Nostradamus wasn't the only person in human history with this rather deceptive skill.

And up today, nobody has yet been able to create life with no-life (except sex and cloning, but they're not evolution).
No argument here, but I don't really see why this would be necessary to 'prove' evolution. It's entirely possible that the propagation of life on this planet was brought about by means that no one could possibly wield: like a comet, as has recently been suggested.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9603657&postcount=18

I repeat: The designer looks designed. If lesser creatures than it need a designer, who/what is this infinitely more complex designer's designer?

I didn't call this thread flamebait because it's about intelligent design, but because of the blatant 'holier-than-thou' attitude of the OP.

This kind of talk really gets my blood boiling, and is truely worthy of the lable FLAMEBAIT. It's even worse when atheists or agnostics do it because it makes the rest of us look bad.

So, in closing, to all you out there who are about to post in order to smirk and tell someone how idioticly wrong they are because of their religious beliefs: Fuck you very much and have a nice stick up your pooper, asshole.
Interesting turn of events. I suggest you take a few deep breaths, poke a Jesus pincushion or something, and smoke a hearty, full flavored Marlboro cigarette.

I really don't want to open up the Centre and start issuing warnings. The initial post was borderline of course, but it's not anything I wouldn't post. Cool it, please.

I repeat: The designer looks designed. If lesser creatures than it need a designer, why doesn't the infinitely more complex designer need a designer?

Because the Bible says so! Neener neener neener, your "logic" has nothing on meeeee! ;)

Hey, Eolam! The guy who wrote the article is atheist. He was joking. Looks like... you lose?

I find myself feeling that there's a good chance that the author of this thread is joking... I would have recommended making it slightly more obvious, though.

If, on the other hand, the author wasn't joking, then he/she needs a good slap in the face IMO.


Hey, Eolam! The guy who wrote the article is atheist. He was joking. Looks like... you lose?

Hmm... that gives me higher hopes...

No, sadly it's happening all over the US.

Ever since the election of Bush it's been fashionable to be stupid. And fundamentalist. Hell, fundamentalism is so popular, even terrorists are into it!

I, too, am saddened - many of these so-called "Christians" in fact only play lip service to the true tenets of Christ and will thus eternally perish with the advent of the New Earth. I, as a proud member of the moderate http://members.aol.com/fvparty/fvparty1/ (Family Values Party), am rather miffed, however, by the assumption that I am of a like mind with that leftist Bush.

Since the dawn of civilization, man has had things he could not understand. Being both curious, imaginitive, and fearful of the unknown, man filled the voids in his knowledge. Lightning became Zeus/Jupiter, echos were from Echo, rivers and trees were alive with nymphs, stars were Gods, and the sun was a God moving across the heavans. And that doesn't even scratch the surface of things we have pinned on a God or Gods.

And what happened. Every single claim was false. Every one. God didn't do a damned thing we keep saying he did. Lightning is a(albeit complicated) force of nature. Babies are born through biology, not miracle. Echos are sound waves returning to our ear after bouncing off a surface. Stars are the light of distant large burning gaseous bodies. Are the explanations quite complicated? Yes. Were they way beyond the knowledge of those who came up with the theological explaination? Hell yes. Are they right? YES.

Never once in the history of man has falling back on the explanation "God did it!!!" to explain something extremely difficult and complicated in our world been correct. Only through science and rationalism, rather than Theology, has the truth been revealed. I see no reason that will change in the evolution debate.

... and that's all I have to say on that. :)

Praise God! It is only through He that abiogenesis is possible.

Join me, my born-again brother in creating a holy shrine to the glory of the creator! Pilgrims will cross oceans to bask in it's glory! We shall build it from appendixes, men's nipples and tailbones!

I, as a proud member of the moderate http://members.aol.com/fvparty/fvparty1/ (Family Values Party), am rather miffed, however, by the assumption that I am of a like mind with that leftist Bush.

Yeah, well as long as you promote ignorance and insist on fundamentalist dogma you're fighting his crusade anyway. No one needs be 100% politically aligned with Bush, to be of like mind. I even consider Bush to be of like mind to many of the terrorists he claims to fight. This is an unpopular viewpoint however.

There is actually some peculiar evidence that the dinosaurs survived Noah's Flood, all the way to the Roman times. And we've only known one stage of man that is alive - US! Can you show me living proof of a "lesser stage of a man"?
So wait you expect me to believe that Dinosaurs could have survived to the Romans? You've got to be kidding me. Wouldn't you expect to see something like that in any Roman literature. Second how can there be living proof of dead things? You want proof there are plenty of fossils of early men.


You are the design. Order doesn't come out of disorder and chaos.
And what a poor design we are. I mean if we really were designed by an intellegent being shouldn't we not have an appendix or the little toe? I mean what intellegent being designs a creature with parts that have no function?



Evolution does not exactly explain the natural world. It tries to explain natural history.
Evolution is a scientific theory. Science tries to explain the natural world. Hence evolution is an explaination of the natural world.

Well, if I'm advocating this view, then of course I think I'm correct and everybody else's is wrong. That's what taking a stand means, doesn't it? Well, I mean, I may not be correct, but to me, I'm correct. Ha. Do you get it? Cuz I don't. :p
Dude I hope your joking because Dinosaurs and the Romans is the most laughable thing I have ever heard period.

Moreover, God made it clear that one "day" meant "one morning and one evening".


How long is a "morning?" an "evening?" Also, I recall reading or hearing somewhere that the original Hebrew, usually translated into the word "day," refers to a general period of time, not necessarily a literal 24 hour period. Anyone out there more learned in the Torah, Judaism and Hebrew who can clarify for us?


Secondly, God created life with a design. Evolution suggests that life banged into today with due to chance. Two fundamentally different motives for the progression of different forms of life that aren't compatible.


Evolution suggests that life emerged into what we see today, guided by natural selection. The principle of emergence is a very fascinating one: "Emergence is the process of complex pattern formation from simpler rules" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence ). The key here is "simpler rules." While it appears that the process of emergence is "random" or "chaotic," it is in fact guided by concrete rules. Take, for instance, Conway's Game of Life, an example of a cellular automata ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_game_of_life ). I am fascinated by Conway's Game of Life, because it demonstrates that Evolution/Emergence and a Creator can exist side by side just fine. I have programmed several implementations of Conway's Game of Life myself, and each time I have acted as a creator, implementing the very simple but very specific rules needed to make the cellular automata work. Once I am finished programming, however, I like to randomize the grid, hit the "Go" button, and simply sit back and watch what happens. What initially beings as chaos eventually settles down into a well organized, stable, self-sustaining, and often very beautiful pattern.

There is absolutely nothing contradictory about the notion of a Creator and the process of Evolution/Emergence. God simply implemented the basic rules and then hit the "Go" button, taking great joy in the beauty of His emerging creation.


When some Christians are faced with worldly troubles, they begin mixing worldly standards into God's standards and believe it's "okay" to deviate. It's not, and it's very dangerous.


Some may prefer to think of it as discovering the beauty of Nature's design, as well as the genius of Nature's Creator. :)

err while at least he's trying to make it into a civil thread, while you call flame bait, be warned, your bolded areas can also be called flaming and trolling as well.

If I have offended anyone, then I appologize. It's just that I sometimes fly off the handel when someone is being insulting.

And I must admit, Eolam's subsiquant post have been very civil, while I let my anger take hold of me (I call it 'Hulk Syndrom'), but the fact remains that the OP is very insulting to those of the atheist and agnostic cast.

No, sadly it's happening all over the US.

Ever since the election of Bush it's been fashionable to be stupid. And fundamentalist. Hell, fundamentalism is so popular, even terrorists are into it!

I, too, am saddened - many of these so-called "Christians" in fact only play lip service to the Tenets of Ineffable Truth and will thus, sadly, perish with the advent of the New Earth, just as my heathen ancestors did. However, I, as a proud member of the centrist Family Values Party (http://members.aol.com/fvparty/fvparty1/), am rather miffed by your association of such moderate fundamentalists as myself with that reptilian leftist Bush. While I admire the idealism of certain religiously motivated "terrorists", I oppose their techniques and misguided spiritual creed.

EDIT:

At least, that is one explaination that doesn't rely on God. Anyway, if someone really wants to learn about evolution, read almost any college, or even high school, biology textbook.

I'll have you know I possess a Ph.D. in Deluge Biology from Holy Redeemer Ranch.

I'm sorry. I just can't get over the fucking lion. Does that really look designed to you? Totally different from anything else you might see? Maybe something in your home? Something you keep as a pet? Keeps your lap warm? Meows?

What did God do? Shrink the mold or something?

http://joungul.dogguide.co.kr/image/pdspic/phptsZQjO.jpg

The incredible efficiency with which the HIV virus sets about suppressing the immune system of a new born baby is absolute proof that it was designed by God.

The ability of an intestinal tapeworm to avoid the immune system of its host is futher evidence of God's great design. This large parasite is perfectly adapted to robbing men women and children of vital nutrients in poor countries all over the world. How could such an elegant creature have evolved by chance?

And look at rabies. This amazing example of intelligent design causes animals to go into a frenzy and bite other animals, thereby spreading itself. Only God could have designed such a thing.

God is great and designed everything. Sure diseases and parasites hurt, but the sooner you die, the sooner you'll be with God, or most probably, burning in Hell.

If I have offended anyone, then I appologize. It's just that I sometimes fly off the handel when someone is being insulting.

And I must admit, Eolam's subsiquant post have been very civil, while I let my anger take hold of me (I call it 'Hulk Syndrom'), but the fact remains that the OP is very insulting to those of the atheist and agnostic cast.
kinda thought so. Religous threads can heat one's blood to a boil (mine did on other threads.) that's why I opted for the warning... so did Melkor Unchained.

Chiggers, flesh-eating bacteria, and elephantitis....
This is supposed to support creationism? Like, Christian creationism?
Don't the Christians claim that God likes us? If all those things were designed on purpose, it would have to have been by one sick fuck.
I believe in God, but I don't believe that she sat there with a sketch book, designing gross ways to cause suffering.

I was just going to say that all of the examples listed after the article made me more certain of the essential validity of evolution than ever. The parasitic barnacles, I think, really rang true with the idea of aggressive lifeforms seeking out and establishing specific niches within a dynamic model.

My only trouble with Darwinism is the requisite acceptance of gradualism - that evolution only happens over protracted periods of time. This planet has played host to some pretty extreme conditions over its' lifespan so far - as well as some catastrophic, sudden shifts for the worse. Fossil records show large die-offs due to these events. In times of global catastrophe, the surviving flora and fauna expand to fill roles left absent by the death of one or another species. They might undergo a change in behaviour, or physical characteristics in direct or indirect response to a fundamental shifting of their environment, perhaps a shifting in their favour.

I think evolution can both proceed along at a leisurely pace, improving the webbing of a duck's foot here, streamlining the rings on a lemur's tail there, but that evolution can be quite dynamic when called upon by necessity - like restocking the planet after an asteroid impact wiped out everything at the end of the Cretaceous period 65 million years ago. Life is as varied now as it was prior to that event, but different. With fossil evidence from before and after every ice age we've seen species emerge and either later go extinct, or continue down the line to familiar forms.

Was some agent of Intelligent Design busily hammering out fully-realized, advanced mammalian or marsupial forms out of thin air? I can't think so - I can more readily see a drastic change to form or function or both over a comparitively short span of time, say a dozen or fewer generations, as a reaction to a fundamental shift in conditions globally.

leave you sinners aware of the full extent of your folly as you righteously languish in Hell.

are you serious.i mean,are you taking the piss?

You know what? I'm sitting here with egg on my face....
I seriously think others were right; Eolam is being sarcastic and just trying to get a rise out of people.
Well you got a rise out of me, congradulations.

Dammit fooled again.

For everyone who didn't get it, the article is a satire of the Intelligent Design movement. The author, WinAce, is an atheist, most noted for running the website Fundies Say The Darnedest Things.

You know what? I'm sitting here with egg on my face....
I seriously think others were right; Eolam is being sarcastic and just trying to get a rise out of people.
Well you got a rise out of me, congradulations.

Dammit fooled again.
*passes out towel and damp washcloth*
yeah, I got egged too many times in other posts...

after a while tho, the egg does help add body to the hair... :)

you mean that dracula ants and screw worm flies are proof that jesus christ died for my sins?

the leap from "there must have been a creator" to "accepting jesus christ as my personal lord and savior" is a really big one.

I'll have you know I possess a Ph.D. in Deluge Biology from Holy Redeemer Ranch.

And this was the part where I stopped taking this thread seriously. :D

I, too, am saddened - many of these so-called "Christians" in fact only play lip service to the Tenets of Ineffable Truth and will thus, sadly, perish with the advent of the New Earth, just as my heathen ancestors did. However, I, as a proud member of the centrist Family Values Party (http://members.aol.com/fvparty/fvparty1/), am rather miffed by your association of such moderate fundamentalists as myself with that reptilian leftist Bush. While I admire the idealism of certain religiously motivated "terrorists", I oppose their techniques and misguided spiritual creed.

EDIT:



I'll have you know I possess a Ph.D. in Deluge Biology from Holy Redeemer Ranch.

Very well done. Excellent work!!

Firstly, God explicitly makes it clear the world was created in six days in Genesis. Some may say "God takes one day as one millenium and one millenium as one day". Okay, so God takes six millenia to create the world. That is still too far off from "millions of years". Moreover, God made it clear that one "day" meant "one morning and one evening".

Secondly, God created life with a design. Evolution suggests that life banged into today with due to chance. Two fundamentally different motives for the progression of different forms of life that aren't compatible.

When some Christians are faced with worldly troubles, they begin mixing worldly standards into God's standards and believe it's "okay" to deviate. It's not, and it's very dangerous.

I only want to respond to your second paragraph. Now anyone who has read my veiws on "god" know that i do not belive in the religious "god". But it does seem clear that life on this planet could not happen on pure chance. Take the brain for instance. That one organ alone is way too complex to have just popped into existence out of no where. There must be some intelligence behind life. That much seems clear. But the theory that the religious "god" created life is just insane. As you said it took "god" too short a time to create all of this. Also if you look at this it is not so much a progression of the body but a progression of the mind. The progression of life is of both the body and the mind. So my theory is is that Spirit NOT "god" but Spirit is the guiding force here. Spirit or the universe or the One True Tao as Zen monks would put it (Toa meaning truth) is simply awakening to it's self. It has been sleeping and now it is manifesting itself in all of the different life forms in an effort to come to realize and become aware of itself. Each new stage is a progession of the mind and body. Each new stage brings Spirit closer to total self realization. Each problem presented is simply a way of Spirit trying to get to solve it by your own so that it is no longer a problem. Each time a problem is solved it gets closer to total self realization. So yes I do believe in intelligent design but not by "god" but by Spirit.
P.S. if you want to understand or know more about what i just talked about read the book A Brief History of Everything by Ken Wilbur

So wait you expect me to believe that Dinosaurs could have survived to the Romans? You've got to be kidding me. Wouldn't you expect to see something like that in any Roman literature. Second how can there be living proof of dead things? You want proof there are plenty of fossils of early men.
No really. There indeed is. But it's in a Chinese-language book so I can't exactly quote it for you. Heh. Yeah. It's dead, it's gone, it's NOT SCIENCE. Science deals with the PRESENT TENSE. Everything in the past is called HISTORY.

And what a poor design we are. I mean if we really were designed by an intellegent being shouldn't we not have an appendix or the little toe? I mean what intellegent being designs a creature with parts that have no function?
Okay. So shouldn't evolution have gotten rid of them by now? Moreover, the appendix and toes aren't FLAWS. Perfection is only marred by flaws, not by appendices. They don't inhibit your survival or your living.

Evolution is a scientific theory. Science tries to explain the natural world. Hence evolution is an explaination of the natural world.
The major theme about evolution is about how single-celled organisms mutated into multi-celled organisms and then plants, dinosaurs, animals and the like. Well, that theme is gone now. So it's not SCIENCE, it's HISTORY.


Dude I hope your joking because Dinosaurs and the Romans is the most laughable thing I have ever heard period.
*takes a bow* Thank you.

Since the dawn of civilization, man has had things he could not understand. Being both curious, imaginitive, and fearful of the unknown, man filled the voids in his knowledge. Lightning became Zeus/Jupiter, echos were from Echo, rivers and trees were alive with nymphs, stars were Gods, and the sun was a God moving across the heavans. And that doesn't even scratch the surface of things we have pinned on a God or Gods.

And what happened. Every single claim was false. Every one. God didn't do a damned thing we keep saying he did. Lightning is a(albeit complicated) force of nature. Babies are born through biology, not miracle. Echos are sound waves returning to our ear after bouncing off a surface. Stars are the light of distant large burning gaseous bodies. Are the explanations quite complicated? Yes. Were they way beyond the knowledge of those who came up with the theological explaination? Hell yes. Are they right? YES.

Never once in the history of man has falling back on the explanation "God did it!!!" to explain something extremely difficult and complicated in our world been correct. Only through science and rationalism, rather than Theology, has the truth been revealed. I see no reason that will change in the evolution debate.

... and that's all I have to say on that. :)

And then religious people and me (although im not religious) must ask "and how do you think that all of that stuff got there in the first place?" Now i don't believe in "god" more than the next atheist but i think that that is a good question.

I don't think anyone heard me the first time. THE ARTICLE IS FAKE. It's a satire, people. Eolam didn't do his homework. Let it go.

I want to clarify on my first post. I believe that the changes in animals happened over large periods of time but i also believe that there is a force directing it all to a certain goal.

I don't think anyone heard me the first time. THE ARTICLE IS FAKE. It's a satire, people. Eolam didn't do his homework. Let it go.

No one cares if the article that he quoted was a joke he obviously believes in creationism and that alone is a good enough reason to have this thread.

No one cares if the article that he quoted was a joke he obviously believes in creationism and that alone is a good enough reason to have this thread.

I suppose, except that this topic has been sufficiently been beaten to DEATH just about everyday on these forums, nevermind in RL.

How long is a "morning?" an "evening?" Also, I recall reading or hearing somewhere that the original Hebrew, usually translated into the word "day," refers to a general period of time, not necessarily a literal 24 hour period. Anyone out there more learned in the Torah, Judaism and Hebrew who can clarify for us?

Evolution suggests that life emerged into what we see today, guided by natural selection. The principle of emergence is a very fascinating one: "Emergence is the process of complex pattern formation from simpler rules" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence ). The key here is "simpler rules." While it appears that the process of emergence is "random" or "chaotic," it is in fact guided by concrete rules. Take, for instance, Conway's Game of Life, an example of a cellular automata ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_game_of_life ). I am fascinated by Conway's Game of Life, because it demonstrates that Evolution/Emergence and a Creator can exist side by side just fine. I have programmed several implementations of Conway's Game of Life myself, and each time I have acted as a creator, implementing the very simple but very specific rules needed to make the cellular automata work. Once I am finished programming, however, I like to randomize the grid, hit the "Go" button, and simply sit back and watch what happens. What initially beings as chaos eventually settles down into a well organized, stable, self-sustaining, and often very beautiful pattern.

There is absolutely nothing contradictory about the notion of a Creator and the process of Evolution/Emergence. God simply implemented the basic rules and then hit the "Go" button, taking great joy in the beauty of His emerging creation.

Some may prefer to think of it as discovering the beauty of Nature's design, as well as the genius of Nature's Creator. :)
Very good post. It will get me thinking again.

But in any case, progression of the species of life without God is too remote to be considered.

I so called the sarcasm on the first page. I just hope I'm right. Otherwise my faith in humanity might just be compromised. Seriously, I just assumed making it to an internet website and figuring out how to post on it was a form of natural selection, which is why there are so many more liberals on this site and most others sites out there.

Take that with a grain of salt. I couldn't decide whether I was trying to be funny or make a real point.

No one cares if the article that he quoted was a joke he obviously believes in creationism and that alone is a good enough reason to have this thread.

I beg to differ - I'm quite frankly surprised that my statements in this thread continue to be taken for their face value. Nonetheless, I do find the organisms detailed in said site exquisitely fascinating.

Okay. So shouldn't evolution have gotten rid of them by now?
No.


The major theme about evolution is about how single-celled organisms mutated into multi-celled organisms and then plants, dinosaurs, animals and the like. Well, that theme is gone now. So it's not SCIENCE, it's HISTORY.

I am convinced that you do not know what evolution is. Evolution is (so far as I know) a proven fact. Whether or not evolution is the cause of all variation, is a seperate issue to whether or not evolution exists.

I am convinced that you do not know what evolution is. Evolution is (so far as I know) a proven fact. Whether or not evolution is the cause of all variation, is a seperate issue to whether or not evolution exists.

Well, yes, I'm sure all organisms have the ability to adapt to the environment in which they are in, but whether they turn into completely different species is indeed a different issue, and one that I don't believe is possible.

Well, yes, I'm sure all organisms have the ability to adapt to the environment in which they are in, but whether they turn into completely different species is indeed a different issue, and one that I don't believe is possible.
Then in fact you do believe in evolution.

Then in fact you do believe in evolution.

If that's the way you define it, then I guess so.

Here is the problem with that page, and with "intelligent design" in general:

Since evolution supposedly operates via incremental changes

Your precious article is attacking a version of evolution that biologists had already started to abandon some time ago.

Darwin though that evolutionary change operates through incremental changes. It was a good theory, and his theory of evolution -- generally speaking -- held up against a great deal of scientific evidence. More importantly, it did exactly what a scientific theory should do, viz. lead us to more detailed and interesting facts.

(By the way, what new research agenda does "intelligent design" set? What new knowledge does it produce?)

Of course, what non-scientists insistently fail to realize about the progress of science is that scientific theories routinely prove themselves "wrong." (Now, don't get all excited. Just hold on.) They do this because they give scientists a way of studying things -- a basic framework around which to test more specific hypotheses. On such tests, it may turn out that some of the original assumptions of the theory are not quite right.... but what a scientist does with that knowledge is to refine the theory. Since the theory still explains the great bulk of the facts, it makes sense to figure out what small alterations explain the remainder of the facts.

Back to evolution:

It explains a great number of facts. It explains the kinds of similarities and differences we see in the diversity of species on earth. It explains the fossil record. And so on.

The only significant problem it runs into has been its initial assumption that evolutionary change is gradual. This, however, began to be contradicted by aspects of the fossil record long before the problem of "irreducible complexity." It seems that species sometimes go through rapid periods of change.

Then this notion of "irreducible complexity" cropped up.

Important: Note that only a certain kind of complexity counts here.

The human hand is a terribly complex structure. Not to mention the human digestive tract, nervous system, and brain. Yet all of these things can be explained by incremental change. We can identify "steps" that would lead to their development.

"Irreducible complexity" occurs in structures made up of individual parts that are essentially useless on their own. The human eye is the classic example. There is no reason for one part without another, and so it is difficult (if not impossible) to imagine that it should develop incrementally.

But here's the real kicker: It is only if one insists on incremental change that one needs a "designer." Why? Because for these structures to develop incrementally, there would apparently need to be some force that "knew" that "later on" the useless parts would become useful.

Scientists, correctly applying Occam's Razor, went the other way: If the choice is between incremental change directed by the hand of God, or the possibility of "sudden" evolutionary mutations, the scientific answer has to be that evolution sometimes happens in leaps and bounds, rather than mere incremental changes.

So, scientific opinion began to shift, as it does. Evolutionary scholars increasingly believe that, while natural selection can and does occur incrementally, periods of rapid mutation also occur. This theory explains (without introducing divine intervention) the data.

What remains is to adequately explain the causes and nature of rapid periods of change. Progress is being made, of course, despite creationists' best attempts to hijack it.


By the way, the real problem with intelligent design is that, besides failing to explain anything -- it just says, "you can't explain that, so it must be God" -- it also completely fails to account for some data.

Evolution has some problems with the eye -- which it is working out.

But "intelligent design" will never be able to grapple with the optic nerve and it's ridiculously unintelligent design. Why would an intelligent designer produce one such perfect, complex organ... and then fuck up on its simple connection to the brain?

If that's the way you define it, then I guess so.
I didnt define evolution, I just happen to know what the word means.
Whatever made you think I have enough influence in the scientific community, that I would be able to define scientific terms and have them as widely accepted as the definition of evolution.... :confused:

I'm quite convinced most scientists have no idea who I am, much less find me important enough that they all follow my lead when it comes to the definition of sciency-type words... ;)

I believe that god is an alien and jesus is a robot, that was vaporised leaving nothing behind.

Prove me right or wrong.

For everyone who didn't get it, the article is a satire of the Intelligent Design movement. The author, WinAce, is an atheist, most noted for running the website Fundies Say The Darnedest Things.
Thank God.

I believe that god is an alien and jesus is a robot, that was vaporised leaving nothing behind.

Prove me right or wrong.

We might be able to if you provided specifics. Exactly how tall and how big of a robot are we talking about? What materials would Robot Jesus be made of? Where and when did said vaporation took place? :confused:

I didnt define evolution, I just happen to know what the word means.


Same difference. :rolleyes:

We might be able to if you provided specifics. Exactly how tall and how big of a robot are we talking about? What materials would Robot Jesus be made of? Where and when did said vaporation took place? :confused:

I don't really believe that( though it would be funny if it was true! :P) i am vagely trying to say that religion is mostly unprovable.

Here's my personal views on this.

There will never be any proof that there is a God. However, there will never be any proof that there isn't either.

My own view is that God wants us to believe in Him, but will not force us too. This is the essence of free will. That being said, there is evidence that God exisits. I believe that He created the world with all the mechanisms in place to have the world run without direct intervention on His part, and with a certain order. These are the laws of physics, and the balance that most natural systems achive without human intervention.

The evidence that He exists is in the sheer number of things that had to happen at just the right time for the earth, and humanity to come about and survive. But no one can call this proof one way or the other.

I also believe that all the Bible is scripture, but that not all scripture is in the Bible. I believe that most of the times that the Bible is fantastic or vague, it is the result of imperfect human language or understanding.

To me, science cannot prove that God does not exist, but can only deepen our understanding of His universe.

"Irreducible complexity" occurs in structures made up of individual parts that are essentially useless on their own. The human eye is the classic example. There is no reason for one part without another, and so it is difficult (if not impossible) to imagine that it should develop incrementally.

I'm a bit of a specialist on eyeballs, having two of them myself, so I just thought I'd point out a few things.

If I took a scalpel and removed the muscles that change the shape of your lens, would you still be able to see? Sure, just not as well.

If I removed your iris would you still be able to see? Sure, you just have a lot of trouble adapting to different light levels.

If I removed your lens, would you still be able to see? Sure, but everything would be real fuzzy.

If I used my scalpel to make your pupil bigger, would you still be able to see? Yes, but the bigger the hole the fuzzier the image gets.

If I neatly sliced off the front half of your eyeball and sealed off what was left with gladwrap, would you still be able to see? Yes, sort of. But you'd have very limited sight. Maybe enough to avoid large objects.

If I removed everything but say 10% of your retina would you still be able to see? No. But you could still tell day from night, which is better than nothing.

So as you can see (or not see if I've gotten to your eyes with a scalpel). The human eye does not need all its parts to work. If you look in the animal world you can see examples of functional eyes ranging from a simple patch of light sensitive cells, to eyes that are even better than our own (although ours are pretty good, I must admit. Provided I haven't got to them with my scalpel first.)

Here's my personal views on this.

There will never be any proof that there is a God. However, there will never be any proof that there isn't either.

My own view is that God wants us to believe in Him, but will not force us too. This is the essence of free will. That being said, there is evidence that God exisits. I believe that He created the world with all the mechanisms in place to have the world run without direct intervention on His part, and with a certain order. These are the laws of physics, and the balance that most natural systems achive without human intervention.

The evidence that He exists is in the sheer number of things that had to happen at just the right time for the earth, and humanity to come about and survive. But no one can call this proof one way or the other.

I also believe that all the Bible is scripture, but that not all scripture is in the Bible. I believe that most of the times that the Bible is fantastic or vague, it is the result of imperfect human language or understanding.

To me, science cannot prove that God does not exist, but can only deepen our understanding of His universe.I agree with that wholeheartedly. :)

Well, I didn't want to get into the details...

But even at the level of light-sensitive cells, the incremental approach has problems. The chemical reactions necessary to produce light-sensitivity are themselves irreducibly complex. The reaction is a multi-step process, any single step of which is completely useless... and it takes a whole range of genetic variables to produce the total reaction.

"Intelligent design" folks want to say that this proves the process was planned.

Evolutionary theory simply adjusts to the idea that mutations can occur in rapid succession.

Think of it this way: In Darwin's original theory, you have a deck of cards and randomly change one card at a time. If the change produces a good hand, you keep it.

Modern evolutionary theory, however, is tending toward the view that sometimes nature shuffles several cards at once.

But even at the level of light-sensitive cells, the incremental approach has problems. The chemical reactions necessary to produce light-sensitivity are themselves irreducibly complex. The reaction is a multi-step process, any single step of which is completely useless... and it takes a whole range of genetic variables to produce the total reaction.

They are? They're irreducibly complex? Well I suppose a digital camera looks pretty complex but when I was a kid I developed black and white film which reacted to light in a single one step chemical reaction. Nothing about that seemed irreducibly complex to me. I don't see why a simple one step process couldn't slowly develop to a complex multi-step one, each small improvment being slightly better than the last. At the end it looks pretty complex, but there's not need for any huge jumps in complexity.

One thing. Doesn't random and rapid mutation of cells cause cancer?

these things on the website (mainly the parasites and diseases) just prove to me that if the judeo-christian-mohammedan monotheist god exists, he's a right bastard.

ah, its good to see that its a anti-fundy site

Michael J. Behe, Lehigh University Professor of Biochemistry

I heard that name before... wasn't he the guy who got expelled from the universtity where he was teaching, as he couldn't back up his theories in any plausible way?

One thing. Doesn't random and rapid mutation of cells cause cancer?Just like cars cause accidents. Their main purpose is to get people from point A to point B, though. Accidents are just the negative part of the deal.

One thing. Doesn't random and rapid mutation of cells cause cancer?

Cancer occurs when the mechanism that controls cell division is damaged/destroyed:


Cancer is a class of diseases characterized by uncontrolled cell division and the ability of these cells to invade other tissues, either by direct growth into adjacent tissue (invasion) or by migration of cells to distant sites (metastasis). This unregulated growth is caused by damage to DNA, resulting in mutations to vital genes that control cell division, among other functions

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer )

Just like cars cause accidents. Their main purpose is to get people from point A to point B, though. Accidents are just the negative part of the deal.

Okay. But cancer happens in a very short span of a few years. Where are the benefits of sudden mutation though?

Since you want all responses, I scrolled through looking at the pretty pictures first and started to read the description of the mexican catfish (caderus?). I had to forgo the rest as my masculine parts became most agitated, and not in a pleasurable way. Where do those folks get off putting that kind of pornography out there, and don't try to excuse it by saying it's part of nature. I may never go swiming in a river again.

Okay. But cancer happens in a very short span of a few years. Where are the benefits of sudden mutation though?

No absolute benefits. They can turn out to be beneficient, though, if through mutation, cells acquire different attributes or abilities.

Over the last few years, for example, it was noted in cities all over Germany that a certain type of moth seemed to become darker and darker in appearance. The interesting fact was that the same moth stayed the rather light colour it always had been in rural areas.
Studies found that those moths reproduce on tree trunks. The courtship, mating and laying eggs all happens on one particular type of tree.
Due to polution in larger cities, the trunks of those trees had become rather dark, whereas they stayed a brighter colour in the countryside. As a result, the light coloured moths in the cities becam easy prey for birds.

The environemt determines if a mutation is beneficient or not. Had the moths become darker in the countryside, it wouldn't have been beneficient, but rather negative.

They are? They're irreducibly complex? Well I suppose a digital camera looks pretty complex but when I was a kid I developed black and white film which reacted to light in a single one step chemical reaction.

Look, I am neither a biologist nor a chemist. But the biologists and chemists I know -- all of whom support the theory of evolution -- tell me that the chemical process that occurs in light-sensitive cells is irreducibly complex.

I don't see why this is such a big issue for you, since evolution is perfectly capable of explaining irreducible complexity.

Nothing about that seemed irreducibly complex to me.

Just because it's a one-step process for you doesn't mean that it is a simple chemical reaction. And even if it were, the actual reactions that occur in light-sensitive cells might be different, and they might not be so simple.

Again, I am not an expert... I can only report on what the experts say.

I don't see why a simple one step process couldn't slowly develop to a complex multi-step one, each small improvment being slightly better than the last.

It can. Indeed, this sort of thing happens all the time in evolution.

But it seems that there also occur processes in which any individual step would not be an improvement. There would be no reason for nature to "select" step A without steps B, C, and D. Thus, in order for natural selection to work, steps A-D must have developed together.

But again, I don't know why this bothers you, if it doesn't bother geneticists and evolutionary theorists.

Okay. But cancer happens in a very short span of a few years. Where are the benefits of sudden mutation though?

Sickle Cell anaemia is a perfect example. It is caused by a single point mutation in the haemoglobin beta gene (HBB) found on chromosome 11p15.4, which causes glutamine to be replaced by valine in the HBB peptide.

That causes blood corpuscles to "sickle" (i.e. become sickle shaped) under certain conditions and makes the disease be characterised by episodes of pain, chronic haemolytic anaemia and sometimes severe infections.

What is the benefit of all this you may ask? It just so happens that the gene is most prevalent in African populations that are found in certain parts of Africa afflicted by malaria. It turns out that the mutation also causes the bearer to be more resistant to infection by malaria, a very deadly disease. The evolutionary process behind this is immediately apparent: this seemingly negative mutation is positive in that part of the world, causing people with it not to succumb to malaria. Which of course means that they are the ones who have offspring that has an advantage over non-carriers, and they survive in a larger extent and pass it on to their children and so on and so forth.

The same gene is however a serious drawback in for instance North America, where Sickle Cell anaemia is a serious problem for parts the African American population. Which leads me to my point: what makes a mutation beneficial or not is the environment. If the mutation confers a survival advantage to the individual in his/her environment, then it is beneficial. If it confers a survival disadvantage, it's not beneficial.

It's all about the pressure of natural selection.

Okay. But cancer happens in a very short span of a few years. Where are the benefits of sudden mutation though?Quite simple: Sudden mutations provide such benefits as a slightly higher melanin count in the skin, enabling said individual to survive in sunny environments without getting a sunburn. The chance of there being a beneficial mutation are slim; most are either either unnecessary or harmful. The harmful ones get phased out through natural selection.

Sickle Cell anaemia is a perfect example. It is caused by a single point mutation in the haemoglobin beta gene (HBB) found on chromosome 11p15.4, which causes glutamine to be replaced by valine in the HBB peptide.

That causes blood corpuscles to "sickle" (i.e. become sickle shaped) under certain conditions and makes the disease be characterised by episodes of pain, chronic haemolytic anaemia and sometimes severe infections.

What is the benefit of all this you may ask? It just so happens that the gene is most prevalent in African populations that are found in certain parts of Africa afflicted by malaria. It turns out that the mutation also causes the bearer to be more resistant to infection by malaria, a very deadly disease. The evolutionary process behind this is immediately apparent: this seemingly negative mutation is positive in that part of the world, causing people with it not to succumb to malaria. Which of course means that they are the ones who have offspring that has an advantage over non-carriers, and they survive in a larger extent and pass it on to their children and so on and so forth.

The same gene is however a serious drawback in for instance North America, where Sickle Cell anaemia is a serious problem for African American population. Which leads me to my point: what makes a mutation beneficial or not is the environment. If the mutation confers a survival advantage to the individual in his/her environment, then it is beneficial. If it confers a survival disadvantage, it's not beneficial.

It's all about the pressure of natural selection.

Mm. So it's fighting one evil with another evil? Until the third evil fights the second evil?

Mm. So it's fighting one evil with another evil? Until the third evil fights the second evil?Maybe, maybe not. It varies from case to case. Some survive and some don't. Some are harmful in some situations and some aren't at all. Others cause no end of grief.

Really wonderful of a kind, benevolent and loving God to create leprosy, bubonic plague, and fish that get stuck up your dick, isn't it. [/sarcasm]

Mm. So it's fighting one evil with another evil? Until the third evil fights the second evil?

It's not an evil. It's the way natural selection works. If your characteristics are better suited to your environment, you do better. If they aren't, you don't. There's no evil in it - there's just survival mechanisms.

I could bring you a whole bunch of rocks from the beach that "look designed", but only an idiot would then say they were designed.

Fass Hbs is considered a lethal gene (as im sure you know). For people to benefit from it they must have both the sickle sell allele plus a normal allele. The Heterozygote condition HbsHb will result in the person having a mix of normal and sickle red blood cells, leaving the person generally unaffected by the disease while. The sickle cells have low potassium levels, causing plasmodium parasites inside the cells to die, making the person much less susceptible to malaria. This is known as a heterozygous advantage. There are very few, well documented examples of balenced polymorphism where the evidence for heterozygous advantage is conclusive.
Year 12 Biology 2005 p300
lol

Fass Hbs is considered a lethal gene (as im sure you know). For people to benefit from it they must have both the sickle sell allele plus a normal allele. The Heterozygote condition HbsHb will result in the person having a mix of normal and sickle red blood cells, leaving the person generally unaffected by the disease while. The sickle cells have low potassium levels, causing plasmodium parasites inside the cells to die, making the person much less susceptible to malaria. This is known as a heterozygous advantage. There are very few, well documented examples of balenced polymorphism where the evidence for heterozygous advantage is conclusive.
Year 12 Biology 2005 p300
lol

I know. But simplicism is preferred. Or would you care to go into a discussion about what all your big words meant?

/I knew there was going to be a nit-pick rearing his/her face. Knew it! Med school should have taught me all about that sort of anal-retentiveness in those who just can't handle things being simplified... *sigh*
//Don't listen to me. I'm tired and sleepy and in a bad mood. Here, have a fluffle: :fluffle:

This thread is highly amusing. Kudos to Eolam.

Dragons Bay, are you just really convincing at playing devil's advocate? Or are you really being sincere with all these arguments? Either way you're a funny guy, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

srry Fass didnt mean to go into it to far. I just got the impression u were saying people who only had the allele causing Sickle Cell anaemia would be better off (i see this is not the case).
As for the meaning of all the "big words" i feel i have a adequate understanding of them. However if u need some help with them, of course, i'll be only to happy to assist. haha jk all in good fun :P

srry Fass didnt mean to go into it to far. I just got the impression u were saying people who only had the allele causing Sickle Cell anaemia would be better off (i see this is not the case).
As for the meaning of all the "big words" i feel i have a adequate understanding of them. However if u need some help with them, of course, i'll be only to happy to assist. haha jk all in good fun :P

Not everybody understands them and you'll notice this soon enough in discussions over the Internet: if you use too many details and too much "lingo" with "ordinary" people, they won't take in the basic principle of what you're saying, but will instead get hung up on how you were saying it.

Some people do this sort of nit-picking on purpose to divert the discussion and make you explain very minute details of what you're saying, so that they don't have to deal with your major point. After a while you learn to avoid giving them the chance to do this... and sometimes, just sometimes, you can't be arsed to write on and on and on, so you just settle for the laziest but still sufficient enough of a method to say what you want to say.

Unfortunately, that's also when you leave yourself open for the other sort of nit-picking, which can be equally or more vexatious: the nit-picking that doesn't actually contribute that much to what you were saying, but that someone feels he/she has to point out because, well, you tell me. Shits and giggles?

It is my sincerest hope that the intelligent design evident in such glorious manifestations of the Creator’s ineffably benevolent wisdom as the screw-worm fly will, at the very least, leave you sinners aware of the full extent of your folly as you righteously languish in Hell.

Judge not lest ye be judged.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Love thy neighbour.

I'll probably never meet you but I do hope to catch up on this discussion with you when we are both burning in hell for our various sins. Cheerio.

btw - How does ID prove Religon?

btw - How does ID prove Christianity?

Hmm... given that Id can't be proven either, there just has to be a correlation, right?
If you were a true believer and read the bible with your soul, not your eyes and brain, you would understand it ;) :p

But it seems that there also occur processes in which any individual step would not be an improvement. There would be no reason for nature to "select" step A without steps B, C, and D. Thus, in order for natural selection to work, steps A-D must have developed together.

But again, I don't know why this bothers you, if it doesn't bother geneticists and evolutionary theorists.


Is this what you mean by irreducible complexity?

"Irreducible complexity is a concept popularized by Lehigh University biochemist and Fellow of the Discovery Institute Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box. Behe contests some aspects of the generally accepted scientific theory that life evolved through biological evolution alone and asserts that some additional mechanism is required, arguing that there are biochemical systems that are irreducibly complex because there is no known way to break them down into functioning pre-systems.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducibly_complex"

You see, I haven't seen any examples given for irreducible complexity that match that description, so I don't find it a helpful term. Maybe it means something else to you.

Very true Fass. funny because when i read ur submission i was thinking the same thing.
"Not everybody understands them and you'll notice this soon enough in discussions over the Internet: if you use too many details and too much "lingo" with "ordinary" people, they won't take in the basic principle of what you're saying, but will instead get hung up on how you were saying it."

i was fairly sure only a few people would understand what u were talking about (which i dont think is fair) ;) so to get one back for the "little guy" (and for a cheap giggle) i tryed telling you what so many accademics hate being told "your right, but its just not 100%" especially if its by someone they consider beneath them. sure it was crule and probably unjustified but i had fun.

ohh and i know it would be neer impossible to give an accurate picture of sickle cell disease without use of proper "lingo".

Very true Fass. funny because when i read ur submission i was thinking the same thing.
"Not everybody understands them and you'll notice this soon enough in discussions over the Internet: if you use too many details and too much "lingo" with "ordinary" people, they won't take in the basic principle of what you're saying, but will instead get hung up on how you were saying it."

i was fairly sure only a few people would understand what u were talking about (which i dont think is fair) ;) so to get one back for the "little guy" (and for a cheap giggle) i tryed telling you what so many accademics hate being told "your right, but its just not 100%" especially if its by someone they consider beneath them. sure it was crule and probably unjustified but i had fun.

ohh and i know it would be neer impossible to give an accurate picture of sickle cell disease without use of proper "lingo".

OK, after sifting through your poor grammar and even worse spelling, I have come to the conclusion that you're somewhat glad at attempting to troll.

See, not so fun, is it?

/Should learn to ignore people.

srry never bother with spelling or grammar on the net. to lazy. :D and i enjoyed it all even ur last comment.

No really. There indeed is. But it's in a Chinese-language book so I can't exactly quote it for you. Heh. Yeah. It's dead, it's gone, it's NOT SCIENCE. Science deals with the PRESENT TENSE. Everything in the past is called HISTORY.

Oh dear, every since we studied Popper in philosophy, I've started noticing that everywhere I look people don't know what science is. Maybe I should have stuck with Classical Societies instead.

DB, science is not defined by what phase of time it deals with - otherwise how would you explain geology being a science?

Science is defined as something falsifiable - that is, there is some test that could be performed, some result that could be had, that would prove it wrong. Not only that, but the more possible* proofs against it, the better a theory it is. This is why ID and Creationism can never be taught in science classes as science - there is NOTHING that could cause the theories to be abandoned. Faced with something that doesn't fit, advocates just pull out the 'God works in mysterious ways' clause. Doing so discredits these theories claims to science, since when evidence is found against a scientific theory it must be either totally abandoned, or reconsidered (and the 'new' rethought theory must be equally able to stand against the falsifiability test as the original theory was, or it itself is not scientific).

History and science are different, but just because something occurs in the past does not make it history, and just because something occured in the past does not mean it cannot be science.

Okay. So shouldn't evolution have gotten rid of them by now? Moreover, the appendix and toes aren't FLAWS. Perfection is only marred by flaws, not by appendices. They don't inhibit your survival or your living.

Unfortunately, you seem to have gotten things backwards.

If an intelligent designer designed everything, there would be no useless appendages, because the intelligent designer would have seen that they were useless, or, more likely, not have even considered adding them (being useless and all...).

However, it is EVOLUTION that does not remove things that don't inhibit survival. This is what so many people don't seem to understand. Evolution isn't just about gaining godd things and dying if you have bad things - it's about carrying harmless things which may, in future generations and a different environmental climate, prove to be either positive or negative.

So while I can appluad you for understanding the keep-it-if-it-isn't-harmful point, it's a little disappointing to see you attribute it to entirely the wrong source.

The major theme about evolution is about how single-celled organisms mutated into multi-celled organisms and then plants, dinosaurs, animals and the like. Well, that theme is gone now. So it's not SCIENCE, it's HISTORY.

Not really. The major theme about evolution is that genes are passed on through the generations, and some are better than others. Over time this leads to change, and the accumulation of postive traits and non-harmful traits can lead to changes up to the point where two individuals can no longer produce viable offspring. And anyone who thinks that is unlikely doesn't understand how tricky fertilisation is - enough minor changes in the chromosomes *will* lead to incompatibilities. A good example are the species rings scientists have observed (in fact, I'll go draw up a basic picture of one of those now).

Anyway, considering that the theme is ACTUALLY 'changes occur between generations", and also that not everything that occurs in the past is history, AND that science can be based on things that have happened in the past, I'm afraid your position makes you seem just a tad uninformed (perhaps only of the terminology involved, if not any of the basic ideas).

*apparently some people find the lable 'falsifiable' misleading and think it means that the more you prove a theory wrong, the more right it is. Obviously, that's absurd. All it means it that there must be tests where you can say "My theory says '<x specific result>' will occur when '<x test>' is performed. If <x result> isn't found to occur, the theory should be discounted/reconsidered. If, instead, the theory is so vague that it can explain *every* result to *every* test, it is unfalsifiable, and so not scientific.

On leprosy, from the article:

"Mycobacterium leprae. This bacterium, which causes leprosy, has several complex systems designed to defeat the protection offered by the (also designed) immune system. This includes lipid disguises, the ability to hijack a discarded immune system protein to mask itself from white blood cells, suppressing the immune response itself, and other mechanisms."

If both were designed by God, does this mean that God favoured the leprosy bacteria over human beings? So then why did Jesus cure people of leprosy? :rolleyes:

If both were designed by God, does this mean that God favoured the leprosy bacteria over human beings? So then why did Jesus cure people of leprosy?

Jesus was an introduced as a form of biological control, on account of how the leprosy was winning. Unfortunately, he never reproduced, forcing us to depend on early treatment with anitbiotics.

View the commentary in the context of the website.


I did.

I must say Im impressed, and convinced.

Not convinced of creationism, but rather Im convinced you couldnt have possibly found biased, and completely one-sided website to use.

That article even insults all other opinons, in the very first few sentences.

This thread should be locked for the flamebait it is.

I beg to differ - I'm quite frankly surprised that my statements in this thread continue to be taken for their face value. Nonetheless, I do find the organisms detailed in said site exquisitely fascinating.

I think your statements are taken at face value because there are people on these boards that agree with you and have basically said as much in this thread.

In any case, I think at this point the thread is less about what you originally posted than it is about the people who have subsequently come out of the woodwork to support it.

srry never bother with spelling or grammar on the net. to lazy. :D and i enjoyed it all even ur last comment.

If you can't be bothered to take your own posts seriously enough to spell them properly and use correct grammar, you shouldn't expect anyone else to take them seriously either.

Just a word to the wise.

I've just got to say that the website linked at the beginning is either one of the most close-minded creationist/intelligent design supporting sites I've ever seen, or the author has the most ironic and dry sense of humor I've ever seen.

Please, tell me he was joking.

Take a moment to consider the Divine Beauty of God's Handicraft at http://winace.andkon.com/designed_organisms/.



I'm interested in hearing all responses, particularly those of evolutionists; I find it difficult to conceive how even a morally bankrupt apostate could counter the sheer logical infallibility of the claims advanced within said page (replete with many wondrous illustrations and thus comprehensible by even the illiterate). Even Richard Dawkins ("Oxford University Professor of Zoology by day, godless communist sympathizer by night"), that depraved, abyss-condemned agent of sin on earth, has thus been brought to confess biology "the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose by God, but we won't admit that even if he comes down from heaven and slaps us silly." How true.

It is my sincerest hope that the intelligent design evident in such glorious manifestations of the Creator’s ineffably benevolent wisdom as the screw-worm fly will, at the very least, leave you sinners aware of the full extent of your folly as you righteously languish in Hell.
The guy who made the site does not seem to have an actual degree, thus is not credible. Come back when someone with a PhD in biology is saying that creationism and intelligent design are the way to go.

The Michael J. Behe he references is - he's Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh. And he does believe in intelligent design...

The Michael J. Behe he references is - he's Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh. And he does believe in intelligent design...Methinks you should read what the other posts have to say about Behe...

When completely outrageous parody is mistaken for belief and supported by the victims of it, you know there's something wrong with the world.

The Michael J. Behe he references is - he's Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh. And he does believe in intelligent design...

... and is almost universally discredited in the Biology community because of it.

Okay. So shouldn't evolution have gotten rid of them by now? Moreover, the appendix and toes aren't FLAWS. Perfection is only marred by flaws, not by appendices. They don't inhibit your survival or your living.



Well the little toe is going... But the appendix does have a use, it is a secondary immune organ, not very important but mildly so... There is very little in the body that is completely useless... To my knowledge the little toe, and a muscle in the leg, which is composed almost entirely of tendon are it.

Many things have more than one function - bones are structural, and a primary immune organ, and the site for blood production. The placental "in" line decays/atrophies into a tendon holding up the liver, for two examples...

Every time the creationists try to say that something is "so well adapted that it couldn't possibly have evolved" a person with some grasp of actual science points out the flaws in that design and mechanisms by which such an organism could have evolved. Then the creationists cover their ears and shout a prayer to avoid hearing the truth. It's not worth debating with creationists. They don't deserve it. If they want to be ignorant of science it's their right, but science should simply use the legal system to make sure that they can't get their backward, willfull ignorance and lies taught in schools.

Two thumbs up for a great topic that very few people will get.

Took a while for someone to recognise that this was a joke! Like an IDer would quote Monty Python... I think this topic was a little too subtle for the internet :p

I think ants look more intelligently designed than we do! (though I do agree with science because I can't be arsed to make something else up :p )

or what about those toads that mess you up if you lick em how cool is that (natures lollypops?)

Took a while for someone to recognise that this was a joke! Like an IDer would quote Monty Python... I think this topic was a little too subtle for the internet :p

I think the problem was that it touched a nerve. I, myself, thought the article was serious until this:

But they can't really prove any of this. Bacterial colonies can be contaminated; similarities can be explained by similar design; computer simulations can be rigged; at least some fossils are likely planted by Satan; and finally, there's nothing preventing God from creating an IG system here or there through evolution. How does one design an experiment that, even in principle, excludes an omnipresent deity's possible influence? Until these "scientists" can answer that, their "vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Tim 6:20) should be taken with a grain, or preferably bucket of salt.

That made me laugh out loud. After that, I read the rest of it with a smile on my face. :)

Take a moment to consider the Divine Beauty of God's Handicraft at http://winace.andkon.com/designed_organisms/.



I'm interested in hearing all responses, particularly those of evolutionists; I find it difficult to conceive how even a morally bankrupt apostate could counter the sheer logical infallibility of the claims advanced within said page


Well......After finding three total erroneous claims in the first three examples he gives I gave up and labelled his page worthless.

Hee hee. Nice. I believed the poster to be an ashonishingly arrogant Creationist at first; well done for not overdoing it so much as to be noticeable.

An argument structurally isometric to design arguments (and almost all non-hermeneutic Creationist arguments are design arguments) goes like this:

"4685090983809287509834678435768437592739808740917598317098 is a much larger number than we can actually imagine (you try imagining that many things. Go on. Try picturing that many people in your head). But that number exists. Therefore God must have made it."

Let me disprove a number of the statements in that page.

As the above examples, along with thousands more, illustrate, evolutionists simply can't explain the incredible complexity found in nature in terms of any unintelligent process. What good is half a Candiru head, or a few bits of a type III secretion system? How could Guinea Worms survive in an intermediate form without a human host?

Simple, they die. Thus, they are not found, because those that are born with serious (fatal) deficiences do not survive to pass them on. Therefore, the ones that are left behind are those without fatal deficiences, those that do not lack a head. Sure, it's by chance, but you're a whole lot more likely to survive with a brain than without one. Therefore, you will commonly find people with brains.

This IG organism requires an impressive mosaic of interdependent designs. Without the incapacitating preservative agent, the cicadas would begin decomposing well before the wasp's larvae hatch; without a sting to inject it with, the agent would be useless; without an instinct to dig the burrow, or drag the frozen cicada back home for that matter, the wasp would have gone extinct long ago; and so on.

Let's see... say the mother wasp killed instead of incapacitated. That means that the food the larvae were supposed to eat, isn't there, the larvae die. Those wasps that kill eventually die too, leaving the ones that only incapacitate to have any surviving offspring. The surviving offspring Only inherit from their parents, not from the other dead wasps with poison and of those, if any of them kill instead of poison, they end up being unable to have any offspring. As such, almost all females of that kind of wasps would incapacitate, but some might kill instead. Males on the other hand, could do both, because it's not an issue for them.

simply said: Mom kills food, food rots, larvae cannot eat, larvae die
Mom stuns food, food stays fresher, larvae eat, larvae live to become wasps

A lesser-known lion fact is that adult males, when they take over a rival pride's territory, seek out and tear apart every one of the loser's cubs. As a result, their mothers come into heat sooner, which lends certain benefits to the males. As before, this instinct is difficult to explain without invoking a design hypothesis. The lions need to track down cubs, positively identify them as someone else's, and only then kill them. How would such an elaborate series of complex instincts...just evolve?

Actually it's very easy to imagine without design.

Competitive lion attacks other lion's turf. Other lion loses. Now, the competitive lion has more females, but is also in charge of the other lion's cubs. It wants more of its own and less of the other. It kills the other cubs and the lioness must then give birth faster so that they can manage to get as many offspring as possible, they also do not have to take care of the cubs anymore. Therefore, the more competitive lion destroys the legacy of the timid lion and this results in the lion that hunts down other lion cubs and kills them, to thrive and survive and eventually become the norm. The instinct is thus developed, as it's the best means of survival for the individual lion and that means that most of those lions have survived.

This bizarre creature from the depths of the Gulf of California points out God's...interesting sense of humor. But it's also a nasty problem for evolution. The isopod's anchoring mechanism, instincts, and ability to skillfully avoid being eaten as it feasts on the fish's tongue (and later, steals food) requires an intelligent designer to explain.

If it dies, it can hardly survive to evole further. Therefore, the fact that it survives supports evolution, not creationism. Those that have done this correctly and survived are the ones left. Those that have done this incorrectly have perished in the attempt.


I could go on, but I won't, because it's tedious, boring and the website is clearly written by someone hellbent on getting their view of the world across while ignoring all others. Reading the opening comments clearly points to a closed mind.

I could go on, but I won't, because it's tedious, boring and the website is clearly written by someone hellbent on getting their view of the world across while ignoring all others. Reading the opening comments clearly points to a closed mind.

Aah, irony overload! If you'd had a slightly more open mind you would have spotted the humour and probably not found the article tedious. I enjoyed it...

What a great document by someone that presents zero scientific evidence. It's great to see how much a person can make an ass out of themselves when they write non-scientific tripe like that and try to pass it off as an essay.

And Behe is quoted! Even better. Let's take a look:

"By irreducibly grotesque I mean a single slaughter-related system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
- Michael J. Behe, Lehigh University Professor of Biochemistry

Behe has been discredited by the Biology Department of Lehigh. The have stated that while he is welcome to his beliefs, they do not support his statements.

In his 1996 best-seller God's S&M Chest, Dr. Behe describes, in meticulous detail, more than a dozen irreducibly grotesque organisms and their elaborately designed subsystems. He convincingly argues that multi-component maiming systems cannot evolve: Since evolution supposedly operates via incremental changes, the likelihood of spontaneously creating an IG system out of thin air, in one generation, drops exponentially as the number of required parts goes up. Since no other process, now known or hereafter discovered, can (even in principle) account for IG systems, intelligent design is verified by process of elimination.

Ah, but my creationist friend...can't we prove that god doesn't exist saying there is a lack of evidence as well? Not to mention that every Irreducibly Grotesque system described by Dr. Behe was proved to have an evolutionary trail.

Point in fact: the flagellum of certain bacteria:

No evolutionary theorist would suggest the something as complex as the flagellum appeared [I]ab initio. Instead, it was assembled from parts that had developed for other uses. For example, some molecules produce energy by rotating, a normal procedure within cells. Other molecules have a shape that makes them ideal for moving materials across cell membranes. The flagellum's building blocks include both types of molecules. Instead of being assembled from scratch, then, the flagellum is put together from a stock of already existing parts, each of which evolved to carry out a completely different task. The flagellum may be complex, but it is not irreducibly complex.

Moving on...

Heathen, God-hating evolutionists like Kenneth Miller have recognized how powerful this argument is at dispelling their propaganda, and have attempted several rebuttals. While the scope of this essay does not include addressing them, a few general observations, borrowed from Dr. Behe's latter writings, are in order.

What a surprise that when presented with valid scientific data, the IDers resort to mudslinging and refuse to respond. Kenneth Miller's findings were accepted and peer reviewed. Behe's claims have yet to be.

irst, the common-sense fact that IG systems can't evolve is not refuted merely by demonstrating a possible evolutionary pathway. It's not enough merely to show that an IG system can evolve; the burden of proof rests squarely on the evos to show all of these did evolve. As Dr. Behe convincingly shows using a variety of scripture passages, the default assumption when dealing with biology should be design first, other processes second.

Second, there's no evidence that evolution can cobble together IG systems. Evolutionists will mention examples of bacteria with new IG systems being found in isolated petri dishes. They'll point out the startling genetic similarities between bits of known systems used for other purposes, and a newly discovered IG system. They'll point to computer simulations ("genetic algorithms") which evolved multiple dozens of independent functions all required for a larger whole. They'll even show fossil series with anatomy that appears to incrementally change from an innocuous to grotesque function simply by modifying and refining existing components.

But they can't really prove any of this. Bacterial colonies can be contaminated; similarities can be explained by similar design; computer simulations can be rigged; at least some fossils are likely planted by Satan; and finally, there's nothing preventing God from creating an IG system here or there through evolution. How does one design an experiment that, even in principle, excludes an omnipresent deity's possible influence? Until these "scientists" can answer that, their "vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Tim 6:20) should be taken with a grain, or preferably bucket of salt.

Third, the issue of plausible mechanisms cannot simply be ignored. This is where intelligent design truly shines. As any student of the Inquisition Era should know, intelligence can demonstrably create IG systems; but no other process capable of this has been documented (see point #2). Moreover, the life, miracle-working, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ is better attested historically than Augustus Caesar, World War II, and George W. Bush's incompetence put together. Our theory's mechanisms are simple, elegant and well supported, requiring no recourse to oddball hypotheses and idle speculation. Conversely, what evidence for their esoteric and unproven mechanisms of "natural selection" can evolutionists draw on? A few breeds of dog--which haven't evolved horns and learned to fly despite centuries of efforts to prove their theory--and some moths. Any reasonably open-minded person should see a credibility problem here.

While Dr. Behe's book is a worthwhile (and exciting) read in and of itself, here is a more accessible, shortened summary of several particularly amazing organisms he describes.

Again, where's the evidence? I couldn't see it with all the mud slung upon my glasses.

As far as the examples...how are any of these traits proven to be intelligent design? There isn't even an intelligent argument in this article.

To everyone who feels the need to rebut the article:

It's a joke! Please don't take it seriously!



Thank you.

And what a poor design we are. I mean if we really were designed by an intellegent being shouldn't we not have an appendix or the little toe? I mean what intellegent being designs a creature with parts that have no function? I have to say… the little toe makes walking a lot easier as it is leaned upon, and the appendix operates in much the same way as the tonsils do.

My mistake. I apologize. Just read the article (after having read a similar article not in the forum...actually almost identical) and got explosive.

My apologies.

...and the appendix operates in much the same way as the tonsils do.

Everything I've read suggests that the tonsils fight off certain infections, whereas the Appendix does, basically, nothing. Am I reading the wrong things?


My mistake. I apologize. Just read the article (after having read a similar article not in the forum...actually almost identical) and got explosive.

My apologies.

:D

No worries. It's an easy mistake to make. If you read it again, you may find it fairly amusing. I did.

I beg to differ - I'm quite frankly surprised that my statements in this thread continue to be taken for their face value. Nonetheless, I do find the organisms detailed in said site exquisitely fascinating.

For some reason americans never get sarcasm or irony unless you scream "NOT" at the end of every sentence...

To everyone who feels the need to rebut the article:

It's a joke! Please don't take it seriously!

Thank you.
What I found funnier than the actual article was when people actually agreed with the original post and the article.

Now, I'm going to bet that nobody reads any of the posts about this being a joke, and they all continue on debating Irreducible Grotesqueness...

Is this what you mean by irreducible complexity?
"that there are biochemical systems that are irreducibly complex because there is no known way to break them down into functioning pre-systems."

Yes.

[QUOTE]You see, I haven't seen any examples given for irreducible complexity that match that description, so I don't find it a helpful term. Maybe it means something else to you.

Are you a biochemist?

I can't say I understand the details -- it's definitely not my specialty. Like I said, all I know is that when I ask biochemists about this, they say, "Yes, Professor Behe is right: there are irreducibly complex reactions. However, he is incorrect to assert that evolution cannot explain the development of irreducibly complex systems: it can."

But if you know better... well, I guess I can't argue. All I have is a set of scientific authorities.

Everything I've read suggests that the tonsils fight off certain infections, whereas the Appendix does, basically, nothing. Am I reading the wrong things?

The argument goes that since people who have had appendectomies have higher rates of infection than those who haven't, the appendix is part of the immune system. However, these people ignore that the increase is the same as the increase for any other kind of open abdominal surgery.

The argument goes that since people who have had appendectomies have higher rates of infection than those who haven't, the appendix is part of the immune system. However, these people ignore that the increase is the same as the increase for any other kind of open abdominal surgery.

And there is a chance people who've had their tailbone removed are gay!!!

i don't see how those couldn't have evolved... actually, i don't see the reasone why those would be so hard to explain evolutionalary wised that someone wouldn't be able to find a good explaination and have to use id instead...

How long is a "morning?" an "evening?" Also, I recall reading or hearing somewhere that the original Hebrew, usually translated into the word "day," refers to a general period of time, not necessarily a literal 24 hour period. Anyone out there more learned in the Torah, Judaism and Hebrew who can clarify for us?

-snip-



Days or Ages?

The age-day thing is what some Christians use to try to make the Bible conform with present-day science and is not from the original language, as even the context in the english translation shows...(day, night, evening, morning, etc.).

Why do some people try to interpret it non-literally? Simple. Because it is rare for anyone to wish to be wrong, or to take a view which will only bring condescension and condemnation, so some try to bend to the world's viewpoint.

first reference (http://christiananswers.net//q-eden/edn-c002.html)
and another reference (http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm)

Also, reading the responses from defenders of evolution is rather amusing and sad. No sense of humor, inability to see irony or sarcasm go hand in hand with the inability to recognize metaphors and pointed barbs. And that is why they have such difficulty understanding the Bible (full of wit, irony and sarcasm-and metaphors which are constantly confused with literal truth-such as when they think the Bible says that the sky is a tent-actual quote "like a tent"-they always miss words in the Bible such as "like"). ;)

of cousre it was a satire!

everyone knows the universe was created by a woman who gets bitchy really easily.

"Wuchereria bancrofti. The complex life cycle of this microscopic worm is simply a nail in the coffin for evolution! Bancroftian larvae, carried by tropical mosquitoes, infest the human bloodstream, where they migrate to the nearest lymph glands. Several months of development later, they emerge into the blood as adults. These parasites can survive in the blood for many years, causing severe damage to the lymphatic vessels. The subsequent immune response produces a disfiguring disease known as "elephantiasis."

Eventually, the adult worms mate. Their offspring approach the lungs and are programmed to emerge at night, when mosquitoes are most active. When they get a chance, some of them enter a mosquito host, penetrate the gut wall, and slip into the insect's thoracic muscles. There, they mature into third-stage, human-infecting larvae to repeat this well-designed cycle all over again."


I don't get it. Why is this the nial in the coffin for evolution? The offspring approach the lungs and are programmed to emerge at night, when the mosquitos are most active? Thats the kind of example people usually use supporting evolution. If they emerged in the day, there wouldnt be any mosquitos to take them away and they would die. but the ones that emerge at night survive. Thats natural selection. That particular trait gives them a survival advantage so they live while the daytime emergers don't. Thats how evolution works. Still at least that idiotic thermodynamics arguement wasn't there to piss me off.

If ID supporters could just once come up with an arguement that couldn't be totally debunked by anyone who graduated highschool, that would be nice.

"Wuchereria bancrofti. The complex life cycle of this microscopic worm is simply a nail in the coffin for evolution! Bancroftian larvae, carried by tropical mosquitoes, infest the human bloodstream, where they migrate to the nearest lymph glands. Several months of development later, they emerge into the blood as adults. These parasites can survive in the blood for many years, causing severe damage to the lymphatic vessels. The subsequent immune response produces a disfiguring disease known as "elephantiasis."

Eventually, the adult worms mate. Their offspring approach the lungs and are programmed to emerge at night, when mosquitoes are most active. When they get a chance, some of them enter a mosquito host, penetrate the gut wall, and slip into the insect's thoracic muscles. There, they mature into third-stage, human-infecting larvae to repeat this well-designed cycle all over again."


I don't get it. Why is this the nial in the coffin for evolution? The offspring approach the lungs and are programmed to emerge at night, when the mosquitos are most active? Thats the kind of example people usually use supporting evolution. If they emerged in the day, there wouldnt be any mosquitos to take them away and they would die. but the ones that emerge at night survive. Thats natural selection. That particular trait gives them a survival advantage so they live while the daytime emergers don't. Thats how evolution works. Still at least that idiotic thermodynamics arguement wasn't there to piss me off.

If ID supporters could just once come up with an arguement that couldn't be totally debunked by anyone who graduated highschool, that would be nice.

There are still people who dont see the sarcasm?

Evolution suggests that life banged into today with due to chance.
three things;
evolution didn't come around by chance, it was the ones that survived reproducing, and therefore those traits continuing
to the other person on that page this quote is from: when was abiogenisis proved impossible?
and most people don't seem to know this, but there's the evolutionary theory and there's the evolutionary law, evolutionary law is either that traits are passed on heriditarily or that there is such a large variation in all living things(i forget which, but they both are scientific laws(and it's not called the evolutionary law, it's called something else, but it is the scientific law that the evolutionary theory explains)) and gives no explaination. evolutionary theory is the explaination to the law.

Everything I've read suggests that the tonsils fight off certain infections, whereas the Appendix does, basically, nothing. Am I reading the wrong things?


Fundimentally yes...
The Appendix does have some immune capabilities, it is currently considered one of the "storage" sites for memory cells, and possibly other cell types which reduce the length and severity of the infection. It can be lived without, but is still useful.

Okay, I see the problem here. Confusion about words. It happens a lot. This:

there are biochemical systems that are irreducibly complex because there is no known way to break them down into functioning pre-systems.

This means that evolution can't take place because it requires functioning pre-systems.

But this:

there are irreducibly complex reactions. However, he is incorrect to assert that evolution cannot explain the development of irreducibly complex systems: it can."

But this means that there are plenty of systems in which if you remove one part the rest won't work, but there are functioning pre-systems. As a rough example, if you take the battery out of a car, the car won't work, but this doesn't mean there were never working cars that didn't have batteries. Eightly years ago most cars didn't have batteries and were hand cranked to start but they still worked despite the lack of batteries.

Are you a biochemist?

My name is sort of a hint.