Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I went to Amazon.com and read a few pages. The author lost me when he stated natural selection weeds out harmful mutations.
Pseudoscience at its worst.
Can't say I'm surprised. They just make themselves look foolish when they make silly statements like that that show they really have no idea about what natural selection is.
Alas, I appeared to have misread nothing. You are simply in error. There is no evidence for ID. This is most clearly demonstrated by IDs complete lack of scientific research and publication, and their dedicated startegy of avoiding defense of ID while merely engaging in (generally fallacious ) attaks against science.
No. You completely missed my point.
The correlations you cite are almost entirely untrue with the exception of evolution and AGW. The anecdotal basis for the rest of your asserted correlations are specious at best. The plural of anecdote is not data.
I think you missed my initial point. I will summarize.
1) I was not taking a position on the argument.
2) I was saying there is evidence on both sides (and I think it's fair enough to assert that one side has weaker evidence than the other).
3) Correlation does not imply causation. What overlap there is that exists between AWG and evolution is a lot small than most people realize. They are two different topics just like economics and evolution are different topics.
Additionally, The correlations were examples, which may or may not be true. You believe some are true and some are not, but you believe these things to be true without substantive evidence. We all do this. Substantive evidence is generally only required for someone to reverse their position on a given topic. This is why very few people switch their minds on AGW or evolution. People make their initial assumptions about things, and then set the bar really high for any counter-assumptions.
What evidence do you see for intelligent design, which is really creationism?
Here are 5:
1) Occam's razor.
2) Organic evolution has never been observed.
3) Spontaneous generation has never been observed.
4) Language. Humans do not learn speech except from other humans who already speak.
5) The failure of evolutionist to overcome the non-falsifiable hypothesis. eg. when a creationist makes a statement like "metamorphesis could not have evolved" an evolutionist points out that it could, but we just haven't figured out how yet.
1) Occam's razor.
2) Organic evolution has never been observed.
3) Spontaneous generation has never been observed.
4) Language. Humans do not learn speech except from other humans who already speak.
5) The failure of evolutionist to overcome the non-falsifiable hypothesis. eg. when a creationist makes a statement like "metamorphesis could not have evolved" an evolutionist points out that it could, but we just haven't figured out how yet.
None of that is actually evidence for Intelligent Design. Saying that the other side has flimsy evidence doesn't make your evidence stronger. You have no evidence. None.
Surely, you have some evidence that can stand on its own two feet. Go.
1) Occam's razor.
2) Organic evolution has never been observed.
3) Spontaneous generation has never been observed.
4) Language. Humans do not learn speech except from other humans who already speak.
5) The failure of evolutionist to overcome the non-falsifiable hypothesis. eg. when a creationist makes a statement like "metamorphesis could not have evolved" an evolutionist points out that it could, but we just haven't figured out how yet.
None of this is evidence of intelligent design. But are you saying we are all brothers and sisters because we came from Adam and Eve. Is that what you believe?
Although I wouldn't call it a debate. More of a side-show.
Though Ceist, I have a point here. I think ID and even god has been dis-proven during this thread.
Clearly through a number of posts that you've countered, and had no, non-idiotic retort, god would agree that he would have never made anyone so stupid in his image.
If god read this thread, which the creationists no doubt would agree god would have, as being all knowing and all seeing, would have simply struck down the semi-sentient apes with intelligence levels that of a slug far earlier in this thread, say around page 46.
Clearly this thread proves evolution is true and a secular worldview is wise.
Point 2153086530743017 for Evolution!
FYI guys, I don't know if you watched this, but it's pretty funny.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
