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 believe intelligence should be taught to the RNC. It would be a big improvement for them. They could then move beyond silly culture wars. Well, maybe if they tripled their current level of intelligence, they could.
and contrary to the claims of the evolutionists, there is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, supporting evolution as the explanation for either the origin of life or origin of species.
Not the first time you've been wrong, I'd speculate.
No. If you say we should not teach evolution in public schools that means we can't teach biology in the public schools, because biology is nothing without evolution. It would be like teaching physics without talking about atoms, or astronomy without talking about the THEORY of gravity.
What an absurd assertion ... biology exists, with or without Darwin, and does not need Darwin at all. Biological life does not owe it's existence to evolution, and would exist even if Darwin was never born.
Perhaps what you mean to suggest is that biology as it is currently taught, without evolution theory, would require a few changes? And that would be a very positive development, because it is harmful to fill the heads of children with such nonsense, while convincing them it is some proven scientific fact. The reality is, the basic operation and structure of biological life and it's processes are not dependent on Darwinian Evolution in the least. This is an absolute truth because biology absolutely exists, in spite of the fact that Darwinian Evolution is absolutely a mind numbingly absurd product of one man's over active and unscientific imagination, postulated long before modern technology existed to show how ridiculous those ideas were.
Anyone who brings up evolution in context with the "origin of life" should automatically be ignored in this conversation because they swiftly show they have no idea what they are talking about.
Not the first time you've been wrong, I'd speculate.
Do you have anything of substance to contribute? If you do .. don't be shy, and let's hear it. Don't just flap your gums, and spew hot air. Tell us how, where, or even when evolution explained/proved the origin of that first life form ... that common ancestor if you will, that evolved into the vast array of species that have existed on the planet? And I'm making it as easy as I can for you ... I'm not even asking for proven facts, just tell us the theoretical explanation for the origin of life ... that will suffice for the purpose of argument.
Come on .... I'm assuming you can do it, since you musta passed your High School science class, right?
Not the first time you've been wrong, I'd speculate.
Do you have anything of substance to contribute? If you do .. don't be shy, and let's hear it. Don't just flap your gums, and spew hot air. Tell us how, where, or even when evolution explained/proved the origin of that first life form ... that common ancestor if you will, that evolved into the vast array of species that have existed on the planet? And I'm making it as easy as I can for you ... I'm not even asking for scientifically proven facts, just explain the scientific theory for the origin of life ... that will suffice for the purpose of this conversation.
Come on .... I'm assuming you can do it very easily, since it's just simple High School science stuff that one would assume you passed, right?
I'll be waiting ... but I won't be holding my breath.
Anyone who brings up evolution in context with the "origin of life" should automatically be ignored in this conversation because they swiftly show they have no idea what they are talking about.
Do you have anything of substance to contribute? If you do .. don't be shy, and let's hear it.
You don't even have a handle on the term, theory.
Quote:
Don't just flap your gums, and spew hot air.
Exactly why I'm calling your bluff.
Quote:
Tell us how, where, or even when evolution explained/proved the origin of that first life form ... that common ancestor if you will, that evolved into the vast array of species that have existed on the planet? And I'm making it as easy as I can for you ... I'm not even asking for scientifically proven facts, just explain the scientific theory for the origin of life ... that will suffice for the purpose of this conversation.
I'll make it even easier for you.
Evolution doesn't address the origin of life.
Quote:
Come on .... I'm assuming you can do it very easily, since it's just simple High School science stuff that one would assume you passed, right?
I'll be waiting ... but I won't be holding my breath.
My bet is you'll be back to spewing hot air and ignorance in no time.
Offering you the benefit of doubt, I will assume that this simpleton view of the matter is purely rhetorical, though doubt nevertheless does persist. Of course, the many examples of unintelligent behavior ... particularly with regard to humans who are supposed to represent the highest and most evolved species, only presents a certain tongue in cheek challenge to intelligent design if you ignore the more illuminating complexity of the basic structure of biological life at the cellular level, and focus on mental disfunction instead. I could similarly argue that such unintelligent human behavior presents as much evidence against the theory of evolution, if one should error in linking complexity with intelligence as you attempt to do.
I would suggest that it might be wise of you to set aside the human example when defending evolution theory, because you will certainly not help your cause by including humans as any form of positive evidence thereof. I might also suggest that humans are the greatest argument against evolution, as we seem to be on a path of self destruction, similar to a virus that has mutated to become more virulent and pathogenic to it's host environment, which in turn threatens it's own survival and continued existence. That fact would suggest that somewhere along the way the process of natural selection must have taken a wrong turn, and began discarding those beneficial mutations in favor of selecting the negative ones. Then again, we also have examples of human behavior which demonstrates very high levels of intelligence, so both the intelligent and unintelligent examples exist. Truth is, neither provides an iota of support for or against evolution or intelligent design.
The problem here seems to be a very weak understanding of all three theories, evolution, intelligent design and creation .. which explains some but not all of the confusion and error. Upon cursory review of this thread, for example, one finds few responses that even mention "Intelligent Design" even though that is the subject and title of the thread. Instead, we find the knee-jerk reaction of immediately attacking creationism and religion as if these concepts were synonymous with ID. Like Pavlov's dogs, drooling at the ringing of the bell, we have the Darwinian Dogs barking about religion the moment evolution theory is questioned. But intelligent design, creationism and religion are not at all the same theories. The fundamental argument of Intelligent Design simply postulates that the extreme complexity of living matter at the cellular level displays all of the commonly accepted, clearly scientific characteristics of design with intent, while not even attempting to identify the designer at all. This separates it from creationism and religion on a very fundamental level. The basic premise behind Intelligent Design is simple observation and common sense, along with a certain element of mathematical probability, which concludes that the extreme complexity inherent in the cellular structure offers it's own evidence of design with purpose, similar to an onlooker viewing Mt Rushmore who immediately recognizes that it could not have been the result of natural rock erosion. Just like the Mt Rushmore analogy, the characteristics of design with intention present in the complex structure of a biological cell offers it's own evidence against this being the result of random natural processes, at face value, rendering the theory that this was a product of random processes so astronomically improbable, as to dismiss this answer as highly unreasonable and extremely unscientific.
While I am not a religious person myself, that doesn't stop the evolutionists from falsely labeling me as so, because this is again, the conditioned response to which almost all evolutionists immediately resort. Part of this is conditioned response, and perhaps for some, a deliberate diversion in order to avoid having to address inconvenient facts for which they have no reasonable rebuttal. And true to form, the tap dancing and diversion begins when the origin of the first living cell becomes the primary topic. Immediately, the evolutionists will (as you have done on previous threads) claim that this matter is not even addressed in evolution theory ... that this is an entirely separate topic covered under abiogenesis theories. But if that be the case, then evolution theory cannot possibly be used, as is repeatedly done, an argument against Intelligent Design OR Creationism, because that is the central theme of the debate ... the origin of life ... is it the product of a "creator" ... or does it exhibit characteristics of "intelligent design" or is life just a result of natural processes? You cannot ignore the origin of life in evolution theory, while simultaneously using evolution as an argument against other theories dealing specifically with the origin of life. This is maniacal levels of circular reasoning.
Yawn. No one uses "Darwin" when debating evolution in 2013. You just outed yourself.
Quote:
The truth is, no one knows the true origin of life and how life came to be. All theories are pure speculation, and contrary to the claims of the evolutionists, there is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, supporting evolution as the explanation for either the origin of life or origin of species.
Evolution isn't the origin of life, it is the mechanism. You whole argument is basically we don't know everything so we don't know anything. How convenient.
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.
