the video assumes alot

- it says that creationism has no evidence to support it, not true.

- it says that evidence clearly points to evolution, that also is not true.

- it says creationsim is rejected by the scientific community, not completely true. not all scientists are atheist

the fact is, there is evidence for both evolution and creationism (design). when the speaker does not acknowledge that, he looks as stupid as a preacher who says fossils where placed by god to test us.

The only evidence for creationism, or theism for that matter, is the gaps in what is understood about evolution. Gaps that will continue to be filled as time goes on.

Originally posted by miriam0566
the video assumes alot

- it says that creationism has no evidence to support it, not true.

- it says that evidence clearly points to evolution, that also is not true.

- it says creationsim is rejected by the scientific community, not completely true. not all scientists are atheist

Actually, it is you who assumes alot.

I have yet to see one shred of evidence that supports either creationism or intelligent design. That's because it doesn't exist. The belief in either creationism or intelligent design is just that. A belief. An act of faith. It doesn't pass the evidence test.

There is an enormous amount of scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution. Real verifiable evidence. Not merely an act of faith.

Creationism has been soundly rejected by the scientific community. You are correct in your assertion that not all scientists are atheists. However, not all christian scientists embrace creationism or intelligent design.

To me I don't know which is harder to believe. On one side you have a guy in the sky who snapped his fingers and we were here. On the other side you have the idea that we got here by slowly evolving over millions of years.

Yeah they both have their evidence. Than they both have their lack of evidence. Come to think of it, has anyone since these ideas came into play tried to think of another way we got here? It seems we are so focused on Evolution vs. Creationism that maybe the big picture is right in front of us.

Really we have advanced alot since Darwin and the Bible so why don't we step back look at what we have and try and come up with a new idea on how we got here.

To me it's equally stupid relying on a thousand year old text, or a century year old theory.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by theendisnear69]

Originally posted by AveIMil
There is no scientific evidence, (you know, evidence that adheres to the Scientific Method) to support design. None, nadda, ziltch! Do you even know what the word evidence means?

yes i know what evidence is. its not there there isnt evidence, its that you dont except it as evidence.

the fossil record shows a tree, if you will, of life. from it is assumed that all life has been spawned from one common ancestor. but there are holes. lots of them. species suddenly appearing out of nowhere. suddenly developing complex features lacking in the previous ancestor. the wing, the eye, bones, the heart. even dna and the immune system are thigns that suddenly appear. complex systems do NOT suddenly appear unless designed.

designed by aliens? god? whatever, but there is evidence of design.

now im not ignorant, and i understand that doesnt prove ¨god´s¨ existence. evidence in itself doesnt not prove something, evidence points to something. after enough evidence is gathered a conclusion can be reached.

but it is my opinion that we do not have enough evidence to reach a conclusion. evolution explains similiarities between animals and is a theory for the change of animals that we see today, but it does not even come close to explaining the beginning of life (which for that there is NO proof life can come into being without design), it doesnt explain differences between man and the rest of the animal kingdom.

you basically telling me you have finished the puzzle and big chunks are missing. and the fact that you dont acknowledge that puts you on the same level as extreme creationist that think the world was created in six literal days.

Originally posted by maria_stardust
I have yet to see one shred of evidence that supports either creationism or intelligent design. That's because it doesn't exist. The belief in either creationism or intelligent design is just that. A belief. An act of faith. It doesn't pass the evidence test.

the immune system is evidence of design. it´s components work too independantly. it is strongly suggesting design, as are other components i mentioned earlier.

again as i said before, one cannot say that a component is clear proof of god. my personal belief in god includes much more than scientific theory of life. however it IS evidence.

There is an enormous amount of scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution. Real verifiable evidence. Not merely an act of faith.

completely true



again, understand what im asserting in this particular thread, im not saying evolution is true or false, im also not saying creation is true or false. what i am saying is that there is evidence for both and that it ignorant to say something is bullsh!t just because you dont accept the evidence.

Originally posted by miriam0566
the immune system is evidence of design. it´s components work too independantly. it is strongly suggesting design...

The immune systems is not evidence of design. It is a product of evolution. Just because in your opinion it strongly suggests design, it cannot be construed as evidence.

Originally posted by miriam0566
again, understand what im asserting in this particular thread, im not saying evolution is true or false, im also not saying creation is true or false. what i am saying is that there is evidence for both and that it ignorant to say something is bullsh!t just because you dont accept the evidence.

To suggest that someone is ignorant because they don't prescribe to your belief of creationism or intelligent design is a bit presumptuous. Until concrete scientific evidence of creationism or intelligent design can be produced, belief in such is merely that. A belief.

Originally posted by maria_stardust
The immune systems is not evidence of design. It is a product of evolution. Just because in your opinion it strongly suggests design, it cannot be construed as evidence.

and how do you know its a product of evolution? is a case study that shows how the immune system developed? or are you just assuming it is evolution?

im typing on a computer right now. it is relatively complex. how would i describe to someone that it in itself contains evidence of design? if you lined up computers according to when they were made, would you not have a simple to complex flowchart? and yet how would you explain to someone who has no idea how or why computers are made that they are infact designed?

if immune systems or dna for example do not suggest design, than what on earth does? what is the criteria for something to suggest design? how complex does it have to get before you say "ok, i admit, it MAY have been designed"

To suggest that someone is ignorant because they don't prescribe to your belief of creationism or intelligent design is a bit presumptuous. Until concrete scientific evidence of creationism or intelligent design can be produced, belief in such is merely that. A belief.

no, im suggesting people can be ignorant for assuming a conclusion.

Originally posted by miriam0566
im typing on a computer right now. it is relatively complex. how would i describe to someone that it in itself contains evidence of design? if you lined up computers according to when they were made, would you not have a simple to complex flowchart? and yet how would you explain to someone who has no idea how or why computers are made that they are infact designed?

Nice try, but your analogy is more than a bit misleading. Of course, anything man-made is designed. Does that do anything to further your argument for intelligent design? No, it doesn't.

Originally posted by miriam0566
if immune systems or dna for example do not suggest design, than what on earth does? what is the criteria for something to suggest design? how complex does it have to get before you say "ok, i admit, it MAY have been designed"

Again, you are attempting to equate suggestion with evidence. There is a huge difference.

By your logic I can postulate that since the surface of the moon appears to be pock marked, those pock marks must be holes. Swiss cheese has holes. Therefore, there is strong reason to suggest the moon is made out of cheese.

Originally posted by miriam0566
no, im suggesting people can be ignorant for assuming a conclusion.

What you stated was:

what i am saying is that there is evidence for both and that it ignorant to say something is bullsh!t just because you dont accept the evidence.

You have yet to provide any evidence. All you have provided is circular logic.

I'll make a deal with you. I'll be willing to agree with complete and utter sincerity that perhaps there is some validity to intelligent design, if you are willing to agree with complete and utter sincerity that perhaps the moon is made out of cheese.

Originally posted by SlyCM
The only evidence for creationism, or theism for that matter, is the gaps in what is understood about evolution. Gaps that will continue to be filled as time goes on.

Well, the evidence for Creationism is more voluminous and much more ancient than the evidence for Evolution. Virtually every independent culture in the history of our species has come up with unique and yet vaguely similar creation stories — in spite of the fact that these cultures were separated by both geographic distance and time.

Why would isolated groups of primitive human beings all over the planet independently arrive at the conclusion that a higher power created the universe, our world, and our species? Is this just a natural function of our human minds, to fabricate fantasies about Supreme Beings, cycles of Creation and Destruction, and an Afterlife?

If it is a natural function, then surely it represents a very, very important human phenomenon that should be researched extensively, rather than stifling our own curiosity and filing it under "superstition"... This veers into the whole "hardwired for spirituality" topic, which I'm sure you atheists don't want to contemplate, much less discuss.

Evolutionists endorse teaching an incomplete work-in-progress as "scientific fact," even though the subject is riddled with holes and inconsistencies — these gaps will be filled as we accumulate new data, right?

But, hold on... That's a cop-out. By that rationale, virtually anything can be taught in school as "fact," pending the acquisition of new knowledge. Creationism could be taught right alongside Evolution, since both fairy tales are incomplete at best and half-baked, at worst. When new data becomes available, we'll update the curricula. Yeah, right.

Teaching that Evolution is right while Creationism is wrong is not an unbiased and objective approach to education — on the contrary, closing the door to alternative explanations and knowledge is the antithesis of education. It's thought control.

Originally posted by maria_stardust
Nice try, but your analogy is more than a bit misleading. Of course, anything man-made is designed. Does that do anything to further your argument for intelligent design? No, it doesn't.

why doesnt it? again, you take assumptions and you run with it.

if you have never seen a computer before, would you assume it was man made? it certainly would be foreign to you. if someone came along and asserted that the computer was a natural object not created, how would you prove him wrong.

you completely side stepped the question. you called it irrelevant and moved on. but the question still stands, WHY is it obviously man made?

what are the criteria of saying something is designed or not? complexity? parts that seem to have a specific purpose? cooperation between different parts? what?

a rock doesnt have that. it is simple, atoms randomly clumped together. no part of a rock has any specific purpose, there is no cooperation between the right side of the rock with the left side of the rock. better put, a rock is random

life is like the computer. its complex. each cell onto itself is a chemical factory complete with written instructions. different components of the cells have specific purposes that work in cooperation with other components. this is not unlike a computer, except the cell is much more complex!

so why is it obvious that a computer is designed and life is not?

You have yet to provide any evidence. All you have provided is circular logic.

is that the word d'-jour now? how is it circular?

I'll make a deal with you. I'll be willing to agree with complete and utter sincerity that perhaps there is some validity to intelligent design, if you are willing to agree with complete and utter sincerity that perhaps the moon is made out of cheese.

congradulations, you are able to mock someone.

given that the only essential difference between the concepts of intelligent design and evolution is that intelligent design envisages a creator while evolution envisages a random set of unreproducible accidental circumstances leading to the formation of complex systems, according to Occam's razor, ID is without a doubt the correct conclusion because it is by far the simplest explanation for the existence of life on earth.

unless evidence is found otherwise, or the circumstances are found to be reproducible, intelligent design is, in my opinion, the most scientifically acceptable theory.

so i agree, creationism shouldn't be taught outside of religious education, but equally, classical theories of evolution should be taught as the least likely of two strong possibilities.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by pieman]

[edit on 12-6-2008 by pieman]

Originally posted by miriam0566
you completely side stepped the question. you called it irrelevant and moved on. but the question still stands, WHY is it obviously man made?

On the contrary, the question was not side stepped. The problem with your analogy is that you are attempting to compare something that we both know to be man-made (or perhaps reverse-engineered from alien technology), with a belief that requires a leap of faith.

That's the difference between knowledge and belief. One is concrete, the other is intangible.

So, it is not that your question is irrelevent. It is that your analogy does nothing to promote the argument of intelligent design.

As for your use of circular logic:
Computers are complex. Life is complex.
It is a fact that computers are designed.
This fact would suggest that life is designed.
Hence, this is evidence of intelligent design.

The fallacy with your logic is that first of all, you are equating suggestion with evidence. Once again, it is not the same thing. Secondly, you are comparing tangibles with intangibles. Apples and oranges. Not the same thing.

As for your little twist of, "what if a person had never seen a computer before...", there are things in this world we come across that we don't understand. We can believe anything we want about the unknown, however it doesn't mean those beliefs have merit of truth.

Why is that? Because unfounded belief is not evidence. Unfounded belief is a leap of faith.

Now on to that last little bit of what you construed to be mockery (or humor, it depends on one's perspective). That, believe it or not, was a genuine offer, and it still stands. No arrogance. No condescension. No one calling anyone ignorant.

I am willing to accept your circular logic, if you are willing to accept mine.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity


Well, the evidence for Creationism is more voluminous and much more ancient than the evidence for Evolution. Virtually every independent culture in the history of our species has come up with unique and yet vaguely similar creation stories — in spite of the fact that these cultures were separated by both geographic distance and time.

Why would isolated groups of primitive human beings all over the planet independently arrive at the conclusion that a higher power created the universe, our world, and our species? Is this just a natural function of our human minds, to fabricate fantasies about Supreme Beings, cycles of Creation and Destruction, and an Afterlife?

If it is a natural function, then surely it represents a very, very important human phenomenon that should be researched extensively, rather than stifling our own curiosity and filing it under "superstition"... This veers into the whole "hardwired for spirituality" topic, which I'm sure you atheists don't want to contemplate, much less discuss.

This isn't evidence. By this logic, we should talk about magic in school because every cultural has independently came up with stories of it. Or monsters, or the undead, etc.

Evolution has actual evidence that fits in with with other fields of science, archeology, geology, etc. Also, these observations are testable, whereas a creation story is not, meaning that it does not fit the scientific method and therefore can not be considered science.

As to the claim that because there are wholes and its taught, this justifies teaching anything. First, there are not as many holes as you would believe. Second, this isn't true because the grand picture works out. Your suggestion seems to be we can teach no information if it has any whole in it. Well, we don't no why mathematics work, so thats gone. And there sure are a lot of wholes in history so its out. Astronomy, physics chemistry, all gone. Looks like will be left with 8 hours of Phys ed.

Now conversely, allowing something to be taught based on belief instead of testable evidence does mean we could teach anything. For starters, an infinite amount of history could be taught, because all it would take would be an individual believing something happened to teach it as real. And thats just the tip of the iceberg.

Heres my question to Christians in particular: If you believe God created the world, why couldn't he have created evolution? Understandably, this doesn't apply if you just independently don't believe evolution. Is it because you take the story of Genesis literally? I though most churches didn't take every passage literally, particularly in the old testament. I mean if thats literal then so is stoning people for not resting on the sabbath day etc. (I'm not trying to insult anyones religion, its an honest question)

Originally posted by maria_stardust
On the contrary, the question was not side stepped. The problem with your analogy is that you are attempting to compare something that we both know to be man-made (or perhaps reverse-engineered from alien technology), with a belief that requires a leap of faith.

no, your misunderstanding what im saying. what if you dont know it something is manmade or not? what is the criteria you would use to determine if something was designed or not?

your asserting that design in life is poppycock and that there is no evidence and yet you can not explain what evidence of design is.

if your stuck on the illustration, fine ill use another. your digging a hole for a plant and you find something in the ground, it looks like a watch, but you can tell it isnt. it has what look like gears and screws, the gears even move.

natural or man made? alien made? what about this trinket makes the assertion of design obvious?

As for your use of circular logic:
Computers are complex. Life is complex.
It is a fact that computers are designed.
This fact would suggest that life is designed.
Hence, this is evidence of intelligent design.

Evidence is information, such as facts, coupled with principles of inference (beliefs and assumptions), that make information relevant to the proof or disproof of a hypothesis.

fact - life is complex.

assumption - complex things with separate components that coorperate (such as life) come from design, not random

f+a = e which is relevent to the hypothesis that life is designed.

other side of the fence.

fact - complex things can arrive from simplier components. the farther back you go in the fossil record, the simplier life gets.

assumption - everything has a simplier state

f+a = e which is relevant to the hypthosis that life evolved.

evidence on both sides, i still fail to see how that is circular....

Now on to that last little bit of what you construed to be mockery (or humor, it depends on one's perspective). That, believe it or not, was a genuine offer, and it still stands. No arrogance. No condescension. No one calling anyone ignorant.

I am willing to accept your circular logic, if you are willing to accept mine.

circular logic is saying "there is evidence of design in life because there is evidence of design in life."

im saying, life has evidence of design, because complex systems with coorperating components do not form at random.

not circular logic.


[edit on 12-6-2008 by miriam0566]