Too Many Flaws with Evolution

[qs]Para:Anybody, independent of religion or the scientific method would be hard pressed to lose this debate. Its so simplistic that a chimp with ERV could win the discussion. It is a interesting how people like yourself will extrapolate a simple obvious and ridiculous point.D Bertot

Of course, and easily done too, even without the wedge document (which in itself is proof enough). Let's take the logical path. Who is the designer? Only two things apply here. Aliens or god(s). In the case of aliens, they either evolved, or were designed. If they evolved, nothing's changed, now has there? If they were designed, then only two things apply for their designer. Aliens or god(s). We can continue this, until at some point, we HAVE to select god(s). There wasn't always life, afterall. And when god(s) are involved, that my friends, is religion.Edited by Huntard, : used creator instead of designer, yes, I'm tired.

---

I hunt for the truthWhat you can do in my country and get away with:Softdrugs? Legal!
Legal drinking age? 16!
Birth control (the pill)? Free!
Gay marriage? Legal!
Abortion? Legal!
Euthanasia? Legal!
Age of consent? 16 (14 if you have the parents permission)!Yep, only one way down for us!

H writes:Again with the false assumptions and unwarrented assertions. It is not necessary to ask who the creator is to see that from a scientific standpoint things could have been designed and or created. Who he is and what it is is independant of this assumption.Your arguments are like you cartoon piture, they are fanciful and contrived. You are correct, only two things apply here, but its not aliens or gods, its that things were always here or they were not. Since the collective evidence suggest that things depend on thier existence for something else it is very reasonable (scientific)to conclude, that a designer (evolution or not) is one of the only possibilites. In other words the design principle is as valid (scientific) in its tenets as the starting point of biological or cosmological evolution. Neither of which can demonstrate absolutely thier ultimate designation or source, but are limited in thier obvious possibilties. Therefore since both are derived from observable evidence and cooroborated by such, both are very real considerations or the origins of things and should be taught as such. Interesting you have done nothing to allivate yourself of the point that things could have been created by whoever to operate the way they do, have you. You have in a cartoonish way, simply restated the possibilites.I told you you did not want to get into this, because it is to simple a point to demonstrate. Your not one of those chimps are you, ha ha.D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

First of all, we DON'T see that. Second, once we establish things are designed, we absolutely MUST ask who or what this designer is, that's what science does, ask questions. No, it isn't. Once we establish things are indeed designed, we want to know who or what did the designing to better understand how it was done. Project much? How did you get to that conclusion? Oh, and we know living things weren't always here. But te evidence DOES NOT show that. And since when is evolution a "designer"? To design something implies that you have a purpose in mind, evolution has no purpose. No, not really, no matter how many times you keep repeating it. Evolution can't demonstrate that because it has no "source". And I beg to differ that ID can't. In fact I demonstrated above it can and in fact MUST. Name one thing, just ONE thing that points to design. No I didn't. I showed that ID is religion, without any doubt. The fact you just close your eyes and say "Nuh-uh" doesn't change that fact. Indeed it is, and I just did.

---

I hunt for the truthWhat you can do in my country and get away with:Softdrugs? Legal!
Legal drinking age? 16!
Birth control (the pill)? Free!
Gay marriage? Legal!
Abortion? Legal!
Euthanasia? Legal!
Age of consent? 16 (14 if you have the parents permission)!Yep, only one way down for us!

It is not a question of what you or I want to believe. I repeat, you carry evidence in every cell in your body that tells you that you descend from a common ancestor with the other apes, and that you are more closely related to them than you are to other primates. In just the same way, assuming you are a white American, examination of your genome by an expert who does not know that fact will tell him that you are more closely related modern Europeans than you are to any native Americans living near you in the U.S.A.It is like the choice of believing that the earth is flat, or that it is an oblate sphere. The evidence shows one answer to be right.There is nothing preposterous about the truth.

No you do not. You know nothing about what you are talking about as far as theories in general.You actually know less than nothing about the ToE.You have nothing to base your views on since you are utterly ignorant about the entire topic.

Would you like to be the first person in the world to construct an argument for design in which the designer does not require a designer according to the argument? Trust me, you don't want to get in a discussion with me on this point, you will lose. Think about it.

H writes:Is your implication here that design is a very real possibility? Lets put it in question form. Given the available evidence is DESIGN a very real possibility, Yes or No?In the first place the design principle has nothing to do with who created it, it is independent of that question. From a strictly scientific standpoint, this question is not possible to answer, only that design is a very real possibility. Secondly, if science asks questions, why does it not include this principle in its conclusions following the concepts of evolution. Most evolutionists dismiss the ultimate source as unknowable therefore, not applicable. By obseving the avalible evidence, thats called the scientific principle I believe. Thanks for cooroborating my conclusion about the finite nature of physical reality. Uh oh, he asserting again. My firend its not that evolution did or did not do anything. Its the very real possiblity given the observation available evidence that its laws, it appears to follow, make design a scientific viable possibilty. Your struggle is trying to disavow an obvious principle. Not to say it WASNT designed, only that logic would dictate it is a very real possibilty, that is supported by logic and scientific reasoning principles. You can do nothing to remove this point. Your kidding correct? How about anything and everything that follows
observable laws or what appear to be laws. Asserting that something may have not been designed is not the same as showing it was not. In this your task is impossible. Not that mine is not, onlythat your is as well. At any rate both are very viable conclusions based on the best possible evidence and scientific and logical principles. Pay attention Huntard, when you can remove the design principle from the realm of the observable and scientific realm, then you will have accomlished your task. Throwing the word religion at it doesnt make it go away.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

It is unclear where you are looking for "design". But the available evidence is strong and overwhelmingly convincing that life is not designed but is clearly the result of evolutionary processes.We can strongly conclude this by comparing it to the result of things produced by evolutionary processes in the lab. It is not in doubt at all from just that evidence.And there is more.

There are some good debates brewing on here. Please take them to an appropriate thread so that they will not be lost in this backwater seven year old thing -this one was resurrected purely to talk about flaws in evolution. We have a forum especially set aside for Intelligent Design. You can find it at Intelligent Design. I reckon a post like RAZD's Who designed the ID designer(s)? would be a possible good place to take some of these discussions. And its two years fresher too!Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

Off-Topic post moved to:
Message 120Edited by Stile, : Moving Off-Topic Post... my hand hurts from the slapping...

Gday, Sadly,
you still don't even grasp the meanings of the basic term "theory".THEORY has 2 meaningsIt is all too common for people to confuse the two meanings of the word "theory".In popular terms, "theory" means a guess, or speculation. Thus the common phrase "just a theory" meaning "just speculation".But,
in scientific terms, there is another, different, meaning to the word "theory" - it means an EXPLANATION.Theories EXPLAIN factsTheories explain the facts we observe :Gravity is a fact, we observe its effects.
Gravitational Theory describes how gravity works.Electricity is a fact, we use it everyday.
Electromagnetic Theory explains the details of how it operates.Germs are a fact.
Germ Theory explains how they cause disease.Evolution is a fact, it is observed.
The Theory of Evolution explains how it works.the ToE is an EXPLANATION, NOT speculationThe Theory of Evolution is NOT "speculation about evolution" - that is NOT what the phrase means at all.Rather -
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION for how evolution works, it models the behaviour of the FACTS of evolution, and allows predictions to be made.Just as Electromagnetic Theory is the explanation or model of how electricity works.
Would one say "electricity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.And Gravitational Theory is the explanation or model of how gravity works.
Would one say "gravity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.And Germ Theory is the explanation or model of how germs cause disease.
Would one say "germs are just a theory" ?
Of course not.Yet
some people say
"evolution is (just) a theory"as if it means
"evolution is merely untested speculation" (false)when it really only means
"evolution is an explanation, or model" (true)Claiming "evolution is just a theory" indicates lack of understanding of the word, and how science operates, and that the ToE is an explanation for observed facts.Kapyong

gday, Wrong.
Completely wrong.That's your problem John - you simply don't grasp what these terms mean, nor how science actually works.Theories do NOT graduate to laws when "proven".
But creationists always get this wrong.K.

Gday, John -
the quote you posted specifically says :
"This misconception"In other words, you read something that DISAGREED with you, but your reading comprehension is so bad, you think it AGREED with you.K.

quote:

---

I scoff at the thought that He came as a monkey taking millions of years to die on a cross for us.

---

That is not what evolution claims. Evolution theorises that modern homosapiens share a ancestor with modern primates.(ie. We did not originate from monkeys). If you were not so ignorant you would actually research something before trying to claim it is flawed.And if you really belive that man was created by "God" about 6000 years ago (as most creationists agree on). What about Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals? clearly thinkers, tool makers, they wore jewlery and buried their dead, but are not modern humans. How could this be?Evolution!