Escherichia said: No, you don't have to be stupid to believe in creationism, however I do believe it takes a bit of ignorance. I don't like arguements made from ignorance, especially when they assume that they are right. Basically I don't think you understand biology or physics as much as you think you do, specifically genetics and evolution. Therefore with these gaps in your understanding it makes it easy to fill in those gaps with supernatural

Actually we use this logic a lot more often than you think. For example since we are ignorant of how someone can shoot themselves 10 times in the back then we assume that person was murdered. Of course this really isn't because of our ignorant but because of our knowledge.

You could say the intelligent design in the past was mostly based on our ignorance but that has changed. Intelligent Design today is an argument of knowledge , more clearly an agrument of information. There still needs to be work done to have a clear defining of exactly how you measure information in living things yet there's little doubt that information does exist in the living cells.

One of the reasons why some has pay a price for hinting ID is the Darwinists knows that they have a valid agrument and it only getting stronger the more we learn.

GotchayeA said: But what would distinguish these intermediary species? They'd simply appear to be yet another subspecies. And, in fact, it's my understanding that we have found groups of animals that could breed with another group, which could breed with another group, which could not breed with the first group. If your question is why we don't see a clear continuum of living species, then the answer is, again, natural selection. There isn't a continuum of environments, and the specialized species on either end are going to be more suitable for one sort of environment or another than the species in the middle. Evolution is supposed to be a very slow process - there's plenty of time for intermediary species to be reabsorbed.

 If this is true, then what happened from water to land, they just developed lungs over time, then flopped around on the ground until legs appeared over time?  What did birds do when only one wing developed, wait around on the other one flopping around until they got what they needed?  This is utter stupidity.  If it is a slow process then show me something now that is changing from one species to another.  There ought to be some proof of something out there.  Where are all these mysterious transitional forms?

Darwin theory made a lot more sense back in Darwin's day when everyone saw a living cell as something very simple. But today we know that a living cell is far from being simple.

Did all intermediary species simply die? Or are some of them still here while the majority were simply outcompeted by there better adapted decendants? Good questions. I'm pretty sure there are still some intermediate species out there, one thing that comes to mind is ring species. It's gets kinda tricky with them because at one end of the "ring" they are still genectically compatable but at the other end they are not. One thing to remember is that the time scale on speciation is out of necessity extraordinarily large and that most speciation events are probably dead ends.

It's pretty easy to come up with some plausible explanations for those, though I'm not a biologist and I'm sure that one could do a much better job. Some fish found it useful to jump out of the water at times, or to stay in places where they could be trapped when the tide went out. It's not a big jump from gills to gills that work when very wet to gills that work when somewhat less wet, etc. Each stage would be able to survive longer and longer periods of incomplete submergence. Alternately, perhaps the lung arose from something entirely different - many fish have gas bladders that can be filled with air to increase/decrease their density.

Likewise with birds. The thing to keep in mind is that evolution is a gradual process. You don't suddenly have a lizard with one wing and one arm, and half of its body covered in feathers. You have selection pressures for more pronounced webbing between the arm and the body (which they already had because it's useful near water) in tree-climbing lizards, and these slowly become the most important feature of their arms.

You're not going to see a whole lot of active speciation right now because most niches are filled. There were tremendous selective pressures for a species to arise that could breathe air when there were no predators on the land and when there was no competition for food on the land. Now, if there's a niche, it's filled most readily by a slight adaptation of an existing species. What niche did you have in mind that a species would need to undergo significant change to fill?

Edit: It seems to me that you're basically making an argument from irreducible complexity - you don't see how the in-between structures are evolutionarily favored.  There's a great deal of work on this and I don't recall a high-profile creationist mentioning something as obvious as lungs in the last few decades.  This is pretty settled, I believe - now they're fighting over bacterial flagellum, for which an evolutionary path has also been shown.

godf said: timmah said: Escherichia said: Is Ben Stein a creationist? I thought he was smarter than that. But wait, he's a comedian so he probably is.  Then again after seeing the trailer I'm not so sure.    Sorry, but comments like that really bother me as a creationist.  Cmon, seriously. Are you that immature?? You don't have to be stupid to believe in creationism, and I am truly bothered by comments like this. There are many brilliant people that believe in creationism, and many brilliant people that beileve in evolution. It's simply a difference in point of view. I concider myself to be of decent intelligence, and I'm a creationist. Your immature comment suggest, however, that I have to be unintelligent to believe in creation rather than evolution. On the contrary, there are many intelligent arguments to be made by creationists... DNA: When scientists look for proof of intelligent life in outer space, they point their radio telescopes at the sky and search for ANY repeating, logical 'code' in the radio waves. It could even be a simple code, but science says even that would be solid evidence for intelligent life, as nature cannot produce such codes on it's own. DNA, on the other hand is the most complex code known to man, how then, is that not concidered to indicate the possiblity of intelligence behind the code? The laws of physics: Newton's first law of motion: This states that 'an object at rest will stay at rest, and an object in motion will stay in motion UNLESS something acts upon it. The 'big bang' theory has absolutely no way of explaining this. It claims that an infinitely small, infinitely compact ball of matter exploded WITHOUT anything acting upon it, on it's own. This is completely contradictory to this well known law of physics. Newton's third law of motion: This states (in a nutshell) that For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for a 4000 pound load to be lifted, it would have to have a force of 4000 pounds or more pulling it upwards. Where, then is the action that caused the 'big bang' to happen?? Where did the infinite energy required to explode a stagnent object of infinite density that had been there for an infinite amount of time come from without some kind of 'creator' force?? Physics cannot answer this without the inclusion of an infinite amount of energy at one end of the formula to create the energy at the other. The law of entropy: This law is fully accepted in the scientific community, and states that nature takes a natural course from order to disorder (stars go from burning fission reactions to dead and lifeless over time) without the introduction of an outside force (such as life, a plant turning random molecules into it's cells, or humans turning dirt into bricks into buildings). By this law, it should be impossible for life (perfect order) to come from non-living nature (pure disorder, chaos). Entropy also states that all differences in energy will equalize themselves naturally over time, eventually becoming inert. (If you turn the heat off in your house at night, it will cool inside to the temperature outside). This makes the big bang impossible without a HUGE outside energy source that is completely independant. Since time is concidered to be infinite, the matter at the center of the 'big bang' would have to be there for an infinite amount of time before exploding. The law of entropy says that the mass would have been in complete equilibrium, no one part would have been at a different energy level/temperature than another, making a reaction or explosion impossible without outside force. This is just a brief synopsis of the many credible arguments that can be made for intelligent design. It's not possible to 'prove' either theory, because nobody (but God if you believe in him) was there to see & document what actually happened, but reasonable arguments can be made for either belief. But I'm apparantly stupid, just like all other 'creationists', so just keep thinking like you do. It's virtually impossible to have an intelligent, civil discussion with people who think of themselves or their group to be superior. /rant Edit: @Kasz216, read my post, then come back and tell me there's no 'proof' for my position. We're not just a bunch of blind morons who don't look at the evidence, we just see the evidence somewhat differently than you. The condescension is totally unneccesary. It is possible to have a high IQ and be a creationist. But it is stupid to believe in creationism, and the weakness of the arguments you bring up only serves to highlight this. re DNA being a code, and a code being a sign of intelligence. Scientists have already found repeating codes in radio waves coming from space: these were naturally occurring however, and not a sign of intelligence. This is just a confusion over words: we can call DNA a 'code', and the codes we come across in our day to day life are likely to have been created by an intelligence. But our labelling of DNA as a code indicates nothing about it's likely origins. Newtonian physics are really only an approximation as to what's really happening. But regardless, at the time of the big bang the laws of physics seem to have been operating very differently to how they do now, under massively different circumstances. The law of entropy? When we're orbiting the sun? The energy required for a single cell organism is the least problematic part of the origin of life. There is a very really possibility that you are quite stupid.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Completely out of line and totally uncalled for. I've not insulted you or called anyone stupid, because that's not debate, it's just rude. Personal insults are just low and immature.

This isn't my first time on the site, so don't think of me as a new poster you can just push around, I've just created a new account because I can't get into my old one, I do know how to use the 'report this post' button.

And yes, with a 148 IQ, a degree in Computer Science, a successfull 65K/year job as a senior Network Engineer before 30, A's in AP Biology, physics, pre-calc, and chemistry, I'm a complete idiot. Ya got me.

I'm seriosly done with this thread now.

kazadoom said: GotchayeA said: But what would distinguish these intermediary species? They'd simply appear to be yet another subspecies. And, in fact, it's my understanding that we have found groups of animals that could breed with another group, which could breed with another group, which could not breed with the first group. If your question is why we don't see a clear continuum of living species, then the answer is, again, natural selection. There isn't a continuum of environments, and the specialized species on either end are going to be more suitable for one sort of environment or another than the species in the middle. Evolution is supposed to be a very slow process - there's plenty of time for intermediary species to be reabsorbed. If this is true, then what happened from water to land, they just developed lungs over time, then flopped around on the ground until legs appeared over time? What did birds do when only one wing developed, wait around on the other one flopping around until they got what they needed? This is utter stupidity. If it is a slow process then show me something now that is changing from one species to another. There ought to be some proof of something out there. Where are all these mysterious transitional forms?

 Take a look at domestic wolves, yes I mean dogs. They haven't yet speciated from their anscestors and yet look at the genetic differences common in all dogs. That's like something in the range of 400,000 years of evolution right there and still no new species. It takes time. And no, fish did not flop on land until they evovled lung, that would have been a good way to go completely extinct. Nope they more than likely evovled lungs first and became obligate are breathers later and still later developed ample appendages to walk with, until finnally developing crude legs.  Sort of like this maybe, as oversimplified as it is. Anscetral Fish-->Goldfish-->Lungfish-->Salamander-->Primitive reptile-->Mammal  

 

 

timmah said: Wrong, YOU don't concider DNS as proof of ID, I and many others see it as evidence (not proof, evidence). If it's so 'natural' for physics to produce evolution of increasing complexity eventually leading to life, why can intelligent scientists not even create life ON PURPOSE in a perfectly prepared and controlled test environment. The 'primordial ooze' that supposedly begat life would have had countless minerals in it that would work against and destroy the fragile peptide chains needed to create life. If we (intelligence) can't even do it in a controlled environment, how did it happen in a chaotic, destructive environment?

I don't consider DNA proof of ID because it as a process continues on a day to day basis without any sort of intelligent intervention. Unless you would contend that bacteria qualify as intelligent life.

Now as for your primordial proposition, I would ask if you are claiming that the asbence of evidence is the evidence of absence? If that is the position you truly wish to take then you of course would be forced to concede the point that god doesn't exist. But we both know that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence and therefore mankind's inability to accomplish a task is in no way proof or disproof of anything. I don't remember anyone claiming that creating life from nothing was a common occurence or easy so your point is truly moot.

timmah said: Why the insults of my comprehension? And when you don't even truly get what I'm saying. You said that the biggest weakness is that the big bang can't be explained. That's exactly what I said in so many words. Where's the disagreement?? I understand what the big bang theory states, and I also understand that they cannot explain why it happened. The fact is that physics states that it shouldn't have happened without a huge amount of unexplained energy coming from an unknown source. You are willing to accept that you can't explain that, I simply believe that unexplained force was God. I don't deny the big bang at all, on the contrary, I believe it happened. I just believe God caused it.

First of all what I said was not an insult, an insult requires intent to hurt. My statement had intent, but not intent to hurt. I intended to point out that you lack comprehension, which you most certainly do.

Now, I highlighted something for you and I want to make a point of this because it is common with creationists. So look at the part in red, then look over my post line by line and tell me where I said it CAN'T be explained. Actually I said quite clearly there are actually 2 theories that are currently being tested that do explain it. But you either read what you wanted to or perhaps purposefully twisted what I said...I don't know for sure but it makes me wonder.

You are free to believe in whatever causal event you want, but I ask you this question: When/If scientist do eventually prove what caused the big bang will you decide to believe God did it anyways? And if so what is the point of debating this topic in the first place if your belief is determined before the proof is examined?

timmah said: Um... I understand that it relates to thermodynamics generally, and I have a good grasp of it. Also, I never said that the outside force 'had' to be alive, I just said "Such as life" as an EXAMPLE. It was clearly an example that was not exclusive to nonliving things. I was simply stating that the universe tends to go from varying energy (hot stars, cold outer space) and order (solar systems), to evenly distributed energy and lack of order (stars burnt out and solar systems destroyed). It is accepted that the universe will eventually 'burn out' as energy is equalized. This will be MANY billions of years in the future, but it is accepted that it will happen. My contention is simply that an outside force would be required to force a ball of mass in an equalized state to explode. You say this is unexplained, I believe that God did it. I have never said this is 'proof' of god, just evidence. It's also subjective as evidence always is.

I actually don't believe this is unexplained, I currently have a favorite among the two theories I mentioned above. I however don't aspouse that position as being the correct because I don't have proof of it.

But I would ask you a question. You have said to all of these things you claim I believe are unexplained that you believe god did it. Well how did he do it? Does he have a book where he wrote down the formulas and explained how he did it? The answer is of course no, he does not. So what you're really saying is that you choose a non-explaination. Which is your choice, but personally I want to understand how these things happen..not who did them.

timmah said: I have read up on these things. I don't disagree with the outside energy theory, in fact that is my point. I simply believe that God was the source for outside energy, the scientists don't have an answer as to what that energy was.

Wow, in the same responce that you claim to have read up on these topics you make a gross mistake in claiming that science has no explaination for this outside energy. Truly you are amazing. You are barely educated beyond the common person in these matters and wish to make proclaimations about these theories as if you were an expert. Please stop making a fool of yourself, you are uneducated on this topic.

If you've studied GR/SR which are required topics for anyone wishing to learn about BB Theory then you will recognize these:

What do these equations relate to and what are they used for?

timmah said: And please, there's no need to insult my comprehension of these subjects. I'm not trying to use them to say a 'big bang' never happened, just that it could not have happened on it's own and required an ouside force. This is accepted by scientists. I'm merely suggesting that an unexplainable outside force with near infinite or infinite power sounds a whole lot like God.

Again I'm not insulting your comprehension, I am questioning it. If you don't comprehend the topics you truly can't make an argument against them. You've made numerous faulty assumptions about basic principles and have used those faults you introduce to attack those theories as if they contained a weakness where there is none.

GotchayeA said: It's pretty easy to come up with some plausible explanations for those, though I'm not a biologist and I'm sure that one could do a much better job. Some fish found it useful to jump out of the water at times, or to stay in places where they could be trapped when the tide went out. It's not a big jump from gills to gills that work when very wet to gills that work when somewhat less wet, etc. Each stage would be able to survive longer and longer periods of incomplete submergence. Alternately, perhaps the lung arose from something entirely different - many fish have gas bladders that can be filled with air to increase/decrease their density....

The problem with what we know today is "Information" . For example we know that living chickens don't have teeth but they seem to have genes for them .Also chickens seem to have genes for both scales and feathers.

So even creationists believes in evolution , that is it's very possible for a scaled chicken can changed into a feathered one in a distance past just as easy as a caterpillar changes into a butterfly. ID of course believes in evolution.

The difference is a creationist and most ID sees the need of information (thus an intelligence) while Darwinist have to believe that large amounts of information can form randomly given enough time. Thus you have a "top- bottom" world view vs a "bottom-top" view.

Scenario....

Let's say that the polar caps completely melted tommorow, and there was no more land.

 

Would we, as human beings, sprout flippers and gills to keep up with natures changes.

 Enviornmental changes don't take thousands and millions of years like "evolution" or specialization is claimed to take. If a supervolcanoe were to erupt 10 minutes from now it would take only hours, or days, for it take have global ramifications that very few species could handle.

If you believe in evolution, then you belive we, as a species, would adapt or begin to physically change to live in our new enviornment that was forced on us by nature.

I do believe some species learn to adapt to their enviornment but I just don't buy the notion that fish felt the need to live on land, so they just "decided" to change and grow a pair of legs and lugs to do so.

 

I wanna be able to fly like Superman and swim like Aquaman, but I still don't have any gills and I still can't fly.....which is  a crying shame considering some of these gas prices here in Alabama.