Agent. Mulder Posted August 20, 2007 #1 Share Posted August 20, 2007 this vids only like 9min but makes some nice points about evolution. its against creationism though, so some people may get a little upset. but still a good watch see what you think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amalgamut Posted August 30, 2007 #2 Share Posted August 30, 2007 My only question here is that if there was no form of Intelligent Design whatsoever then why wouldnt the course of evolution just make every living land creature a plant? Wouldnt it be easier to grow with the gravitational pull of the earth than away from it? Take man for instance. Man has no roots in the soil. It almost seems to me that every land walker has defied certain aspects of evolution. I suppose this could be due to sea creatures and the buoyancy of the water; eventually throwing out specific creatures to the land. But still...why wouldnt these creatures that came from the sea turn somewhat plantlike with some sort with a root system? I know there is more to it than this but its just a thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogsHead Posted August 30, 2007 #3 Share Posted August 30, 2007 My only question here is that if there was no form of Intelligent Design whatsoever then why wouldnt the course of evolution just make every living land creature a plant? Wouldnt it be easier to grow with the gravitational pull of the earth than away from it? Take man for instance. Man has no roots in the soil. It almost seems to me that every land walker has defied certain aspects of evolution. I suppose this could be due to sea creatures and the buoyancy of the water; eventually throwing out specific creatures to the land. But still...why wouldnt these creatures that came from the sea turn somewhat plantlike with some sort with a root system? I know there is more to it than this but its just a thought... Evolution teaches us that life will expand to fill every available niche of possiblity. Gravity is a force evenly affecting all life, plants don't have it easier than any other form of life - in fact if you follow your logic to it's conclusion, the only form of life to evolve would be microbial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkingWithFire Posted August 30, 2007 #4 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Hmmmm...I thought this same video was in another thread about a week ago. They don't really say much worth considering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent. Mulder Posted August 30, 2007 Author #5 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Hmmmm...I thought this same video was in another thread about a week ago. They don't really say much worth considering. yes....of coures they dont Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogsHead Posted August 30, 2007 #6 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Hmmmm...I thought this same video was in another thread about a week ago. They don't really say much worth considering. There is much in this clip that is worth watching, not the least of which is the Executive Director of the National Physical Science consortium expressing the fear that views such as the one quoted here will eventually drive the U.S. into a new dark age of knowledge such as we see in Iran and other extreme fundementally religious societies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkingWithFire Posted August 30, 2007 #7 Share Posted August 30, 2007 There is much in this clip that is worth watching, not the least of which is the Executive Director of the National Physical Science consortium expressing the fear that views such as the one quoted here will eventually drive the U.S. into a new dark age of knowledge such as we see in Iran and other extreme fundementally religious societies. IMO, this video is about as meaningful as reading the Sunday comics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camlax Posted August 30, 2007 #8 Share Posted August 30, 2007 IMO, this video is about as meaningful as reading the Sunday comics. You could have said the bible to get your point across, that being a work of fiction and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkingWithFire Posted August 30, 2007 #9 Share Posted August 30, 2007 You could have said the bible to get your point across, that being a work of fiction and all. Apparently you don't understand the difference between fiction and non-fiction. The Bible is non-fiction. You might want to check your local library. Sometimes they offer special classes to help people understand literacy skills like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camlax Posted August 30, 2007 #10 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Apparently you don't understand the difference between fiction and non-fiction. The Bible is non-fiction. You might want to check your local library. Sometimes they offer special classes to help people understand literacy skills like this. Oh sorry I must have been confused, Cause when the bible talks about mythical creatures and whatnot I assumed it was fictional, you know like harry potter and lord of the rings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkingWithFire Posted August 30, 2007 #11 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Oh sorry I must have been confused, Cause when the bible talks about mythical creatures and whatnot I assumed it was fictional, you know like harry potter and lord of the rings. Mythical creatures? What mythical creatures would those be? Also, please give me your evidence that they're mythical. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlsmith Posted August 30, 2007 #12 Share Posted August 30, 2007 I find it humorous that 'facts are not interesting, facts are a dime a dozen, facts are observation'. 'Theories are exciting, they give us the why'. I find this especially interesting since Science by definition is not concerned with the 'why' and is defined by 'observation'. I would conclude therefore, that these so-called observers (scientists) have progressed to the point of prophets, and are merely giving their religious views... JS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Greenman Posted August 30, 2007 #13 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Excellent video Mulder, think you. Just a question WWF, do you favor the US becoming a theocracy like Iran? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Paranoid Android Posted August 30, 2007 #14 Share Posted August 30, 2007 (edited) Just a quick note to all parties in this debate (ie, camlax and WwF) to refrain from personal attacks. thank you Edited August 30, 2007 by Paranoid Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkingWithFire Posted August 30, 2007 #15 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Excellent video Mulder, think you. Just a question WWF, do you favor the US becoming a theocracy like Iran? It doesn't matter. The US government is what it is and it will probably get much worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Paranoid Android Posted August 30, 2007 #16 Share Posted August 30, 2007 (edited) Well, I finished watching the video. Interesting, though nothing extremely new to me. The biggest criticism I have for this is that it is all coming from the one side. I am reminded of a Proverb - The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. (Proverbs 18:17). While the video did make a compelling case, without an opposing view, I got the impression that it was a bunch of people with the same view and outlook slapping each other on the back saying "right on, brother/sister". I'm sure if you saw the arguments from the other side, they would also make compelling cases. But that aside, i agree with the general consensus that Intelligent Design is for the chapel, not the classroom. However, just because one doesn't belong in the classroom doesn't mean that one is correct and the other is incorrect. There is nothing in any video so far that has led me to the conclusion that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive concepts. Edited August 30, 2007 by Paranoid Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cimber Posted August 30, 2007 #17 Share Posted August 30, 2007 (edited) But that aside, i agree with the general consensus that Intelligent Design is for the chapel, not the classroom. However, just because one doesn't belong in the classroom doesn't mean that one is correct and the other is incorrect. There is nothing in any video so far that has led me to the conclusion that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive concepts. I see it differently. I have yet to see a creationist create a compelling argument for it's beliefs. I am interested to know what you and others think they are because maybe I have yet to hear them. Every single case a creationist makes has been refuted. I have met other biologists who said evolution and creationism aren't mutually exclusive, and in my opinion, they are taking the conservative approach. They don't want to make enemies in the classroom or lab. Intelligent Design didn't occur because if it did, everything would have been more intelligently conceived. We wouldn't have one hole for breathing and eating, we would have two to decrease death rates of choking for example. A human engineer is smarter than this supposed creator. Edited August 30, 2007 by Cimber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fullywired Posted August 30, 2007 #18 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Well, I finished watching the video. Interesting, though nothing extremely new to me. The biggest criticism I have for this is that it is all coming from the one side. I am reminded of a Proverb - The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. (Proverbs 18:17). While the video did make a compelling case, without an opposing view, I got the impression that it was a bunch of people with the same view and outlook slapping each other on the back saying "right on, brother/sister". I'm sure if you saw the arguments from the other side, they would also make compelling cases. But that aside, i agree with the general consensus that Intelligent Design is for the chapel, not the classroom. However, just because one doesn't belong in the classroom doesn't mean that one is correct and the other is incorrect. There is nothing in any video so far that has led me to the conclusion that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive concepts. I saw no backslapping ,verbally or otherwise ,are you reading into it the things you want to see? fullywired Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkingWithFire Posted August 30, 2007 #19 Share Posted August 30, 2007 I see it differently. I have yet to see a creationist create a compelling argument for it's beliefs. I am interested to know what you and others think they are because maybe I have yet to hear them. Every single case a creationist makes has been refuted. I have met other biologists who said evolution and creationism aren't mutually exclusive, and in my opinion, they are taking the conservative approach. They don't want to make enemies in the classroom or lab. Intelligent Design didn't occur because if it did, everything would have been more intelligently conceived. We wouldn't have one hole for breathing and eating, we would have two to decrease death rates of choking for example. A human engineer is smarter than this supposed creator. I have yet to see an evolutionist make a compelling argument for his/her beliefs. Every case an evolutionist has made has been refuted. Your argument about intelligent design not occurring because we could be more "intelligently conceived" is lacking, because it doesn't matter what we see as more intelligent. God obviously created us the way He wanted us to be created, which includes certain limitations. If you want to decrease the potential of choking to death, use some common sense and chew your food better. Also, don't shove your fingers up your nose while keeping your mouth closed. I know we were created because I know the Creator personally. He has spoken to me verbally and He communicates with me quite often. From what I've gotten to know of the Creator is that He is different in some ways than I expected Him to be. He is loving, yet He is also wrathful if you are doing the wrong thing. Everything He does is perfect, whether we see it as perfect or not. It is not our choice and He has made that clear to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amalgamut Posted August 30, 2007 #20 Share Posted August 30, 2007 I saw no backslapping ,verbally or otherwise ,are you reading into it the things you want to see? fullywired Not that I give a **** either way. But you can tell that some of these guys think their "male parts" are bigger than most others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent. Mulder Posted August 30, 2007 Author #21 Share Posted August 30, 2007 I have yet to see an evolutionist make a compelling argument for his/her beliefs. Every case an evolutionist has made has been refuted. Your argument about intelligent design not occurring because we could be more "intelligently conceived" is lacking, because it doesn't matter what we see as more intelligent. God obviously created us the way He wanted us to be created, which includes certain limitations. If you want to decrease the potential of choking to death, use some common sense and chew your food better. Also, don't shove your fingers up your nose while keeping your mouth closed. I know we were created because I know the Creator personally. He has spoken to me verbally and He communicates with me quite often. From what I've gotten to know of the Creator is that He is different in some ways than I expected Him to be. He is loving, yet He is also wrathful if you are doing the wrong thing. Everything He does is perfect, whether we see it as perfect or not. It is not our choice and He has made that clear to me. w...t...f...... they dont have to make a compelling argument (well, they already have plenty of times. but w/e). do you know why they dont? because they have proof that it happened. that theyre theory is (or 'belief' as you put it for w/e reason) correct, proven by science. unlike the belief of creationism. my oh my Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cradle of Fish Posted August 30, 2007 #22 Share Posted August 30, 2007 I have yet to see an evolutionist make a compelling argument for his/her beliefs. Every case an evolutionist has made has been refuted. Refuted by Ken Hovind? A Fundamentalist and Fraud who stretches the facts to convince christians that they're right. I know we were created because I know the Creator personally. I had an imaginary friend when I was 5 who I 'knew' personally until I grew out of needing him. See, you really dont know anything and the fact that you're so sure of yourself and the voices in your head tells me that you need to see a doctor. Which is what any rational person would do. And even if you're right, voices in your head does not convince anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkingWithFire Posted August 30, 2007 #23 Share Posted August 30, 2007 w...t...f...... they dont have to make a compelling argument (well, they already have plenty of times. but w/e). do you know why they dont? because they have proof that it happened. that theyre theory is (or 'belief' as you put it for w/e reason) correct, proven by science. unlike the belief of creationism. my oh my What science claims is too changes quite often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkingWithFire Posted August 30, 2007 #24 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Refuted by Ken Hovind? A Fundamentalist and Fraud who stretches the facts to convince christians that they're right. I had an imaginary friend when I was 5 who I 'knew' personally until I grew out of needing him. See, you really dont know anything and the fact that you're so sure of yourself and the voices in your head tells me that you need to see a doctor. Which is what any rational person would do. And even if you're right, voices in your head does not convince anyone else. Nobody mentioned Ken Hovind in this thread. At least not that I'm aware of. I don't have "voices in my head". I have had God speak to me verbally in the presence of others. Unfortunately you can not understand because you choose not to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Greenman Posted August 30, 2007 #25 Share Posted August 30, 2007 (edited) If you could take a creationist back in time and let a T-rex eat him he would be deigning it all the way down. I like the guy who said we were poorly engineered and he couldn't believe a God couldn't do as well as a human engineer. I know I would do with an engineering up date. Edited August 30, 2007 by Darkwind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now