Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Fish were the first to have jaws , we have jaws so we evolved from fish .
You can go to other details like a spine or two eyes but the first thing that strikes you immediately are jaws.
Animals are a rarity in the tree of life , animals with jaws are even more rare.

Dogs due to domestication are much different than wolves in psychology and behavior but genetically are almost identical , i am not a biologist but from what i read they are as similar as we are to our archaic homo sapient ancestors (this means same species).

 

That's rich, attempting to portray an understanding of Evolution as a religion...you do this because you know religion or "faith" is a failed logical argument to make. It's just another dishonest attempt on your part marginalize the Science behind the theory of Evolution.

How about you come to the table with some actual facts or evidence that disproves Evolution rather than your current dishonest, disingenuous strategy.

 

Still waiting for you to post someone relevant. Can you do that?...can you support your claim?

Second, let's assume for a moment that Science is 100% wrong. You would still have to prove your mythical sky fairy exists...ya know, provide evidence positive. Something I know you cannot do.

 

I am somewhat surprised that any atheist takes that approach any more since it's long been known that while nobody can prove the existence of an omnipotent and omnipresent God also nobody can prove that He does not exist. Can't be done in either direction. Atheists arguing against religion should know that by now. It's not as if its been kept a secret.

 

Much of what theists claim is an attack on Religion/God, is actually rebuttal of attacks on Evolution/Realities made by those attempting to prove their beliefs as fact based. There are of course instances of someone poking holes in the Biblical Bubble to get a reaction....but this is not the majority of such debates.

 

Who was it who said ‘those that don’t have faith (lol) in evolution don’t understand it? (or words to that effect). Anyway that statement is a fine example of a logical fallacy. Such fallacies are virulent in this forum and they are more often than not posted by our secular members. I don’t think there is a cure for such personal attacks. Someone not agreeing with some aspects of a bad theory or elements of a good theory only means that they are endowed with common sense and perhaps courage. The latter is especially true when its evident by their past replies they do understand the subject at hand and know a personal attack when they see it.

Lastly in a statement or fallacy like the one referenced, the word ‘evolution’ is far too vague. The member may of meant evolution of the species by natural selection, or alleged elements of the latter such as macroevolution or microevolution etc. Next time please be specific.


reva

 

Speaking of logical fallacies and lack of specifics, you just stated that not agreeing with theories is simply common sense.
My experience is the more devout the poster to their beliefs, whatever they may be, the more likely they are to indulge in logical fallacies and the less capable of recognizing them.

 

No I said " Someone not agreeing with some aspects of a bad theory or elements of a good theory only means that they are endowed with common sense and perhaps courage. The latter is especially true when its evident by their past replies they do understand the subject at hand and know a personal attack when they see it."

That is a bit different. Perhaps you did not notice the edit?

reva

 

No, I saw your original post before you realized how stupid what you said really was. It is available to see in my post where I quoted you.

 

Where are the moderators when we need them? Do you think everyone that edits a post is stupid?

reva

 

So, even after your personal slur, I will ask you again do is your assesment of my reply the same as before the edit?

reva

 

What about it?

You do not understand evolution, do you?

 

There are no good and bad theories , back in early 1900's scientists believed that primitive homo species had large brain capacity and some archaic features like big teeth , this was NOT based in scientific data (there wasn't any to speak of ) and as a result the theory was crippled as evidence start coming out.

Evolution theory is a puzzle where we miss several pieces but all the new evidence paleontologists bring to the light support it .

If a theist claim that his/her god created the first replicated cells i won't mind because this is not part of evolution but the concept where humans came into life "as they are" now is ridiculous . 35% of people are born with one or more wisdom teeth missing and more than 80% have one or all of them removed during their lifetime , obviously the initial "design" was too wrong to be divine.

 

Which post did you request something relevant ? I will be happy to however culling the personal attacks from the real questions takes time, where are the mods when we need them? In any case direct me to the number and if its a legitimate reply i.e. no personal slurs against myself or my religion I will be happy to validate anything I post.

Your second bit of wisdom contains a disrespect to my religion so it will not receive my attention as by the nature of your post you reveal your true motive and its not anything nearly as respectable as debate, and that dear member harms you far more than I.

reva

 

I didn't call you stupid. I pointed out what you posted definitely was. Perhaps that is why you saw the need for the edit.

 

Is that another logically fallacious statement ? Well, it probably would be if it contained a bit more information to make it a complete ‘dressing down’ of a member. Again if someone does not agree with a scientific theory, discovery, etc. (REMEMBER PILTDOWN MAN! REMEMBER NEBRASKA MAN?)or even a supposed fact (PILTDOWN MAN for example) that does not mean they do not understand it. It simply means they disagree with the claims of science in part or in whole. (did I reference the 40 year scientific fact that piltdown man existed ?).... Do we get it now? I know gravity exists and I know time exists and how science describes both. However I may not agree the scientific assessment of time or gravity. That does not mean I do not understand the current definition or explanation that science bestows upon it. One only has to look at sciences track record to see that believing its explanations statements and facts may be tantamount of believing a FRAUD LIE or MISTAKE. Indeed I submit that believing science is 100% infallible is the earmark of a fool*.

* ...Not that anyone here has said science theory is 100% infallible. However to read their comments one would be excused for thinking the seculars think that evolution of the species by natural selection is an immutable fact. Eh?



reva

 

What personal slur? Was not what you posted undeniably stupid? Didn't that motivate your changing it?
As to the edited version, common sense is rarely useful as an intellectual tool. It is often wrong and the force behind much myth and faulty beliefs. Better to use reason and logic and research to confront poor or misguided theoretical suppositions. Common sense once told explorers not to venture too far or they would tip off the edge of the earth.
So yes, "...again do..."[sic] my assessment would change.

 

Then post something that relevant to proving your position. Attempting to undermine the science as a way to marginalize the theory of Evolution only goes to make you look ignorant.

First, you're not "dear" to me as you lack critical thinking skills. Second, you waffle because you are unable to support the claim of ANY deity so, how is your mythical sky fairy any more real then Xenu from Scientology or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I know the reason, do you?

 

Explain how the Duckbill Platypus is not suited for it's environment? What did Evolution get wrong?

 

Good comment. I think Log. forgot his coffee. A better way of putting that might have been to ask, if ToE is wrong, then please present a theory that does give a consistent explanation for all the data.

 

Here is a perfect example of a completely unsupported statement that you announce as if it has some basis in fact. It is a broad brush generalization that, while making you feel good, simply illustrates that the more devout one is regarding their views the more likely they are to be confident of fallacies they have no data to support.
Or maybe you think this is just "common sense"?

 

So, do you believe Leprechauns exist? If not, why?...and how is that logic any different when applying to a supernatural being?

Point being, god or ANY supernatural being IS NOT THE NULL HYPOTHESIS. There needs to be actual evidence, and perceived evidence against the Theory of Evolution or Big Bang IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR a supernatural being.

Oh, and I'm fully caffeinated this morning, thank you.

 

Which of course begs the question - why would anyone who understands this believe? What possible way does one have to make any statement about something for which there can be absolutely no evidence in principle? It's as if we're asked to believe in an invisible, intangible force for which absolutely no evidence could possibly be provided. Why should we believe? What possible mechanism that allows us to search for the truth can be applied here to any degree?

Appealing to decades-old hoaxes and mistakes that were quickly corrected and not widely accepted is pointless when talking about the modern theory of evolution. In the case of evolution, there is essentially nobody on the creationist side who is not either ignorant or dishonest or both.

It is, for all intents and purposes, an immutable fact. Evolution is a quality of life itself, with mountains of evidence supporting the current theory. There was a time where reasonable doubt existed. That time is not now; at this point, the theory of evolution has been validated beyond reasonable doubt.