Evolution vs. Creation vs. Intelligent Design - Page 11

freetibet · January 11th, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cuddles

unfortunately, once again, you're misjudging me. im not "convinced there is no god", i just dont care whether there is. and as i said before, ive had complete belief before and never once felt god. as well, im a firm believer in qi, or the vital life force of all things, and that, i HAVE felt, and sometimes in the conditions that you're talking about, only i know it's a part of me/all living things/not a god, or godlike thing. it's just the energy that resonates in all matter, which is much more prominent in living things, as more happens in living things. i would never chock something like that up to god.

nothing "made the dna do that", it does it because of how it's constructed. it doesnt need a guiding hand, silly goose.

and no, i dont think the fact that we can have a debate about it shows that it's a legitimate theory. now, if you're saying it should be allowed as an elective--maybe at a collegiate level, but not in highschool, im sorry, too many people would take it solely for the purpose of credits (and as well, it could NOT be counted as a science credit, if you did have it in highschool, as once again, too many people would take it just for the easy credit, because it's a really absurdly easy subject to take.) and what about unintelligent design? ive had debates about that, but you wouldnt want that taught in schools.

a believer in qi? wtf is that? lol
Sounds like you do believe in god, you just don't like to call it that. You said, "it's just the energy that resonates in all matter". That sounds like god to me...

I don't think it should be a college class, I think it should be a high school class to be optionally taught alongside evolution.

Isn't unintelligent design what a regular course in evolution is about? If so, then yes I do want that taught in schools. I just want ID to be an option as well. Since it is scientifically plausible.

Cuddles · January 11th, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by freetibet

a believer in qi? wtf is that? lol
Sounds like you do believe in god, you just don't like to call it that. You said, "it's just the energy that resonates in all matter". That sounds like god to me...

I don't think it should be a college class, I think it should be a high school class to be optionally taught alongside evolution.

Isn't unintelligent design what a regular course in evolution is about? If so, then yes I do want that taught in schools. I just want ID to be an option as well. Since it is scientifically plausible.

as to the first thing: qi is vital energy, not god, it's a chinese belief, which i almost thought you might have heard of, but i guess you dont know much about other beliefs. and it's not god, and never will be.it's an energy that comes from within, whereas GOD, is a deity which has some control over all of humanity/matter/whoever the fuck and whatever the fuck it wants.

no, unintelligent design is unintelligent design. fsmism. http://venganza.org for example. i believe if you're going to go so far as to say that ID is a valid theory, then UD should be counted as one as well, and taught just as well.

freetibet · January 11th, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cuddles

as to the first thing: qi is vital energy, not god, it's a chinese belief, which i almost thought you might have heard of, but i guess you dont know much about other beliefs. and it's not god, and never will be.it's an energy that comes from within, whereas GOD, is a deity which has some control over all of humanity/matter/whoever the fuck and whatever the fuck it wants.

no, unintelligent design is unintelligent design. fsmism. http://venganza.org for example. i believe if you're going to go so far as to say that ID is a valid theory, then UD should be counted as one as well, and taught just as well.

do you mean chi? That's not fair tricking me by using 'Q's. I study lots of religion, but I'll admit I haven't studied all of them. Neither have you though, so I don't know why you would bring that up...

I just saw a bunch of spaghetti... where is this supposed UD?

If i remember right though, its about a stupid creator accidentally making things evolve right? Which is not a valid theory, since you couldn't accidentally make things evolve. That is what ID is about, that it would take a guiding hand for micro-organisms to become as complex as they are now. A intelligent guiding hand too, since an unintelligent creator would not be capable of making things evolve to their current complexity.

edit*
if you're going to bring FSM into this, i think i'm entitled to this:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

I haven't seen it, but I heard its good.

Cuddles · January 11th, 2009

ben stein is an idiot.

as well, unintelligent design is just as valid a 'theory' as ID is.

freetibet · January 11th, 2009

Well whoever thought up the flying spaghetti monster was an idiot, so i figured i'd show an idiot from the other side, lol.

and no, UD is not just as valid of an opinion. I just showed you its some of its flaws and that it has no scientific base. It was just a joke made up to try and say ID has no scientific base when it actually does. That is why nobody is serious about UD but the number of ID supporters are steadily growing.

Cuddles · January 11th, 2009

STOP SAYING THINGS THAT HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC OR STATISTICAL BASIS, IT'S FUCKING OBNOXIOUS.

ud is in fact just as valid an opinion, it requires a creator, whether that creator created intentionally is all it brings into question. the references to the flying spaghetti monster, and such silly nonsense is just to reaffirm that they're trying to show how silly ID is. i did not see any flaws being shown. where did you do that?

freetibet · January 11th, 2009

Quote:

If i remember right though, its about a stupid creator accidentally making things evolve right? Which is not a valid theory, since you couldn't accidentally make things evolve. That is what ID is about, that it would take a guiding hand for micro-organisms to become as complex as they are now. A intelligent guiding hand too, since an unintelligent creator would not be capable of making things evolve to their current complexity.

That is what I said

here are some sites about ID:

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idmovement.htm
http://www.origins.org/articles/brad...enceofgod.html
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/ev...ent-design.htm

ArcaneMethods · January 12th, 2009

Personally I think there would have to be a creator. Everything just flows to smooth for it to happen by chance.

itismesaj · January 19th, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArcaneMethods

Personally I think there would have to be a creator. Everything just flows to smooth for it to happen by chance.

Why? Why, why, why? Why can't a logical series of events of events occur, stemming from cause and effect? Why does there have to be someone orchestrating it? Why can't the universe handle stuff like that on its own?

I am no atheist or agnosticist by any means, but to just ASSUME that the universe can't be perfect on its own is ridiculous.

freetibet · January 19th, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by itismesaj

Why can't the universe handle stuff like that on its own?

Because the universe handling things on its own would mean the universe could think. Which would mean the universe is God. So if the universe handled things itself, then there is a God.

View Poll Results: How did life come about?
Evolution	53	64.63%
Creation	15	18.29%
Intelligent Design	14	17.07%
Voters: 82. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)