Intelligent design vs evolution.

[Dulon]

[Ragnarok]

[ZucaTreangeli]

[Rayadragon]

I was actually more under the impression that Dulon has about natural selection versus evolution. Evolution was an offshoot of natural selection, but they don't necissarily amount to the same thing. Here's what I remember of it, and as a side note, it's been a while since I last went through this so I could be completly wrong.

"Natural selection" is pretty much how Dulon outlined it: some sort of selective pressure causes one phenotype to become more desireable/survivable than the other (so black instead of white on the soot covered trees). All it states is that the environment acts on a given phenotype (natural) in such a way that it affects the chance of that phenotype reproducing (selection). The outgrowth of this is that with enough selective pressure, you could have speciation. From what I remember, Darwin's original theory had very little to do with the idea that man evolved from apes, although he did later support this hypothesis.

Evolution (from what I concider it to be) is what Ragnarok and Zuca have been saying, that man has ancesteral species links to apes.

And yeah, needless to say I'm in favor of evolution . ID is not a science because its depended on a "God-of-the-Gaps" concept. When you can't explain it with science, it must then be explained with "God did it" and not "we haven't been able to determine that yet."
_________________
"People who are easily offended need to be offended more often."
"Do on to others as you would have others do on to you."

[Ragnarok]

[ZucaTreangeli]

And in details, ID says "look, this object is so complex that if you take any part out, it wont work, thus it wont have formed through evolution"..

But hey, then real scientists figure out how to actually explain every part of the object and the ID's go

Okay, so that object wasnt complex enough, we move on to this object, now this one is a sign of a designer, eat that !!!
_________________
Avatar by Vanodalv. Wooh

[SilverDragon]

I am yet another supporter of evolution: If anyone is going to argue creationism they're going to have a rather difficult time.
_________________
*All things change in time,
the good and the bad*

[Tiamat]

I'm up for it.
Yeah, I've just been to the Way of the Master website. I feel unclean. But I'll do it since nobody else will-- I'll present creationism (excuse me, Intelligent Design)'s greatest, or at least most obnoxious, argument.

These are my notes from the video. I've edited out most of my comments and now it's a bit more sincere...

The introduction: "Evolutionism" defies logic and is based on blind faith.

1. Evolutionists will tell you that there was nothing--no light or energy or space or anything, and then there was a big bang, and everything just appeared out of it, all the birds, elephants, lions, giraffes, et cetera. How ludicrous does that sound?

2. Evolutionists use the language of speculation, which of course means that they don't actually know what they're talking about and evolution is just guesswork.

3. The theory of evolution basically teaches that every animal supposedly transformed from a single-celled creature millions of years ago. So, every animal basically transformed into another kind of animal over time. The problem is that there is a huge gap in the fossil record--no transitional fossils seem to exist. So, you can't prove evolution ever happened. It's the Missing Link-- and there's have to be thousands of them.

4. What about those drawings of apes turning into men (like this one)? Well, those are not real proof. The transitional forms simply don't exist.
a) Lucy: most scientists now agree that Lucy was just the skeleton of a three-foot-tall chimpanzee.
b) The Nebraska Man was really a skeleton totally created by scientists on the evidence of one tooth, which was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.
c) Piltdown Man's jawbone turned out to be that of a modern ape.
d) Neanderthal Man was just an old man who suffered from arthritis.

5. Human beings are very similar to apes. This does not prove that man evoolved from apes, just as the modern jet plane and the by plane are similar, but one didn't evolve from the other--they just have a common designer, who used a similar blueprint for each one. Furthermore, primates are not as intelligent as human beings--you can't take them out to lunch, after all. They can't form musical groups or governments. This is not because they're a less evolved version of us, but because they're a different species.

6. Charled Darwin, the father of evolution who wrote Origin of Species and the Descent of Man, was sexist ("the chief difference is shown by man attaining a higher eminence in whatever he takes up than women can attain"--he says that man has evolved beyond women) and racist (he believed that black people were less evolved than whites.

7. All of these scientists have bad things to say about evolution:
a) Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard scientist: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms persists as the trade secret of paleontology."
b) Ernest Chain, Nobel Prizewinner: "I would rather believe in fairies than such wild speculation."
c) Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote the forward to the Origin of Species' 100th anniversary edition: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe in it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."

And finally...
Kirk Cameron (one of the WotM guys): "When you learn how to speak to a person's conscience and circumnavigate the intellect, the subject of evolution disappears."


Well, rebut away! Or, go and find some better ID evidence.


(Edited for horrible typos.)
_________________
Hi, again.