Intelligent Design

But when asked if it should be taught in SCIENCE CLASS that number drops profoundly. Shit, even I think this is worth teaching in the humanities. But to dress it up like science? No way.

Then it begs the question: who created the creator? Be it God or aliens, it's obviously too complex to have evolved or appeared on it's own (according to your own logic). So something must have made it. But then, THAT creator would also have to be very complex...so who made it? This goes on forever.

ID explains nothing. Evolution can be applied to all life, alien or not, or could be adapted (perhaps aliens don't use DNA but something different)...it'd still be natural evolution. ID is like just inventing an explanation then trying to ignore/downplay it. "oh, Intelligent Design Theory isn't interested in the intelligent designer. Just that there is one, and it is the foundation and creator of all that exists."

Huh??? This is science?

 

Firstly, I asked you to prove the existance of God, not disprove evolution. You've failed at both here.

Secondly, missing links have been found all over the place. Not ALL of them have been found, but we find more and more each day. We didn't think in the past that neanderthols existed until we discovered that they did.

Evolution is a theory. It doesn't provide ALL the answers, it only suggests where and how the answers may be. Your theory of God also doesn't provide ALL the answers. In fact, it provides none, and patches them up with a fake "have faith" answer that is supposed to cover up all of it.

Science has proven what God's soothsayers have said in the past wrong over and over again. Science proved disease to not be a God-sent curse. Science proved the world was round. And, give science a few more million years (since it's only been around formally for several hundred) and I'm sure it will prove God wrong entirely.

Anyway, you say the second law of thermodynamics states "things get worse over time." That's positively absurd. The second law of thermodynamics has to do with entropy, not "getting worse." Sometimes, entropy is a GOOD thing.

For example, entropy is very closely related to the body thinning out poison in the blood. If that poison did not spread out, it's likely it would reach the heart in one clump, and you'd die instantly. Instead, it is spread out and tolerated until the liver can remove it all.

But again, your lame God theory simply says "have faith" when faced with being poisoned. It will never help you.

Fourthly, if you read Darwin's book, On the Origin of Species, it states, that species evolved from other species. NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE BOOK DOES IT STATE THAT EVERYTHING EVOLVED FROM A SINGLE BLOB. If you truly believe that, you should go back and read the book. Darwin only suggested that species turn into other species with time.

You claim that almost any mutations are harmful. The mutations that are not harmful are the ones that survive. Yes, this leads to much death among organisms, but this also leads to much diversity in the odd cases where life survives. Why do you think it took billions of years to form humans?

Fiftly, the Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The Big Bang is LIKEWISE a SEPARATE theory.

And lastly, evolution doesn't necessarily rely on spontaneous generation. But, even pretending that it did ... spontaneous generation has had propnents and opponents, but your claim that it was disproved long ago is complete bullshit. See this wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Quote: "Different hypotheses for modern abiogenetic processes are currently under debate with no clear frontrunner; see, for example, RNA world hypothesis, proteinoid, Miller experiment."

Quote: "Though modern concept of abiogenesis has been criticised by scientists such as Sir Fred Hoyle, Erwin Schrödinger and Hubert Yockey, it should be noted that despite the success these scientists have had in their respective fields of study, they do or did not have expertise in biology. Leading biologists point to fundamental assumptions in their arguments which have little to no bearing on abiogenesis theories or research. Francis Crick is an exception on this incomplete list, in that he has training in biology, despite starting off in physics."

Also, read this article:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

This article talks about how creationists who have repeatedly tried to perform calculations to disprove abiogenesis have done their calculations extremely wrong, even taking aim at disproving the wrong theories (not abiogenesis).

(And is it any wonder? A creationist trying to use science to defeat science. That's just dumb.)

 

*applause* Wonderful post, Hik.

 

Refuting nonsense is easy. =\ You'd have done the same.

 

People who think lack of knowledge = lack of evidence are flat earthers. Poor understanding, Hikaru and Libertine.

 

People who think LACK OF EVIDENCE = EVIDENCE FOR THE OPPOSING VIEWPOINT are morons. Poor Kharakov.

 

double post

 

That's why atheists are called stupid in the beginning of the masonic bible.

Your lack of knowledge of God does not equal lack of evidence for God.

 

Do you think I judge my life on what the "masonic bible" says? Get real.

Your lack of logic, common sense, intelligence, knowledge and wit is wearisome.

Bhaskar has already handed you your ass, wanna try for a second helping?

 

Yes, but not correctly. You strike out without thinking about what your words mean, or what the words of others mean. This indicates a certain level of stupidity.

Yours isn't (to me).

He didn't, and neither can you. God can, but won't, unless it's necessary.

 

you guys think it funny now poking fun at God and intelligent design but when you die, you will go to hell and Satan is gonna fuck you up the ass if you're straight man and if you're gay, then you will have to have sex with Mrs. Satan and if you're a straight woman, then you will have to have sex with Mrs. Satan and if you're a lesbian woman, you will have to have sex with Satan and if you're a bisexual non-omnisexual male or female, you will have to have sex with a goat and if you are a omnisexual male or female, then you have to be celibate

 

HAAAAHAHAHAH ...

Lucky for me I consider myself pansexual.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pansexual

Owned. :H

Edit: Sorry, the computer geek in me has to come out sometimes.

2nd Edit: Pansexuality includes openness to the idea of celibacy.

 

You're not even worth it, Kharakov. You're like that guy "Glass Joe" on the old Mike Tyson Punch-Out game.

It's not that we can't understand you, it's just that no one gives a fuck.

 

I'll just have sex with you. You seem to need to loosen up a little.

 

I doubt that that will be the case since Satan will be in a torment too. It's hard to get and eriction when you're in torment, but it'll be real bad, real real bad.

 

then you will be desperately wanting Mrs. Satan but not able to get an erection

 

That's why the devil invented viagra. You don't think that God would condone chemical-induced boners, do you?

Either way, I have enough control over myself to not desperately want anyone regardless.

And even if by some strange reason I was desperate and couldn't get an erection, there are other methods of stimulation.

Beyond that, don't forget ... temptation itself can get people off. I kind of like that idea now that I think about it ... :X

 

Lol, you couldn't even beat Glass Joe? You need to gain some skill.

I agree. It's that you do not yet have the wisdom to understand my words.

Which is why you respond to my posts.

 

I figured you'd fail to comprehend me.

I really tried to be as elementary for you as possible, seeing as to your mental handicap, but alas...you wandered into your nonsense world once more. Bhaskar had you pegged. I pity you.

I have decided to spare you from further embarrassment and put you on my ignore list. Congrats, you are the first and only.

 

One more way to keep his head in the sand.

When the sand is blown away, this foul bird will look upon God.