Intelligent Design vs Evolution

[_ASSASSIN_]

you just changed topics?

dunno, maybe it's just an example of disorder makes order

[_ASSASSIN_]

gonna unfollow, wish I had the time, but I have other things to do
bai

[whatthe_fuzz]

dunno, maybe it's just an example of disorder makes order

philosophically not physically

[whatthe_fuzz]

gonna unfollow, wish I had the time, but I have other things to do

bai

have a good one dude! thanks for sharing your thoughts with me :D

[Canoas]

ahh but macroevolution lacks proof. it states that two species are similar thus they came from the same ancestor. show me one crossover species. there are supposedly MILLIONS due to the wide species gap we have today. 

Lacks proof? What the hell are you talking about?

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/pics.html#mammals

 

Check that. That shows several fossils from transitions such as land mammals to whales and dolphins or dinosaurs to birds. It wasn't even hard to find, it's the first page, after wikipedia's, on a google search. It's quite fascinating tbh, I didn't know we had this many fossile records. Look at this one, it's pretty much half-way between fish and tetrapod (4 legged animal): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthostega

 

So, to anyone who claims we don't have fossel records to prove macroevolution, I say learn how to google. It's both easy and effective.

[mr moose]

according to evolution the giraffe came from the horse

????  You are joking???

 

Giraffes evolved from the same ancestor as deer and antelope, not from horses. Horses evolved from another creature altogether.

[LAwLz]

evolution is not law. it is only theoretical. more science points towards a intelligent creator than is does toward random chance, evolutionary adaptation that darwin spoke of, or even evolution than is taught in school today. 

Gravity is also a theory. I would love to see you backing up your claim that "more science points towards a intelligent creator than is does toward random chance" because it sounds like, excuse my wording but, bullshit.

 

 

Atheists - Looks at science and comes to a rational and logical conclusion based on the evidence presented. If new solid science is presented, the previous conclusion might change.

Christians - Cherry pick certain parts of the Bible and says that anyone who does not follow their beliefs will be tortured for all eternity, and ignores science when it does not align with their personal belief system. They also think that they have all the answers to everything, because a several thousand year book says so.

[Canoas]

according to evolution the giraffe came from the horse

No, it most certainly did not. Horses and giraffes have a common ancestor, but giraffes are in no way descended from horses just like humans are not descended from gorillas.

[Volbet]

have a good one dude! thanks for sharing your thoughts with me :D

I will also call it the night. It's neally 01:00 am here and I have work later today. You can take this as a victory, a draw or a defeat. I don't really care. But note this: I intend to leave this debat as a friend and I hope you will do the same. I hope we can still work together to make this the friendliest place on the internet, no matter what disagrements we might have. If you want to debat this further, feel free to send me a PM or mention me in a post in this thread.

All hail Hypnotoad"

[Canoas]

I already reported this topic, the dude is clearly a troll. Seriously, every single claim he makes can be typed in google and you'll very easily get an answer. Is giraffe descended from horses? Type "giraffe horse" in google and the first 10 links will be proof that it is not. Are there any transitional fossils? Type "transitional fossils" and the first 10 links will all be filled with a ton of info on it. Everything he says in this topic can be put onto google and it'll just show he's wrong. So, either he's on a tech forum and somehow doesn't know how to use google or he's a troll. He's also been claiming that the giraffe comes from horses even though every single person in this topic has told him that it does not.

[mr moose]

I already reported this topic, the dude is clearly a troll. Seriously, every single claim he makes can be typed in google and you'll very easily get an answer. Is giraffe descended from horses? Type "giraffe horse" in google and the first 10 links will be proof that it is not. Are there any transitional fossils? Type "transitional fossils" and the first 10 links will all be filled with a ton of info on it. Everything he says in this topic can be put onto google and it'll just show he's wrong. So, either he's on a tech forum and somehow doesn't know how to use google or he's a troll. He's also been claiming that the giraffe comes from horses even though every single person in this topic has told him that it does not.

He has a hidden agenda but lacks the scientific knowledge to bend the conversion around to enlighten us with his conclusions.

[FireFox]

You might want to change your "For" categories to "Against".

Also, some people maintain that you can have both an intelligent design(er) and evolution - arguably, the Intelligent Designer brought about evolution. My personal belief is that there is always the possibility that there could be an intelligent designer - who are we to say there cannot be? However, the "evidence" does seem to point toward an argument for evolution as to explain how species develop and how we, as humans, got to where we are today. I don't think evolution provides all the answers as i don't believe science has all  the answers; but then again neither does an Intelligent designer.

 

Very well put mate, I like it

 

Also Intelligent design and evolution, couldn't that come under the same category? the hand is an evolutionary masterpiece for example but could it also be an intelligent design?

[whatthe_fuzz]

Lacks proof? What the hell are you talking about?

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/pics.html#mammals

 

Check that. That shows several fossils from transitions such as land mammals to whales and dolphins or dinosaurs to birds. It wasn't even hard to find, it's the first page, after wikipedia's, on a google search. It's quite fascinating tbh, I didn't know we had this many fossile records. Look at this one, it's pretty much half-way between fish and tetrapod (4 legged animal): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthostega

 

So, to anyone who claims we don't have fossel records to prove macroevolution, I say learn how to google. It's both easy and effective.

 

these are all partial? how is we can find species much older than these supposed transitional fossil such as a dinosaur yet we lack the simple full fossilization of a primate-man hypbrid. the four legged fish is simply the front of a skull...

[Canoas]

these are all partial? how is we can find species much older than these supposed transitional fossil such as a dinosaur yet we lack the simple full fossilization of a primate-man hypbrid. the four legged fish is simply the front of a skull...

So you're blind? Is that it? When you click that link the primate-human transition is right at the top. Those are the first transitional fossils on the damn page, yet you're unable to read "Apes - Humans" in bold huge letters

[Dave :)]

I have read nearlly everything Aquinas have ever written, and yes, he is one of the most influential phlosophers of all time. That said, he was also a product of his time. Aquinas asserts alot of his stuff from a posistion of pure faith. At his time religion was an explanation. And even he noted the logical fallacies he was commiting in several of his works

 

Completely agree, i'm not trying to say Aquinas was right - he was far from it as you have pointed out, merely trying to show how his influence dictates alot of our underlying belief systems today, and calling him a "guy"doesn't give him as much credit as he really deserves.

 

As a general FYI for the thread: Please keep it civil guys, we're trying to have a mature debate here - not a slogging match between what you and others believe / don't believe in. If someone has a different opinion to you - then so be it; but let's not insult them yeah?

[whatthe_fuzz]

????  You are joking???

 

Giraffes evolved from the same ancestor as deer and antelope, not from horses. Horses evolved from another creature altogether.

 

giraffes supposedly evolved from a deer like creature which lead to an older ancestor which the horse came from. so yes they are closer to deer but nonetheless came from a common ancestor as the horse. the deer and giraffe split differently with the horse. either way it doesnt clarify the evolution of the giraffes heart. the heart must be substantially larger in order to get blood to the head. it has a unique system of valves to do this. adaptations would NOT be this precise. 

[Canoas]

giraffes supposedly evolved from a deer like creature which lead to an older ancestor which the horse came from. so yes they are closer to deer but nonetheless came from a common ancestor as the horse. the deer and giraffe split differently with the horse. either way it doesnt clarify the evolution of the giraffes heart. the heart must be substantially larger in order to get blood to the head. it has a unique system of valves to do this. adaptations would NOT be this precise. 

Then google it and you'll have your answer.

[whatthe_fuzz]

Gravity is also a theory. I would love to see you backing up your claim that "more science points towards a intelligent creator than is does toward random chance" because it sounds like, excuse my wording but, bullshit.

 

 

Atheists - Looks at science and comes to a rational and logical conclusion based on the evidence presented. If new solid science is presented, the previous conclusion might change.

Christians - Cherry pick certain parts of the Bible and says that anyone who does not follow their beliefs will be tortured for all eternity, and ignores science when it does not align with their personal belief system. They also think that they have all the answers to everything, because a several thousand year book says so.

 

will you actually present a logical and evidence based argument or will you continue to pick randomly on Christianity. please refrain from insulting others beliefs. 

[mr moose]

giraffes supposedly evolved from a deer like creature which lead to an older ancestor which the horse came from. so yes they are closer to deer but nonetheless came from a common ancestor as the horse. the deer and giraffe split differently with the horse. either way it doesnt clarify the evolution of the giraffes heart. the heart must be substantially larger in order to get blood to the head. it has a unique system of valves to do this. adaptations would NOT be this precise. 

 

Now you are just changing your story, do you understand the theory of evolution?  it explains how all this happens.

[whatthe_fuzz]

So you're blind? Is that it? When you click that link the primate-human transition is right at the top. Those are the first transitional fossils on the damn page, yet you're unable to read "Apes - Humans" in bold huge letters

 

no i clearly saw it. i clicked on the image and saw an artists idea of what the total fossil would look like. 

[whatthe_fuzz]

Then google it and you'll have your answer.

 

i have googled it. its physically impossible for a giraffes heart to exist in a smaller being. it is also impossible for the giraffe to exist with a smaller heart. therefor the giraffe MUST have always had that size heart. which is impossible because the size is to large to exist in a deer

[whatthe_fuzz]

Now you are just changing your story, do you understand the theory of evolution?  it explains how all this happens.

 

i completely understand it. in the most simple form its adaptations over time to make a new species. problem is some species cannot exist without special adaptations. 

[mr moose]

Here you are, start reading:

 

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=scientific+articles+biological+evolution&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1

 

These will help you understand the theory of evolution.

[mr moose]

i have googled it. its physically impossible for a giraffes heart to exist in a smaller being. it is also impossible for the giraffe to exist with a smaller heart. therefor the giraffe MUST have always had that size heart. which is impossible because the size is to large to exist in a deer

 

No, and I refer you to post 123 for the answer.

[Canoas]

no i clearly saw it. i clicked on the image and saw an artists idea of what the total fossil would look like. 

You did? Weird, because when I click on the link I see a bunch of bones from each separate species between out common ancestor with some of the other great apes and our current species.

 

 

i have googled it. its physically impossible for a giraffes heart to exist in a smaller being. it is also impossible for the giraffe to exist with a smaller heart. therefor the giraffe MUST have always had that size heart. which is impossible because the size is to large to exist in a deer

Or maybe, just maybe, the heart changed along with the rest of the animal? It's physically impossible for an adult's heart to exist in a baby and for an adult to exist with a baby's heart, yet somehow babies grow up along with their hearts!

 

Anyway, I'm out. This guys is clearly a troll and the topic will just get locked.