Anybody Want to Argue Evolution vs "Intelligent Design"?

I guess I just don't like the word stronger. A snake that is born blue will have harder time hiding from predators than a snake that is born camouflage.

I will also state that just having a parent that was a professional doesn’t mean the child will necessarily be. That is where the randomness comes in. Brian Griese isn’t a good quarterback even though his father is. So, there are elements that are different and, judging by all of the professional athletes which didn’t have professional athletes as parents, the randomness is where everything is laid out. (Another example being Marvel Wynne, father in MLB, son in MLS.)

 

I tend to agree with the folks that hold that God and Science aren't mutually exclusive. I think searching for the truth through science will ultimately bring us closer to God, not further away. I think fear and ignorance on the part of religious leaders has kept science out of religion over the years. I really don't see the need.

 

Read and weep bitches....

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

 

You're putting us on, right?

 

Isn't that what Moses said when he introduced the 10 Commandments?

 

If there's a website for it, then it must be true.

For example:
The Flat Earth Society
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Enter the Flat Earth Society. For over five hundred years humanity has believed the "round Earth" teachings of Efimovich and his followers. But all hope is not lost. For through all that time, a small but diligent band of individuals have preserved the knowledge of our planet's true shape. And now, after centuries in the Dark Ages, we believe that mankind as a whole is once again ready to embrace the truth that has forever been the Flat Earth Society. Using whatever means are deemed necessary and relying heavily on a callous disregard for the lives and well-being of our members, we have slowly but steadily been spreading the news.

But why? Why do we say the Earth is flat, when the vast majority says otherwise? Because we know the truth.

 

And for the love of God -- please stop trying to use the "gravity is still referred to as a theory"

Oh really?

http://physics.about.com/od/classicalmechanics/a/gravity.htm

And from Wikipedia....

Gravity and astronomy
Main article: Gravity (astronomy)
The discovery and application of Newton's law of gravity accounts for the detailed information we have about the planets in our solar system, the mass of the Sun, the distance to stars, quasars and even the theory of dark matter. Although we have not traveled to all the planets nor to the Sun, we know their masses. These masses are obtained by applying the laws of gravity to the measured characteristics of the orbit. In space an object maintains its orbit because of the force of gravity acting upon it. Planets orbit stars, stars orbit galactic centers, galaxies orbit a center of mass in clusters, and clusters orbit in superclusters. The force of gravity is proportional to the mass of an object and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the objects.



In other words -- that comparison -- between gravity and evolution is silly.

And further, the "kinks" were a decent English pop rock band but they certainly have not been "worked out" in terms of evolution, despite what the self-appointed intellectual giants on this thread would love for us to believe

 

The Flat Earth People have been soldiering on for centuries:

Rightly wishing to dispel notions regarding the alleged citrus-like shape of our planet, the Church was able to either silence or execute nearly all the fanatics. But a small handful remained, continuing to spread their blasphemous speeches and to promote their heretical ideals involving the very center of the universe. One of their number, who called himself Grigori Efimovich, would later be known to the rest of the world as Christopher Columbus. Using an elaborate setup involving hundreds of mirrors and a few burlap sacks, he was able to create an illusion so convincing that it was actually believed he had sailed around the entire planet and landed in the West Indies. As we now know, he did not. What Efimovich actually did was sail across the Atlantic Ocean to a previously undiscovered continent, North America, and even then only to a small island off the coast. It took him several years more even to "discover" his blunder and claim it as a " . . . new world". But the damage had already been done, and mankind entered into what we now call its "Dark Ages" . . . .

 

I’m not taking the word of a mechanical engineer over legitimate scientists, biologists and archeologists. Nothing in his resume says that he has studied evolution.

I will also point out that you keep jumping on evolution for the word theory. How about Brown’s Hydroplate Theory. I guess then there must be holes in it and it must not be factual, right?

The rest of the text is simple conjecture. There is no real science involved. He shows maps and then claims that they mean something, when in fact they could very well mean something else. Did you honestly read the link you provided? If so, I feel rather embarrassed for you when linking such an absurd piece.

 

Pastor can't. It's all evolution, nothing from Genesis.

 

Are legitimate scientists, biologists and archeologists only those you subscribe to?

Science is always evolving. It's not concrete.

 

At no point with biology evolve to the point where a mechanical engineer have the expertise to address it with only a mechanical engineering degree.

I wouldn't turn to a dentist for a heart transplant. I would turn to a biologist to build my house. I won't turn to a mechanical engineer to debunk evolution, especially when the engineer is so planely a quack.