Report, edit, etc...Posted by DrunkenWrestler on 2004-09-11 at 17:17:39
This proves intelligent design theory! These organisms are just too complex to have evolved.
http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designed_organisms/
http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designed_organisms/
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Helios on 2004-09-11 at 18:12:14
This doesnt "prove" anything. These people seem to make a lot of assumptions, the biggest one being that there is no way that these organisms could have evolved without some divine influence.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2004-09-11 at 19:11:12
Yea besides on a little thing like that, none of those people are credited scientists that i saw, so I don't have very much faith in their beliefs.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2004-09-11 at 19:27:30
Sounds like a load of rubbish to me.
Also - simply slandering your opponents isn't the correct way to go about arguing...like this guy seems to be doing.
Also - simply slandering your opponents isn't the correct way to go about arguing...like this guy seems to be doing.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by ShadowBrood on 2004-09-11 at 20:46:52
omg thats the sikest 
ever... and proves nothing except how to gross me out.
ever... and proves nothing except how to gross me out.Report, edit, etc...Posted by Nozomu on 2004-09-11 at 21:03:20
Hilarious. The sad part is that the author takes it so seriously. What he doesn't take into account is that no matter how many arguments he puts forth to refute evolution, his intelligent design theory cannot be supported by a the elimination of the theory of evolution. He also doesn't take into account the acquisition of several dominant characteristics at once by a species that made it much more likely to propogate In time any members of the species lacking those traits would no longer procreate or would acquire the dominant traits through propogation with another member of the species with those traits (think along the lines of humans being assimilated by the Borg on Star Trek, for a slightly innacurate but funny analogy).
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DrunkenWrestler on 2004-09-11 at 23:43:01
Oh you closed minded evilutionist brainwashed by a religion that's based totally on faith. Intelligent design is the truth and anyone who doesn't believe it can burn in Hell. Why do you chose to deny your benevolent creator? What do you have to lose from honoring him?
Intelligent design definatly complies with the law of parsimony and requires no ad hoc rationalizations to scientific ignorance. How can such grotesque organ systems evolve together to form basic functions, such as all the organs required for a Vandellia cirrhosa to successfully swim up the ureathra of a man and lodge it's intelligently designed state-of-the-art sharp spines to anchor itself so securely, that the only resort is surgical removal.
Now how complex is that? Without the proper organs to swim and seek openings to a prey's body, and without the spines to anchor itself in, the Vandellia cirrhosa simply can not survive. Evolving only half of these body parts would be totally useless, they all need to work together in unison for one basic function. Evolution can not explain the complexity of the development of such organ systems. Sure, throughout time small mutations can occur so evolution says, but what are the chances that an entire organ system for the Sacculina Carcini to evolve the the proper organs and instincts to drill an enterence into a prey crab, castrate its peniis, and take over its nervous system so that the crab cares for the parasites as if it were it's own? The chance of such grotesque organ systems assembling together by a single mutation has about the same chance as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a guillotine by chance. Evolution can't explain such complexity, but intelligent design can. So no, intelligent design is definatly not an argument from ignorance.
In conclusion, if you were walking in a forest, and found an iron mace, do you suppose nature put it together by blind chance? Or an intelligent designer? Also, even if we've never seen this intelligent designer, you've never seen the maker to a MA41 Assult Rifle, does that mean that there wasn't a creator to that rifle? Of course there was, as there is a creator to this universe, as witnessed in such fine creations such as the Babyrousa babyrussa, which grows its tusk until it pierces the area between its skull, and the male Panthero Leo, which has all the intelligently designed functions to eat its step children.
I hope this has been informative and that you who are blind, do see the truth. Science generates lies just because the sucessful research they find brings them revenue. Don't listen to anything they say, they are simply paid to support their theories.
Before I end this post, a few additional questions to the evilutionist.
1. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
2. Evolution contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Energy and entropy is always decreasing on this earth, so how can more complex organisms arise from less complex ones?
3. Does it bother you at all to believe you're just an animal? That the entire point of life it just to out-compete and subvert your neighbor so you can survive, or that there's no point at all?
4. How can the first single-cell organisms possibly come from nothing? Evolution does not explain how the first life formed, it simply assumes it exist.
Thank you,
DrunkenWrestler
Intelligent design definatly complies with the law of parsimony and requires no ad hoc rationalizations to scientific ignorance. How can such grotesque organ systems evolve together to form basic functions, such as all the organs required for a Vandellia cirrhosa to successfully swim up the ureathra of a man and lodge it's intelligently designed state-of-the-art sharp spines to anchor itself so securely, that the only resort is surgical removal.
Now how complex is that? Without the proper organs to swim and seek openings to a prey's body, and without the spines to anchor itself in, the Vandellia cirrhosa simply can not survive. Evolving only half of these body parts would be totally useless, they all need to work together in unison for one basic function. Evolution can not explain the complexity of the development of such organ systems. Sure, throughout time small mutations can occur so evolution says, but what are the chances that an entire organ system for the Sacculina Carcini to evolve the the proper organs and instincts to drill an enterence into a prey crab, castrate its peniis, and take over its nervous system so that the crab cares for the parasites as if it were it's own? The chance of such grotesque organ systems assembling together by a single mutation has about the same chance as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a guillotine by chance. Evolution can't explain such complexity, but intelligent design can. So no, intelligent design is definatly not an argument from ignorance.
In conclusion, if you were walking in a forest, and found an iron mace, do you suppose nature put it together by blind chance? Or an intelligent designer? Also, even if we've never seen this intelligent designer, you've never seen the maker to a MA41 Assult Rifle, does that mean that there wasn't a creator to that rifle? Of course there was, as there is a creator to this universe, as witnessed in such fine creations such as the Babyrousa babyrussa, which grows its tusk until it pierces the area between its skull, and the male Panthero Leo, which has all the intelligently designed functions to eat its step children.
I hope this has been informative and that you who are blind, do see the truth. Science generates lies just because the sucessful research they find brings them revenue. Don't listen to anything they say, they are simply paid to support their theories.
Before I end this post, a few additional questions to the evilutionist.
1. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
2. Evolution contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Energy and entropy is always decreasing on this earth, so how can more complex organisms arise from less complex ones?
3. Does it bother you at all to believe you're just an animal? That the entire point of life it just to out-compete and subvert your neighbor so you can survive, or that there's no point at all?
4. How can the first single-cell organisms possibly come from nothing? Evolution does not explain how the first life formed, it simply assumes it exist.
Thank you,
DrunkenWrestler
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mune'R0x on 2004-09-12 at 00:08:57
[Center]Oooooh. Isn't this an interesting discussion.
1.) Humans were a more intelligent strain of monkey that branched off. And that probably repeated until we got the old cavemen people which turned into us over a long period of time.
2.) The organisms adapted to their surroundings better and developed different things.
3.) Didn't I pretty much state that over in the gay marriage thread?
4.) Ever heard the theory that when our solar system was created, the Earth was a very crappy, hot, dry place that was pretty much just rock and dirt. (That was after the sun had blasted away all the gasses on Earth to the outer four planets.) Eventually comets had crashed into Earth, with their water that had amino acids in them, and started life. Then it kept going. Fun stuff.
That's what I have to say.
P.S.
Those Guinea worms sound really fun.[/center]
QUOTE
Before I end this post, a few questions to the evilutionist.
1. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
2. Evolution contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Energy and entropy is always decreasing on this earth, so how can more complex organisms arise from less complex ones?
3. Does it bother you at all to believe you're just an animal? That the entire point of life it just to out-compete and subvert your neighbor so you can survive, or that there's no point at all?
4. How can the first single-cell organisms possibly come from nothing?
1. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
2. Evolution contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Energy and entropy is always decreasing on this earth, so how can more complex organisms arise from less complex ones?
3. Does it bother you at all to believe you're just an animal? That the entire point of life it just to out-compete and subvert your neighbor so you can survive, or that there's no point at all?
4. How can the first single-cell organisms possibly come from nothing?
1.) Humans were a more intelligent strain of monkey that branched off. And that probably repeated until we got the old cavemen people which turned into us over a long period of time.
2.) The organisms adapted to their surroundings better and developed different things.
3.) Didn't I pretty much state that over in the gay marriage thread?
4.) Ever heard the theory that when our solar system was created, the Earth was a very crappy, hot, dry place that was pretty much just rock and dirt. (That was after the sun had blasted away all the gasses on Earth to the outer four planets.) Eventually comets had crashed into Earth, with their water that had amino acids in them, and started life. Then it kept going. Fun stuff.
That's what I have to say.
P.S.
Those Guinea worms sound really fun.[/center]
Report, edit, etc...Posted by @:@ on 2004-09-12 at 00:35:56
It's impossible.
Let's say you take a frog and put it in a blender and chop it up.
All of it's DNA is there, all of its parts/cells are there, even if you nuked it, gave it as much time as you want, it would never turn back into a frog.
Evolutionist say, cells came together to make something to evolve into another something. Yet we can't do it now with all the cells in once place?
Let's say you take a frog and put it in a blender and chop it up.
All of it's DNA is there, all of its parts/cells are there, even if you nuked it, gave it as much time as you want, it would never turn back into a frog.
Evolutionist say, cells came together to make something to evolve into another something. Yet we can't do it now with all the cells in once place?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mune'R0x on 2004-09-12 at 00:48:37
[Center]Well, one thing about that. The frog you just murdered is dead. When organisms evolve, they are alive.[/center]
Report, edit, etc...Posted by @:@ on 2004-09-12 at 01:38:29
The evolution process had to start somewhere.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DrunkenWrestler on 2004-09-12 at 10:34:57
Yeah @:@! How can something come from nothing? How did space, time, and matter suddenly appear? Something had to start it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2004-09-12 at 13:10:52
i think the best way to prove evolution would be to actually have witnessed it
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Nozomu on 2004-09-12 at 13:17:35
QUOTE(DrunkenWrestler @ Sep 11 2004, 11:43 PM)
1. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
2. Evolution contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Energy and entropy is always decreasing on this earth, so how can more complex organisms arise from less complex ones?
3. Does it bother you at all to believe you're just an animal? That the entire point of life it just to out-compete and subvert your neighbor so you can survive, or that there's no point at all?
4. How can the first single-cell organisms possibly come from nothing? Evolution does not explain how the first life formed, it simply assumes it exist.
[right][snapback]71321[/snapback][/right]
2. Evolution contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Energy and entropy is always decreasing on this earth, so how can more complex organisms arise from less complex ones?
3. Does it bother you at all to believe you're just an animal? That the entire point of life it just to out-compete and subvert your neighbor so you can survive, or that there's no point at all?
4. How can the first single-cell organisms possibly come from nothing? Evolution does not explain how the first life formed, it simply assumes it exist.
[right][snapback]71321[/snapback][/right]
Okay, let's get started.
1. First of all, this question is ignorant of the basic idea of human evolution. Humans did not come from monkeys in general, but we share a common ancestor with some monkeys (particularly chimpanzees). This means that our evoltuionary paths diverged somehow. Maybe the chimps took to the trees for food while we stayed on the ground or something. Of course there are monkeys, but they're not the same monkeys that existed millions of years ago. They have evolved, as well. I hope that questioon was a joke, Drunk
.2. Okay, let's say that thermodynamics relates to the evolutionary process for a second. I guess the connection would be that since organisms use energy to live, and since energy is always decreasing, life should always be decreasing or something like that? Well, even with energy and entropy constantly decreasing there is still such an abundance of both on Earth that we haven't yet arrived at the planet's resource limit. Also, evolution uses no more energy than the regular procreation and survival of a species because the change is so gradual. And maybe the change has become less gradual over time, who knows? That would certainly fit with Thermodynamics Law #2.
3. Doesn't bother me at all. I long ago accepted the futility of my existence and decided to enjoy my life as much as possible before I croak. That's why I'm aiming for the lucrative job of being a professional guitarist instead of bagging groceries. I just want to do something that I can enjoy.
4. Okay, here's the part that makes theists so mad - assume for a second that the thing you guys call a soul or a spirit (whatever it is that separates us from animals) doesn't exist. Really, there is no difference between living and dead matter - the atoms that make up our bodies are still atoms whether or not we are alive or dead. The ideas of life and death are just terms we use to help us simplify our relations with other bodies, be they human or animal. So who is to say when someone or something is really "alive"? I'm in favor of discarding that term, because it holds no meaning for me. Okay, that said, the first "organisms" (probably not considered organisms at all from the theist's point of view) were probably strings of protiens that were fused together randomly with the help of chemical reactions caused by outside forces (lightning strikes on the primordial ooze, intense heat and pressure, etc.). These protiens also bonded together to form rudimentary organisms, maybe even lacking cell walls. Over the next few billions of years, the chemical structure of some of these protiens perhaps proved more resistant to decay and separation, and so propagated sheerly by likelihood of survival (the first instance of evolution and Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest"). Over many more millions of years, the organims gradually became more and more complex, first forming cell walls (because organisms that had formed them were more likely to survive and not be broken apart by chemical reactions) and then moving on to become multi-celled organisms. And there you have it. The change is so gradual that traits are not developed instantaneously but are acquired slowly over time with much competition for survival. I hope that that answers your question. It certainly answers it for me much better than just stating that "God did it".
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DrunkenWrestler on 2004-09-13 at 16:54:37
Nozomu, you are closed minded, ignorant, and unwilling to accept ideas that contradict your own. I bet you get that a lot from people (theist, coincidently).
The bible says that God created the world in six days, and since science contradicts the bible, science is automatically wrong. How can anything contradict the bible? The bible is truth, so all other holy books are wrong too. They've all been decived by Satan and I hope they find their way to God before it's too late. I know that my religion has just as little proof as any other, but mine is the one you should believe.
Nozomu, open your mind! You're refuting these arguments because deep down inside you KNOW there is a god, and you're just denying it!
The bible says that God created the world in six days, and since science contradicts the bible, science is automatically wrong. How can anything contradict the bible? The bible is truth, so all other holy books are wrong too. They've all been decived by Satan and I hope they find their way to God before it's too late. I know that my religion has just as little proof as any other, but mine is the one you should believe.
Nozomu, open your mind! You're refuting these arguments because deep down inside you KNOW there is a god, and you're just denying it!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by T.s.u.k.a.s.a on 2004-09-13 at 17:20:28
That dosn't prove anything, only grosses me out. Those organisms all could have evolved. Nature is incredible. Nature is more advanced than technology in many cases. Life forms all started as bacteria. Those creatures are parasites. They probably grew in an area with not many plants but many large creatures. They then evolved their parasitic traits. I never heard of any of those scientists. Although I am a creationist, I must say that you have proven nothing. The Old Testament is all true. The New Testament is about 60% accurate. The new testament was modified and cut to fit the liking of the Vatican. The original version of the New Testament is deep inside a vault in Vatican City. The Old Testament is true because it can be used to predict the future. I got that from watching "The Bible Code: Predicting Armaggedon" and from Dan Brown's book: "Angels and Demons". I believe that we were created by a higher (not on drugs) power. If we came from monkeys, why are monkeys still here? If a species evolves, it evolves because it needs to. When it does, all of the species evolves. I don't see why monkeys would need to evolve. Take humans out of the picture, and monkeys are the most advanced land animal.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2004-09-13 at 17:42:20
Old Testament is true? Let's see how far in I have to go to disprove that one.
Try Genesis, Chapter 1. Yeah, the first one.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Contradictions: God creates night and day. God creates the sun, moon, and stars. In that order. Does the light and darkness that tells us what time it is not come from those light sources, then?
Try Genesis, Chapter 1. Yeah, the first one.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Contradictions: God creates night and day. God creates the sun, moon, and stars. In that order. Does the light and darkness that tells us what time it is not come from those light sources, then?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mune'R0x on 2004-09-13 at 18:23:29
[Center]Weird... It's as if the Bible says that the Earth is the center of the universe.[/center]
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Nozomu on 2004-09-13 at 19:49:45
No, Drunk, you're close-minded for only believing in the theistic view! If I were religious I'd tell you to go to Hell, but instead I'll tell you to go to oblivion. I know I'm right.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by ShadowBrood on 2004-09-13 at 19:58:18
old testamate got the holy grail right. when i get a new keyboard and stop using onscreen one ill tell ya guys who she is. keep this in mind. da vincis art.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DrunkenWrestler on 2004-09-13 at 21:46:30
Meh, I guess no one understood that this entire thread is a joke, including the article in the link. Just in case you guys missed it, if there is a creator to this world, he is very sadistic. An intelligently design catfish that swims up your ass or pee hole and lodges spines? Now there's a benevolent god!
If by faith you mean belief with the lack of evidence, then no, evolution doesn't qualify as a religion. C'mon DrunkenWrestler, you're better than that!
Appealing to fear/force, always a good way to canvass. Kind of like those home security system commericals that show burglers about to enter a house with kids in it, and then the commercials says "You could be next! So buy our burgler alarms!"
The sadistic creator to dracula ants that tear the head of their own larva and wasp that eat cicadas alive is benevolent? We haven't even ascertained him, so we can't really deny his existence, we just don't believe in him.
It's the religion lottery, kids! Choose from many different religions that all have the same amount of proof to support their religion - that is none, but choose the wrong one and a god might send you to Hell because you didn't pick his! Ah, there's that sadistic god again!
It's an argument from ignorance itself, DrunkenWrestler. You don't know how these organisms were created - therefore it was an intelligent designer. DrunkenWrestler, you're smarter than that!
Man, those are really nasty organisms. The intelligent designer sure has a sadistic sense of humor. First of all DrunkenWrestler, you fail to account for natural selection and how the function of organs can change as evolution proceeds, which would greatly enhance the chance for grotesque organisms such as the Vandellia cirrhosa to evolve into what it is today. It didn't happen all in one mutation, but a series of indirect ones. An organism that gets a slight benefical mutation will survive better to pass on its genes, increasing the survival of the speices.
Think of it this way, a room full of monkeys with typewritters hit random keys have a very low chance of producing the string, "AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs." They would get random strings like "krnfuenbkifnsdiksbjkmtkjs." That would be your analogy. However, taking natural selection into account, if millions of monkeys are hitting random keys, eventually, one of them will get the "All" in "AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs." That "All" becomes selected and now an entire population has the "All" part in the string "AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs." More random keys will be hit, and after a long time, another monkey will luckily hit the "Your" part of the string. Again, the trait becomes selected, and the entire population has two good mutations so far. The process will continue until something as complex as "AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs" is developed after millions of years.
Click here to learn how something as complex as the eye can evolve by chance (and natural selection).
Geez, DrunkenWrestler, don't you understand evolution theory? Besides, the eye has a jury-rigged design that would be evidence for a unintelligent designer. There are blood vessels that block light receptors and create a blind spot in our eye. Now, what camera designer would lay the wires inside the lens, and not outside of them?
But intelligent design is an argument from ignorance. Besides, other theories such as the ideal that the entire universe is just a by-product of your imagination, or the universe just suddenly appeared five minutes ago with even our memories of earlier events can explain this phenomena. Absence of evidence is not evidence for the absent.
We already know there are a creator to these weapons because we've seen someone make them before. We've never ascertained the alleged creator to life.
Ugh, more grotesque creatures!
Ad hominems are not valid debate tatics. It is always important to address the claim, and not the person making the claim. Einstein was probably paid a lot of money for some of his theories, but does the money falsify his theories?
ADDITION:
If we came from dirt, why is there still dirt? We didn't evolve from today's monkeys, but old world monkeys that belonging to the primate family. The monkeys we see today are distant cousins.
The second law of thermodynamics only applies in closed systems. We are not in a closed system, we are constantly recieving energy from the sun. Are you saying that it would be impossible for a woman to have a baby because that would cause entropy to go from disorder to order?
Wouldn't intelligent design violate the second law of thermodynamics too by your logic? How would order arrive from disorder if energy is always decreasing?
Evolution is a biological process, not a moral code or a philosophy. Next question?
Intelligent design doesn't explain the orgin of the intelligent designer, it simply assumes it exist. You are right that evolution does not explain how the first life formed. You are conflating it with abiogenesis though. Scientist do not know how life originated, but they do not need to know how in order to explain the phenomena that is evolution. Scientist don't know how cells came to be, but they don't need to know to explain cell theory.
Again evolution does not deal with the orgin of life. It explains how it got diverse. Space, time and matter, aren't even a part of evolution theory. Geez, you are dumb, DrunkenWrestler.
QUOTE(DrunkenWrestler @ Sep 11 2004, 10:43 PM)
Oh you closed minded evilutionist brainwashed by a religion that's based totally on faith.
If by faith you mean belief with the lack of evidence, then no, evolution doesn't qualify as a religion. C'mon DrunkenWrestler, you're better than that!
QUOTE
Intelligent design is the truth and anyone who doesn't believe it can burn in Hell.
Appealing to fear/force, always a good way to canvass. Kind of like those home security system commericals that show burglers about to enter a house with kids in it, and then the commercials says "You could be next! So buy our burgler alarms!"
QUOTE
Why do you chose to deny your benevolent creator?
The sadistic creator to dracula ants that tear the head of their own larva and wasp that eat cicadas alive is benevolent? We haven't even ascertained him, so we can't really deny his existence, we just don't believe in him.
QUOTE
What do you have to lose from honoring him?
It's the religion lottery, kids! Choose from many different religions that all have the same amount of proof to support their religion - that is none, but choose the wrong one and a god might send you to Hell because you didn't pick his! Ah, there's that sadistic god again!
QUOTE
Intelligent design definatly complies with the law of parsimony and requires no ad hoc rationalizations to scientific ignorance.
It's an argument from ignorance itself, DrunkenWrestler. You don't know how these organisms were created - therefore it was an intelligent designer. DrunkenWrestler, you're smarter than that!
QUOTE
How can such grotesque organ systems evolve together to form basic functions, such as all the organs required for a Vandellia cirrhosa to successfully swim up the ureathra of a man and lodge it's intelligently designed state-of-the-art sharp spines to anchor itself so securely, that the only resort is surgical removal.
Now how complex is that? Without the proper organs to swim and seek openings to a prey's body, and without the spines to anchor itself in, the Vandellia cirrhosa simply can not survive. Evolving only half of these body parts would be totally useless, they all need to work together in unison for one basic function. Evolution can not explain the complexity of the development of such organ systems. Sure, throughout time small mutations can occur so evolution says, but what are the chances that an entire organ system for the Sacculina Carcini to evolve the the proper organs and instincts to drill an enterence into a prey crab, castrate its peniis, and take over its nervous system so that the crab cares for the parasites as if it were it's own? The chance of such grotesque organ systems assembling together by a single mutation has about the same chance as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a guillotine by chance.
Now how complex is that? Without the proper organs to swim and seek openings to a prey's body, and without the spines to anchor itself in, the Vandellia cirrhosa simply can not survive. Evolving only half of these body parts would be totally useless, they all need to work together in unison for one basic function. Evolution can not explain the complexity of the development of such organ systems. Sure, throughout time small mutations can occur so evolution says, but what are the chances that an entire organ system for the Sacculina Carcini to evolve the the proper organs and instincts to drill an enterence into a prey crab, castrate its peniis, and take over its nervous system so that the crab cares for the parasites as if it were it's own? The chance of such grotesque organ systems assembling together by a single mutation has about the same chance as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a guillotine by chance.
Man, those are really nasty organisms. The intelligent designer sure has a sadistic sense of humor. First of all DrunkenWrestler, you fail to account for natural selection and how the function of organs can change as evolution proceeds, which would greatly enhance the chance for grotesque organisms such as the Vandellia cirrhosa to evolve into what it is today. It didn't happen all in one mutation, but a series of indirect ones. An organism that gets a slight benefical mutation will survive better to pass on its genes, increasing the survival of the speices.
Think of it this way, a room full of monkeys with typewritters hit random keys have a very low chance of producing the string, "AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs." They would get random strings like "krnfuenbkifnsdiksbjkmtkjs." That would be your analogy. However, taking natural selection into account, if millions of monkeys are hitting random keys, eventually, one of them will get the "All" in "AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs." That "All" becomes selected and now an entire population has the "All" part in the string "AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs." More random keys will be hit, and after a long time, another monkey will luckily hit the "Your" part of the string. Again, the trait becomes selected, and the entire population has two good mutations so far. The process will continue until something as complex as "AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs" is developed after millions of years.
Click here to learn how something as complex as the eye can evolve by chance (and natural selection).
Geez, DrunkenWrestler, don't you understand evolution theory? Besides, the eye has a jury-rigged design that would be evidence for a unintelligent designer. There are blood vessels that block light receptors and create a blind spot in our eye. Now, what camera designer would lay the wires inside the lens, and not outside of them?
QUOTE
Evolution can't explain such complexity, but intelligent design can. So no, intelligent design is definatly not an argument from ignorance.
But intelligent design is an argument from ignorance. Besides, other theories such as the ideal that the entire universe is just a by-product of your imagination, or the universe just suddenly appeared five minutes ago with even our memories of earlier events can explain this phenomena. Absence of evidence is not evidence for the absent.
QUOTE
In conclusion, if you were walking in a forest, and found an iron mace, do you suppose nature put it together by blind chance? Or an intelligent designer? Also, even if we've never seen this intelligent designer, you've never seen the maker to a MA41 Assult Rifle, does that mean that there wasn't a creator to that rifle?
We already know there are a creator to these weapons because we've seen someone make them before. We've never ascertained the alleged creator to life.
QUOTE
Of course there was, as there is a creator to this universe, as witnessed in such fine creations such as the Babyrousa babyrussa, which grows its tusk until it pierces the area between its skull, and the male Panthero Leo, which has all the intelligently designed functions to eat its step children.
Ugh, more grotesque creatures!
QUOTE
Science generates lies just because the sucessful research they find brings them revenue. Don't listen to anything they say, they are simply paid to support their theories.
Ad hominems are not valid debate tatics. It is always important to address the claim, and not the person making the claim. Einstein was probably paid a lot of money for some of his theories, but does the money falsify his theories?
ADDITION:
QUOTE
1. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
If we came from dirt, why is there still dirt? We didn't evolve from today's monkeys, but old world monkeys that belonging to the primate family. The monkeys we see today are distant cousins.
QUOTE
2. Evolution contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Energy and entropy is always decreasing on this earth, so how can more complex organisms arise from less complex ones?
The second law of thermodynamics only applies in closed systems. We are not in a closed system, we are constantly recieving energy from the sun. Are you saying that it would be impossible for a woman to have a baby because that would cause entropy to go from disorder to order?
Wouldn't intelligent design violate the second law of thermodynamics too by your logic? How would order arrive from disorder if energy is always decreasing?
QUOTE
3. Does it bother you at all to believe you're just an animal? That the entire point of life it just to out-compete and subvert your neighbor so you can survive, or that there's no point at all?
Evolution is a biological process, not a moral code or a philosophy. Next question?
QUOTE
4. How can the first single-cell organisms possibly come from nothing? Evolution does not explain how the first life formed, it simply assumes it exist.
Intelligent design doesn't explain the orgin of the intelligent designer, it simply assumes it exist. You are right that evolution does not explain how the first life formed. You are conflating it with abiogenesis though. Scientist do not know how life originated, but they do not need to know how in order to explain the phenomena that is evolution. Scientist don't know how cells came to be, but they don't need to know to explain cell theory.
QUOTE
How can something come from nothing? How did space, time, and matter suddenly appear? Something had to start it.
Again evolution does not deal with the orgin of life. It explains how it got diverse. Space, time and matter, aren't even a part of evolution theory. Geez, you are dumb, DrunkenWrestler.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by EzDay281 on 2004-09-13 at 22:06:08
I'm too tired to read the whole thing, or anything but upto the third post, so this may have been pointed out but...
"1. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
So, suddenly all monkey offspring had a similar enough chain of offspring to create humans?
NOt all monkey children had the mutations that resulted eventualy in humans...
"3. Does it bother you at all to believe you're just an animal? That the entire point of life it just to out-compete and subvert your neighbor so you can survive, or that there's no point at all?"
Here's something to think about, that I did over a year ago; think of a reason for doing something. Say, playin on your computer.
What's your reason?
To have fun?
Ask yourself why you want to have fun. And keep asking yourself 'why' to all your answers until you come to the, as far as I and anyone I've met knows, non-existant self-justifying purpose. You won't reach it, and if you do, I'll know you to be :censored:ing amazing, because as far as I know, no1 knows of this self-justifying purpose.
And, also, humans are animals, much as some idiots don't understand(referring to a certain friend's mom I know, not you). And how would being animal, as opposed to whatever you think we are instead, change our purpose of life?
"1. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
So, suddenly all monkey offspring had a similar enough chain of offspring to create humans?
NOt all monkey children had the mutations that resulted eventualy in humans...
"3. Does it bother you at all to believe you're just an animal? That the entire point of life it just to out-compete and subvert your neighbor so you can survive, or that there's no point at all?"
Here's something to think about, that I did over a year ago; think of a reason for doing something. Say, playin on your computer.
What's your reason?
To have fun?
Ask yourself why you want to have fun. And keep asking yourself 'why' to all your answers until you come to the, as far as I and anyone I've met knows, non-existant self-justifying purpose. You won't reach it, and if you do, I'll know you to be :censored:ing amazing, because as far as I know, no1 knows of this self-justifying purpose.
And, also, humans are animals, much as some idiots don't understand(referring to a certain friend's mom I know, not you). And how would being animal, as opposed to whatever you think we are instead, change our purpose of life?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Nozomu on 2004-09-13 at 22:45:20
You freakin' cynics and your sarcastic trickery! No, seriously, I wish I could say I was in on it from the beginning, but I wasn't. I think I threw a wrench or two in Drunk's carefully laid plans, though 
.
.Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2004-09-13 at 22:50:11
I knew it 
drunkens arguements weren't very good and the site made me laugh
i love drunken, he is so sexy
drunkens arguements weren't very good and the site made me laugh i love drunken, he is so sexy
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DrunkenWrestler on 2004-09-13 at 23:46:41
QUOTE
How can such grotesque organ systems evolve together to form basic functions, such as all the organs required for a Vandellia cirrhosa to successfully swim up the ureathra of a man and lodge it's intelligently designed state-of-the-art sharp spines to anchor itself so securely, that the only resort is surgical removal.
Hehe, this was one of my favorite. I wonder why no one caught it.
ADDITION:
QUOTE
i love drunken, he is so sexy
I know, I know.
