intelligent design
- Started
- Last post
- 383 Responses
- kelpie0
*ponders Nairns infinately more interesting point while scratching ginger beard
- gruntt0
gingers are the chosen ones.
- gruntt0
oh 100+ posts.
*drops off tray of sandwiches.
- Nairn0
heh.. I have found it very funny when (ginger hating-) friends let their beards grow through.. only to sprout wee ginger patches.
Ahhh, how I have laughed.
- kelpie0
it's a latent gene thing innit? which of course proves irefutably the existence of a higher power
- gruntt0
hey fellow gingers - we're you really joked on that much for being red on the head? I got the occasional funny comment but not very often.
- kelpie0
jesus my spelling sucks
- ********0
"If Jesus saves -- well, He'd better save Himself
from the gory glory seekers who use His name in death. "- Jethro Tull, Grammy Winners
:)
- Nairn0
So, you're saying (and correct me if I'm out of line here) God was a Ginger?
I say was, as everyone knows, God is dead...
*hides under blanket
- Nairn0
I did a bit, but it was more because I went to school in Gibraltar, where everyone is so soddingly Mediterannean and tanned, and I was merely 'English'..
..until I (naturally) denounced the Motherland and emphasised my Scottishness
:)
"Ey.. Rusty - Que haces aqui?!"
- gruntt0
lol nairn.
=D
- ********0
The spaghetti monster bit was my favourite bit. Its near the end of the article.
- discipler0
ribit -
"sure they can... I'm not sure what you mean by "producing information" (making things up?), but natural evolutionary processes can produce ever more complex organisms with ever more complex informationn encoded and passed on to subsequent generations in the DNA."
-----------------------------There is no question that DNA is programmed to pass along different sequences of it's core hard-coded information. But this demonstrates design. The information is coded for specific body plans. But what we are talking about here is an unguided mechanism sufficient enough to generate mutations which would ultimately produce novel species. And there is none. What science observes in nature is only information loss in adaptive mutations. Science recognizes adaptive mutation due to environmental factors, diet, etc... What science DOES not observe is macro scale information-gaining mutations which produce novel species. This requires the manufacture of irreducibly complex organisms, which natural selection would prevent from ever happening. The key is: don't confuse small adaptive changes within a species with large scale genome jumps from one species to the next. The former is true, the latter is myth.
The bottom line is, the natural mechanism which darwin expounded upon is given far more credit than it deserves. It's incapable of producing novel species, no matter how much time you give it. Now that we can peer inside molecular structures, we know that life at it's core is intelligently coded information and machinery which natural processes, even with billions of years, cannot produce.
In Darwin's day, a cell looked like a blob of gelatin. That's as far as they could go. We have new data. It's time to put that new data in place and educate people with current science.
- ********0
Well Discipler, if you look at how cells were orginally formed you might have a different view.
To keep it short:
They were groups of lipids that formed a globe. Diferent organisms also were also present inside. Its not hard to see how a very simple stucture and 'evolve' into a more complex one.
Its ignorant to say, 'God, its so compicated some one must have designed it'
- ********0
its quite worrying that they want to teach children this rubbish. Where next? We already have countries like Iran that kill people becuse they are gay. Somehow they use religion as an excuse.
- Bluejam0
this thread is better than the matrix trilogy.
- mrdobolina0
I love it when people actually try to dispute the spaghetti monster, hahaha
- ********0
Dont dicredit the spaghetti monster. He will get you in the end