Intelligent design

[TheBrutalTruth]

You are very wrong. Many of Einstein's predictions still haven't been verified. One of GR famous predictions of light being affected by gravity wasn't verified until Sir Arthur Eddington's photos of the 1919 eclipse, but that was only a very small part of the theory.
In much the same way, there have been many verifications of evolution. The predictions have been made and verified using genetic analysis. In fact, since DNA was discovered, there was a great opportunity for science to falsify evolution since if the theory of common ancestory was incorrect, the genes shared between various species would be more random. Instead we find that plants and animals closely related in the evolutionary phylegenetic tree will share the appropriate percentage of genetic material that can be predicted based on how they're related.

As for your complaint about the peppered moth. The pinning of moths you refer to was only for the purpose of taking a picture that ended up being used in textbooks, the science wasn't based on the picture but the actual melanism of the moth.

Another common criticism involves well-known pictures of moths resting on trunks, used in many textbooks. These photos were prepared (dead moths pinned to branches), which has been conflated into the idea that all the studies were staged, ignoring the point that professional photography to illustrate textbooks uses dead insects because of the considerable difficulty in getting good images of small, relatively fast moving, animals, and that the studies actually consisted of observational data rather than using such photographs. The photographs in Michael Majerus's 1998 book Melanism: Evolution in Action are unstaged pictures of live moths in the wild, and the photographs of moths on tree-trunks, apart from some slight blurring, look no different than the "staged" photographs.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
​

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/moths.asp

Still doesn't prove evolution, just that light colored moths were more likely to be eaten (and thus not reproduce) than dark color moths when pollution altered the land scape.

The opposite (dark colored moths dying out) occurred when the pollution was cleaned up.

It doesn't prove evolution. There are still both kinds of moths, and thus the study fails to posit what it was aimed at, which was proof of evolution.

All it proved was that birds don't have very detail oriented eye-sight, and thus found it easier to spot light-colored moths on soot covered trees, and dark colored moths on clean trees.

Besides, you still have yet to contradict the fact that there is no evidence that life came from some primordial goo, which is the most important link in proving evolution.

Until science can prove that primordial goo can result in life, then evolution is neither proven nor disproven and is only being pushed as an article of faith.

Not that intelligent design isn't also an article of faith, but like I said before, given the choice, I favor the fallen angel hypothesis more than the monkey hypothesis.

Suet, Monkeys, Suet!

 

[medicineman]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/moths.asp

Still doesn't prove evolution, just that light colored moths were more likely to be eaten (and thus not reproduce) than dark color moths when pollution altered the land scape.

The opposite (dark colored moths dying out) occurred when the pollution was cleaned up.

It doesn't prove evolution. There are still both kinds of moths, and thus the study fails to posit what it was aimed at, which was proof of evolution.

All it proved was that birds don't have very detail oriented eye-sight, and thus found it easier to spot light-colored moths on soot covered trees, and dark colored moths on clean trees.

Besides, you still have yet to contradict the fact that there is no evidence that life came from some primordial goo, which is the most important link in proving evolution.

Until science can prove that primordial goo can result in life, then evolution is neither proven nor disproven and is only being pushed as an article of faith.

Not that intelligent design isn't also an article of faith, but like I said before, given the choice, I favor the fallen angel hypothesis more than the monkey hypothesis.

Suet, Monkeys, Suet!

Geeze Brutal, who'd of thunk you'd of been on the side of ID. As I said, The Bigfoot is the latest incarnation of simian evolution, now if we can just find one of those damned things...............

 

[mindphuk]

"ID" is magical thinking - eg. my team won this game, I wore blue socks, therefore my blue socks are the reason my team won.

"ID" is a default and a dead end - if we don't know every answer yet, then gawd did it, so we stop looking.

"ID" is someone foisting their version of 'god' on me and my children. <--- this is why I get angry. Science doesn't care if there is a god.

 

[mindphuk]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/moths.asp

Still doesn't prove evolution, just that light colored moths were more likely to be eaten (and thus not reproduce) than dark color moths when pollution altered the land scape.

The opposite (dark colored moths dying out) occurred when the pollution was cleaned up.

It doesn't prove evolution. There are still both kinds of moths, and thus the study fails to posit what it was aimed at, which was proof of evolution.

All it proved was that birds don't have very detail oriented eye-sight, and thus found it easier to spot light-colored moths on soot covered trees, and dark colored moths on clean trees.

Besides, you still have yet to contradict the fact that there is no evidence that life came from some primordial goo, which is the most important link in proving evolution.

Until science can prove that primordial goo can result in life, then evolution is neither proven nor disproven and is only being pushed as an article of faith.

Not that intelligent design isn't also an article of faith, but like I said before, given the choice, I favor the fallen angel hypothesis more than the monkey hypothesis.

Suet, Monkeys, Suet!

First, science does not prove anything. Ever. It can't, not even in principle. What science does is create models of parts of reality. You test those models by looking at what the model says you should observe / measure under a particular set of conditions, and then going out into the world and either finding or setting up those conditions, and checking to see if what the model says you'll get is what you really get. If it is, and the model passes many such tests, you say "OK, for now, I'm going to consider that model to be valid." If it fails a test, any test, you either change the model until it passes all the tests, or you dump it and start over.

So, you see, science doesn't prove things, and it doesn't rely on belief. Instead, it relies on testing its models against reality.

Evolutionary theory is one of those models. It has been tested. It has passed those tests.

As for the moths, no one ever claimed it was proof of evolution but is an excellent example of natural selection, one of the main forces behind evolution. I guess you decided not to read the whole article.

Now all you need to do is stop confusing evolution with the origin of life.

 

[medicineman]

Hey Mindphuk, ever seen a bigfoot. That right there is your natural progression of evolution of simians. Humans are a completely different species, either modified simians or inserts from the great creator. I believe the insert phenomonem, you can believe in bigfoots if you must, but you'll need to find one to prove your case, and then after examination of DNA, I'm pretty sure you'll still have a simian. If you can find one and they have human DNA, then I may be impressed, but I'll give you 1000 to1 odds it will be simian, or something we don't know yet.

 

[bunghole]

Hey Mindphuk, ever seen a bigfoot. That right there is your natural progression of evolution of simians. Humans are a completely different species, either modified simians or inserts from the great creator. I believe the insert phenomonem, you can believe in bigfoots if you must, but you'll need to find one to prove your case, and then after examination of DNA, I'm pretty sure you'll still have a simian. If you can find one and they have human DNA, then I may be impressed, but I'll give you 1000 to1 odds it will be simian, or something we don't know yet.

I'm pretty sure that the validity of evolution doesn't hinge on finding "Bigfoot".

Chimpanzees have very similar DNA to humans. That is pretty strong evidence that both Chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

 

[Stoney McFried]

Boy, Vi, I thought I explained it pretty damn well.The non living elemnts are what the fricken stars are made of-and we also have traces of these elements in our bodies-carbon,helium, argon, etc, etc...I never said I knew EXACTLY what went down that caused life to begin...I was explaining, basically, that life is a chemical reaction.And as for where the matter came from, that was why I brought TIME up, Vi, saying that it is possible that the universe dies and is reborn from the dead matter in an unending loop...it explodes(BIG BANG), expands,and like any explosion, eventually collapses inward.As the matter becomes condensed, it becomes superheated, an explosion occurs, it happens again.
No, Basically what it is, is religion is the EASY way to explain things, and putting FAITH in something without attempting to prove it,and abdicating all control of your own life to an invisible entity is the act of a weak mind.
I'm not getting what I believe from FAITH,but from EVIDENCE.
Let me sum up the logic behind wanting creationism taught in school: Gee, you teach kids about horses, so you should also teach them about unicorns!

"Basically,unliving elements came together and chemical reactions formed...."

And from where did those "non-living elements" come from, Stoney?

And no, I don't think it took 6000 years to form the earth because I have no evidence to give you to prove that as fact. Just like you have no evidence that life came from chemical reactions between "non-living elements."

Here's facts I DO believe in ... You and I are both taking our beliefs based upon FAITH.

Vi

Uhhhh...They haven't proved all of Einstein's theories,either...but I CAN tell you one thing..the only reason creationists want "both sides represented"is because they want to get their brainwashed, grubby little meathooks into our children.And religion, believing there's a guy out there tending the fires at the end of the universe,and that you'll be richly rewarded for all the things you do in this life,and that you are somehow better than an animal,YOU'RE SPECIAL,dammit, is bullshit.That's why the earth is in the state its in...because we think ourselves above the animal kingdom, and that this earth is our "right", and we can do as we please with it and the creatures on it, because WE KNOW we're "right", we just do,and if you don't think our way,you'll be punished in eternal fire when you die.BULLSHIT,I say.We're no better than the animals, because we ARE animals.We are members of the Mammal family,and there is no getting around that.If animals "don't have souls" then neither do we.If animals die and rot and return to the earth, then so do we.We kill, we maim, we hurt,we destroy.We shit, we bleed, we breathe,we lactate.We are animals, no matter how many layers of clothes we put on, no matter how much cologne we splash.ACCEPT IT.MOVE ON. Accept responsibility for your life as it is,and don't try to ascribe a higher meaning to it,because you don't even have EVIDENCE that it exists.Live in harmony with the other tenants of this earth,and realize that we're all in this together, and we weren't put here to rule, or dominate anything.You talk, brutal, of man being made from fallen angels...no...in the bible, it says man was made from dirt.DIRT.HMMMMM.Monkeys...or dirt.Monkeys....compost.Monkeys...worm poop.I'll take monkeys.
If you want to believe in an invisible man in the sky,do it on your own time, and stay away from MY children.I want them to learn.I want them to have the capacity for abstract thought.I want them to know that things must be investigated,and proof must be sought.I want them to do things on their own,and not kneel down and pray to some entity that either doesn't hear or doesn't care,and then wander through life dissappointed, saying "It's God's Will..."
Seems like it's mostly evangelical Christians that want ID taught in schools...you don't see Buddhists or Wiccans or Jews yelling about it.
Well, if I wanted my kids to be taught that a work of fiction is to be believed,I get to choose the book.
No, the uproar from the ID people is simply because they need others to believe along with them to validate their own beliefs...and who better to brainwash than impressionable children?I hope that Christianity is in its death throes,because it sure does seem to be thrashing around a lot.

Not a question of not teaching science, unlike many of the scientific theories Evolution has no proof testing.

Einstein's Theory of General Relativity when put forth included tests that could be conducted to determine if it was valid or not. It also explained anomalies in the orbit of Mercury that were not explained by Newtonian Physics.

Evolution on the other hand, has no such tests, and attempts to validate it have failed, or were proven to be fraudulent.

New York Moth Study - Fraudulent test where Moths that were coated in Coal Dust (and then taped to trees) were given as evidence of evolution. The moths had gone from being light colored to being dark colored, according to the evolutionists, instead it was revealed a little bit of water would show that the Evolutionists had fed the public bullshit.

Experiments towards trying to get life to arise out of the supposed mixture of chemicals that existed in primordial Earth's environment. Failed.

And even if Comets, Asteroids and other intrastellar and interstellar bodies do have viable genetic material (material that comes from previously living entities, such as bacteria) you still fail to show where the life comes from.

Evolution is a crock of bullshit at best, and a bogus pseudo-religion at worst.

Besides, if I must believe something, I'd sooner believe that humanity are the descendants of Angels, and thus are nothing more than fallen angels, than believe that we are the descendants of apes. At least being the descendants of Angels imposes a higher standard on us than being nothing but a bunch of Animals.

If we are nothing but Animals then all we're obligated to do is fuck, eat, shit, and sleep, instead of using our intelligence to better our lot in life.

Then again, I'd sooner be accused of being a Republican than a Democrat for the same reason. Democrat's just want everyone to do nothing but fuck, eat, shit and sleep with government feeding them at the trough.

Suet, Monkeys, Suet!

 

[hom36rown]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/moths.asp

Still doesn't prove evolution, just that light colored moths were more likely to be eaten (and thus not reproduce) than dark color moths when pollution altered the land scape.

The opposite (dark colored moths dying out) occurred when the pollution was cleaned up.

It doesn't prove evolution. There are still both kinds of moths, and thus the study fails to posit what it was aimed at, which was proof of evolution.

All it proved was that birds don't have very detail oriented eye-sight, and thus found it easier to spot light-colored moths on soot covered trees, and dark colored moths on clean trees.

Besides, you still have yet to contradict the fact that there is no evidence that life came from some primordial goo, which is the most important link in proving evolution.

Until science can prove that primordial goo can result in life, then evolution is neither proven nor disproven and is only being pushed as an article of faith.

Not that intelligent design isn't also an article of faith, but like I said before, given the choice, I favor the fallen angel hypothesis more than the monkey hypothesis.

Suet, Monkeys, Suet!

Fallen angel "hypothesis" , you gotta be shitting me. Me personally, I prefer the magic spaghetti monster.

 

[hom36rown]

First, science does not prove anything. Ever. It can't, not even in principle. What science does is create models of parts of reality. You test those models by looking at what the model says you should observe / measure under a particular set of conditions, and then going out into the world and either finding or setting up those conditions, and checking to see if what the model says you'll get is what you really get. If it is, and the model passes many such tests, you say "OK, for now, I'm going to consider that model to be valid." If it fails a test, any test, you either change the model until it passes all the tests, or you dump it and start over.

So, you see, science doesn't prove things, and it doesn't rely on belief. Instead, it relies on testing its models against reality.

Evolutionary theory is one of those models. It has been tested. It has passed those tests.

As for the moths, no one ever claimed it was proof of evolution but is an excellent example of natural selection, one of the main forces behind evolution. I guess you decided not to read the whole article.

Now all you need to do is stop confusing evolution with the origin of life.

yes thank you.

 

[hom36rown]

Boy, Vi, I thought I explained it pretty damn well.The non living elemnts are what the fricken stars are made of-and we also have traces of these elements in our bodies-carbon,helium, argon, etc, etc...I never said I knew EXACTLY what went down that caused life to begin...I was explaining, basically, that life is a chemical reaction.And as for where the matter came from, that was why I brought TIME up, Vi, saying that it is possible that the universe dies and is reborn from the dead matter in an unending loop...it explodes(BIG BANG), expands,and like any explosion, eventually collapses inward.As the matter becomes condensed, it becomes superheated, an explosion occurs, it happens again.
No, Basically what it is, is religion is the EASY way to explain things, and putting FAITH in something without attempting to prove it,and abdicating all control of your own life to an invisible entity is the act of a weak mind.
I'm not getting what I believe from FAITH,but from EVIDENCE.
Let me sum up the logic behind wanting creationism taught in school: Gee, you teach kids about horses, so you should also teach them about unicorns!

Uhhhh...They haven't proved all of Einstein's theories,either...but I CAN tell you one thing..the only reason creationists want "both sides represented"is because they want to get their brainwashed, grubby little meathooks into our children.And religion, believing there's a guy out there tending the fires at the end of the universe,and that you'll be richly rewarded for all the things you do in this life,and that you are somehow better than an animal,YOU'RE SPECIAL,dammit, is bullshit.That's why the earth is in the state its in...because we think ourselves above the animal kingdom, and that this earth is our "right", and we can do as we please with it and the creatures on it, because WE KNOW we're "right", we just do,and if you don't think our way,you'll be punished in eternal fire when you die.BULLSHIT,I say.We're no better than the animals, because we ARE animals.We are members of the Mammal family,and there is no getting around that.If animals "don't have souls" then neither do we.If animals die and rot and return to the earth, then so do we.We kill, we maim, we hurt,we destroy.We shit, we bleed, we breathe,we lactate.We are animals, no matter how many layers of clothes we put on, no matter how much cologne we splash.ACCEPT IT.MOVE ON. Accept responsibility for your life as it is,and don't try to ascribe a higher meaning to it,because you don't even have EVIDENCE that it exists.Live in harmony with the other tenants of this earth,and realize that we're all in this together, and we weren't put here to rule, or dominate anything.You talk, brutal, of man being made from fallen angels...no...in the bible, it says man was made from dirt.DIRT.HMMMMM.Monkeys...or dirt.Monkeys....compost.Monkeys...worm poop.I'll take monkeys.
If you want to believe in an invisible man in the sky,do it on your own time, and stay away from MY children.I want them to learn.I want them to have the capacity for abstract thought.I want them to know that things must be investigated,and proof must be sought.I want them to do things on their own,and not kneel down and pray to some entity that either doesn't hear or doesn't care,and then wander through life dissappointed, saying "It's God's Will..."
Seems like it's mostly evangelical Christians that want ID taught in schools...you don't see Buddhists or Wiccans or Jews yelling about it.
Well, if I wanted my kids to be taught that a work of fiction is to be believed,I get to choose the book.
No, the uproar from the ID people is simply because they need others to believe along with them to validate their own beliefs...and who better to brainwash than impressionable children?I hope that Christianity is in its death throes,because it sure does seem to be thrashing around a lot.

I admire your persistence stoney, but its like talking to a baord. These guys just believe what they want to believe, and have no concept of what science or logic is.

 

[Stoney McFried]

I'm afraid you're right, home...I just don't think I can break it down into any simpler terms than I already have.I don't object to them believing as they wish...I object to them thinking my children need to hear about it.

I admire your persistence stoney, but its like talking to a baord. These guys just believe what they want to believe, and have no concept of what science or logic is.

 

[misshestermoffitt]

Actually Med, a lot of mammels are lactose intolerant when they reach adulthood. Dogs lose the enzyme that lets them digest milk when they get to be around a year old. Cats too. That's why when you let them have milk, they get the craps.

about 50000years ago most of the human population was lactose intolerant.
How in the mind of Minolta could a mammal be lactose intolerant, as they suckle at birth?? I call Bullshirt. Do you expect that humans 50000 years ago were born with teeth to chew up on their lessor endowed species. 50,000 years ago there were no humans, just upright walking monkeys. The stone age didn't end untill about 6,000-2,500 BC, which corelates with the ID theory, that intelligence (IE Soul) was introduced to Species either upgraded or introduced by an outside influence. The Bigfoot would be an example of evolution in monkeys (Simians). Humans are a separate breed altogether. Look how having forsaken their creator they have run rampant in the world creating havoc and destruction. How many monkeys (simians) can you say did/do that?

 

[Stoney McFried]

And just to clarify, HUMAN lactose is different from the lactose of cows.

about 50000years ago most of the human population was lactose intolerant.
How in the mind of Minolta could a mammal be lactose intolerant, as they suckle at birth?? I call Bullshirt. Do you expect that humans 50000 years ago were born with teeth to chew up on their lessor endowed species. 50,000 years ago there were no humans, just upright walking monkeys. The stone age didn't end untill about 6,000-2,500 BC, which corelates with the ID theory, that intelligence (IE Soul) was introduced to Species either upgraded or introduced by an outside influence. The Bigfoot would be an example of evolution in monkeys (Simians). Humans are a separate breed altogether. Look how having forsaken their creator they have run rampant in the world creating havoc and destruction. How many monkeys (simians) can you say did/do that?

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

First, science does not prove anything. Ever. It can't, not even in principle. What science does is create models of parts of reality. You test those models by looking at what the model says you should observe / measure under a particular set of conditions, and then going out into the world and either finding or setting up those conditions, and checking to see if what the model says you'll get is what you really get. If it is, and the model passes many such tests, you say "OK, for now, I'm going to consider that model to be valid." If it fails a test, any test, you either change the model until it passes all the tests, or you dump it and start over.

So, you see, science doesn't prove things, and it doesn't rely on belief. Instead, it relies on testing its models against reality.

Evolutionary theory is one of those models. It has been tested. It has passed those tests.

As for the moths, no one ever claimed it was proof of evolution but is an excellent example of natural selection, one of the main forces behind evolution. I guess you decided not to read the whole article.

Now all you need to do is stop confusing evolution with the origin of life.

Then evolutionists need to stop pushing evolution as explaining the origin of life.

I personally think that there is a middle ground.

Some misc. Entity sneezed the universe into being, and sense then it has evolved and changed.

Of course, that theory still fails to explain adequately where DNA comes from, but surely if there was no longer a ton of money being spent on the debate, perhaps both sides could get back to real science instead of showing their bigotry.

Much like Stoney, who is a bigot, and does not have an open mind as a result of that bigotry.

 

[hom36rown]

Wehn it comes to science, no there is no middle ground. You cannot just say something sneezed the universe into existence. Thats not how science works.

 

[natrone23]

Then evolutionists need to stop pushing evolution as explaining the origin of life.

.

They never have, if you you even knew the basics of evolution you would know that. Evolution says nothing about the origins of life. If you read minefuc post you would have known that. How you can have a opinion on evolution and not even know the basics is beyond me, try picking up a book on evolution sometime.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Lactose intolerance is the inability to metabolize lactose, a sugar found in milk and other dairy products, because the required enzyme lactase is absent in the intestinal system or its availability is lowered. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood.[1] The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from nearly 5% in northern Europe to more than 90% in some African countries [2]


Disaccharides cannot be absorbed through the wall of the small intestine into the bloodstream, so in the absence of lactase, lactose present in ingested dairy products remains uncleaved and passes intact into the colon. The operons of enteric bacteria quickly switch over to lactose metabolism, and the resultant in vivo fermentation produces copious amounts of gas (a mixture of hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and methane). This, in turn, may cause a range of abdominal symptoms, including stomach cramps, bloating, and flatulence. In addition, as with other unabsorbed sugars (such as sorbitol, mannitol, and xylitol), the presence of lactose and its fermentation products raises the osmotic pressure of the colon contents.


There are three major types of lactose intolerance:[3]

1. Primary lactose intolerance. Environmentally induced when weaning a child in non-dairy consuming societies.[4] This is found in many Asian and African cultures, where industrialized and commercial dairy products are uncommon.
2. Secondary lactose intolerance. Environmentally induced, resulting from certain gastrointestinal diseases, including exposure to intestinal parasites such as giardia.[5][6] In such cases the production of lactase may be permanently disrupted.[5][6][7] A very common cause of temporary lactose intolerance is gastroenteritis, particularly when the gastroenteritis is caused by rotavirus. Another form of temporary lactose intolerance is lactose overload in infants.[8]
3. Congenital lactase deficiency. A genetic disorder which prevents enzymatic production of lactase. Present at birth, and diagnosed in early infancy.

Lactase biology

The normal mammalian condition is for the young of a species to experience reduced lactase production at the end of the weaning period (a species-specific length of time). In non dairy consuming societies, lactase production usually drops about 90% during the first four years of life, although the exact drop over time varies widely.[9].
However, certain human populations have a mutation on chromosome 2 which eliminates the shutdown in lactase production, making it possible for members of these populations to continue consumption of fresh milk and other dairy products throughout their lives without difficulty. This appears to be an evolutionarily recent adaptation to dairy consumption, and has occurred independently in both northern Europe and east Africa in populations with a historically pastoral lifestyle.[10] Lactase persistence, allowing lactose digestion to continue into adulthood, is a dominant allele, making lactose intolerance a recessive genetic trait.
Some cultures, such as that of Japan, where dairy consumption has been on the increase, demonstrate a lower prevalence of lactose intolerance in spite of a genetic predisposition[11].
Pathological lactose intolerance can be caused by Coeliac disease, which damages the villi in the small intestine that produce lactase. This lactose intolerance is temporary. Lactose intolerance associated with coeliac disease ceases after the patient has been on a gluten-free diet long enough for the villi to recover[citation needed].
Certain people who report problems with consuming lactose are not actually lactose intolerant. In a study of 323 Sicilian adults, Carroccio et al. (199 found only 4% were both lactose intolerant and lactose maldigesters, while 32.2% were lactose maldigesters but did not test as lactose intolerant. However, Burgio et al. (1984) found that 72% of 100 Sicilians were lactose intolerant in their study and 106 of 208 northern Italians (i.e., 51%) were lactose intolerant.

Both Dairy Milk and Human Milk contain Lactose. It's not a difference in the milk, but an effect of human aging. As people get older there is a chance that they may become lactose intolerant due to declining lactase production.

Pretty sorry example, considering it looks like there is a relatively large segment of the world's population that is lactose intolerant or lactase deficient.

Composition of human breast milk[7] Fat total (g/100 ml) 4.2 fatty acids - length 8C (% ) trace polyunsaturated fatty acids (%) 14 Protein (g/100 ml) total 1.1 casein 0.4 0.3 a-lactalbumin 0.3 lactoferrin 0.2 IgA 0.1 IgG 0.001 lysozyme 0.05 serum albumin 0.05 ß-lactoglobulin - Carbohydrate (g/100 ml) lactose 7 oligosaccharides 0.5 Minerals (g/100 ml) calcium 0.03 phosphorus 0.014 sodium 0.015 potassium 0.055 chlorine 0.043

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

They never have, if you you even knew the basics of evolution you would know that. Evolution says nothing about the origins of life. If you read minefuc post you would have known that. How you can have a opinion on evolution and not even know the basics is beyond me, try picking up a book on evolution sometime.

Well then why is Stoney so obsessed with pushing Evolution instead of Intelligent Design. Clearly if Evolution does not contain an explanation for the origin of life, then how is there a conflict between it and intelligent design that is so vitally important that one must be discredited at the expense of the other?

Personally, I think this entire debate is pointless. It's like watching a Christan, a Jew and a Muslim all trying to argue who's God is real...

 

[hom36rown]

here is why:

"ID" is magical thinking - eg. my team won this game, I wore blue socks, therefore my blue socks are the reason my team won.

"ID" is a default and a dead end - if we don't know every answer yet, then gawd did it, so we stop looking.

"ID" is someone foisting their version of 'god' on me and my children. <--- this is why I get angry. Science doesn't care if there is a god.

 

[ViRedd]

We kill, we maim, we hurt,we destroy.We shit, we bleed, we breathe,we lactate.We are animals

Yes, all of this is true, of course ... but unlike other creatures, we can reason and we can contemplate the existence of a Supreme Being ... a Creator, if you will.

And, for the record, Stoney, you've made some assumptions about me that are not true. I don't necessarily want ID taught in our schools as fact. I just don't want Evolution taught as fact either. If one is taught as fact, then present the other as an alternative.

Have you ever considered why the Left is so adamant about getting God out of the public discourse? Could it be because our very freedoms are based upon our rights being endowed by a Creator ... and not granted by the state?

Think about it.

Vi