In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2369
Online now 2125 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Reminds me of the old joke.
Someone who understands the theory of evolution says: "Here's our data. What conclusions can we draw from it?"
Someone who rejects the theory of evolution says: "Here's the conclusion we want to prove. What data can we find to support this and how can we reject or ignore the data that refutes it?"
You must not subscribe to the young earth creationist brand of christianity for which evolution is very incompatable. Though you can always skirt that by saying that god created the earth with an illusion of age.
Yea that William Williams guy seemed a little wacked. Desperate almost.
Yeah. I don't know about you, I'm sure excited to hear all of the legitimate, unbiased research he did to demonstrate that the "evolution of the soul is impossible" in part 3.
I'll say almost/nearly to avoid sounding obtuse but amost all 'scientific' research I've seen to prove a bible story can only be considered ad hoc. Don't remember the specifics but an example being a boat they found on a 'big hill' in the middle east and it automatically became the ark. Then people who don't believe in carbon dating attempted to carbon date the boat to prove themselves correct.
Yep, also ad hoc.
Ever hear of Lee Strobel?
His writing style may suit your fancy a little better than that Muller cat.
The Future Is Bright! Hotty Toddy
No, the title is correct as is. Evolution is the theory which explains the origin of the diversity of all the species on earth. Ink is expensive, so origin of the species works just fine.
If the book was "origin of life", you would be correct.
It's not the writing style, it's the fact that the author doesn't understand much about evolution, uses logical fallacy after logical fallacy, and uses non-verified source after non-verified source.
In case the article is too long, I can sum it up in the attached picture.
I will only accept this evidence delivered in MS Paint.
Sounds like that theory would be attributed more to radical evangelism than mainstream Christianity.
Lee Strobel is a hack.
that is very very scary.
Negative, no science is FACT but just theory until more science comes along and disproves or changes it. If Evolution was a fact then everybody would just know it to be and we would have no problems. My God is real whether you believe in him or not, and he cares about his creation. One of the biggest points made in the Bible was that people would let their own "intelligence" as the Creation, get in the way of the Creator. That is the time we live in now. If we came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? What is right and wrong, and why do you feel good or bad when doing them?
This post was edited by jjjate79 14 months ago
Winningest Program in College Football since 1990!
Why? Are you saying he was not an atheist, or that he should not tell the truth now that he found it?
It's funny because you spelled intelligence wrong when referencing the bible. +1
No. Effing. Way. Will I ever believe this poll is accurate.
First, there have to be hidden variables, like people answering the way they feel they should answer, not what they really believe. Also, I don't pretend to understand the calculus of polling, but this is out of 1000 respondents, 60% land line (what are those?). How can you extrapolate the views of 300 million based on a random sampling of 1K people?
Anyway this is insane either way
Troll rating: 8.5/10.
Pretty much every token fallacy and standard scientifically ignorant point made by the average creationist.
When they are doing the polling for 30 years and see those same results, yeah I'd say it's about accurate. If you can find results that conflict, let me know.
As for the 'people answering the way they feel they should', I totally agree. It's been demonstrated that people lie and overestimate how religious they are in the US. But not that much.
And 1,000 is a nice sample size for stuff like this. That's a fairly representative sample. It might be off by 3-5 points (at most), but that's about the long and short of the US's embarrassing stance on evolution.
He is making a pretty good living telling gullible people what they want to hear. There are web sites that go into detail about how his arguments are flawed and contrived. He is in no way the unbiased truth seeker he portrays himself to be in his writing. It is all a facade.
Here is a small non-religious view about "Intelligent Design" of which there is a tremendous amount of evidence:
Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
Ever come home and your dog is hiding in the corner because it knows you're gonna find something you shouldn't? That's knowing right from wrong and feeling bad about. Diffent types of monkeys that live in groups won't harm or steal from each other because they have a sense of right from wrong. They will though hunt and kill other animals they deem inferior, sound like any species you can think of?
Cuz monkeys are awesome.
This post was edited by brem22 14 months ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports