Hi, here's a thread for evolution vs. intelligent design discussion

That doesn't even come close to proof. That's a description of an insect. Read the post, and get me the proof. Not a description of an insect.

That's what I said. You have your beliefs and I have mine. Neither are proven or absolute.

Re-posted for clarity. This is the BARE MINIMUM of proof needed to prove Evolution theory.

why should I respect your faith in creationalism? what have you done for the good of mankind except start wars, allow child molesters to get away with it and hate anyone who has a different sexual orientation.

I think society needs to evolve from backwards-ass loonies who think the world would be a better place if we didn't have science.

I'm not saying you can't believe in what you want to, go for it son, enjoy, but why try to attack hard science? we cure diseases, make vehicles that can cross space, you have your head stuck in the sands of a cheesy history book.

I don't want you to opperate heavy machinery because I think you are not quite sane. I do respect your life though and feel we should protect you people who deny science, we should make a little reservation and allow you to entertain us with your ignorance and insanity! we will give you the full benefit of modern science so you won't die of horrible disease that science can cure now. *pats your head*

This post is a load of rubbish, and it's insulting to scientists everywhere. It's just a random rant at people who like creationist theory. What's next? Bash the gays? Down with women?

I reiterate, study insects, and you have far more than two animals. Most insects work in a similar fashion to the circulatory and respiratory systems of ants that have no lungs. One organ system without the other. Do you have me on ignore? Again, look at post 196.

I doubt I have proven evolution, but I met your requirement of two animals and then some.

This is a bit vague, can you post something even coming close to evidence? Show me two animals, and describe their internals to point out just how they are proof of the points in my post.

Ok, found your reply to me. Where do you come up with the proof of evolution relies on two animals that have one set of organs without the needed connected organs. Have you studied any Biology? Do you really not realize how different animals are from each other? By the way, using the cop out that an insect is not an animal is beside the point. Granted, pointing to trees might be far fetched, but an insect not having lungs is proof that a heart doesn't need a lung to work.

are you sure you quoted the right post? insulting? random? sexist? homophobic? you better back that shit up bro, I am an old school punkrocker who has fought the klan and fascists of many stripes. Oh i get it, you are just lashing out because you are not getting your way.

Um..I think bashing the gays and withholding women's rrights are religious movements and not scientific ones..

when backed into a corner the animal hisses and bares it's fangs, but it is more scared of you than you of it...

I want to see evidence of how these organs developed as well. I want to see them in their half developed and quater developed stages. And I want fossil records for all the other animals that had a random mutation that was part lungs, but which is different from the lungs in humans.

Please take some time, if you can, find ALL the proofs in my post, and then post them here calmly, cleanly and precisely.

Whatever man. You say my beliefs are stupid, I say yours are stupid. I'm giving you a chance to prove your beliefs. But you're just posting junk. pfft. waste of my time.

I don't know, have you ever confronted a Mongoose. I get the feeling some things are fully aware that they have the upper hand. Though I do have to say I feel more like I'm looking at a hissing chipmunk right now.

Blah, blah, blah... Yo Dark, you got that proof for me yet?

I want you to show proof that the electron exists. I want a polaroid scanned and posted in this very forum. If you can't give me this, then Chemistry must all be a sham.

I read a book called "The Sparrow" which had a lot to say about religion and science (the author was raised Catholic, became happily atheist later on, then converted to Judaism). It was a pretty neat book, even though some of the characters seemed a bit contrived. I'm personally pretty agnostic, which means that I have a big fat question mark hovering over my head. I believe in evolution though.

One of the things I thought was interesting was the phrase "God is in the why."

So: why'd that earthquake just kill 25,000 people in Pakistan? God knows. Was it 'cause Pakistani people are evil?

Did Hurricane Katrina come along to cure the US of homosexuality?

I just think that God's ineffable plan (That would be the ineffable plan) is a hell of a bad plan if it is a plan.

See, I just can't believe that someone would create us and then make some of us "bad" and some of us "good" and most of us in between, and then stick in all this other crap that we have to deal with, like sexuality and hurricanes and high taxes and genocides and really bad TV. Most stuff happens because of people. People are people. You can't say that the Holocaust happened because Jewish people are bad. You also can't say that if a woman got raped, it was her fault.

If God wants to communicate his anger with you using an earthquake or a hurricane, he sure is an inarticulate God.

That's the problem I have with it. Some really crappy things happen to really nice people, and some really good things happen to mediocre people, and sometimes really bad people just don't get punished for anything. That justice will be served after you die is a nice thought, but with all the noise that so-called holy people make about gay people and porn sites and terrorism, who's in the right?

No, the best thing to do is just to go on with your life and be nice to people, practice good manners, and do what you can to help people. 'Course, that message gets garbled too, if your definition of helping people is to run into a building with a bomb strapped to your chest.

Anyway, that's what I have to say about that.

That's cute. But I'm not here to defend science today, that's your job. I'm here to defend Creationism, though I don't say it's right. I argue the point it's a theory, and further I argue that Evolution is also just a theory, it is not the out and out proven truth.

Or Bob the bichir.

Oh, if that is your point then I agree. No scientific proof of any kind is absolute proven truth. If everything flies away from the earth tommorow, we were obviously wrong about gravity. I know very well that Evolution between species is a conclusion drawn from an incomplete set of evidence. My stance is that it is still science though, so has a place in a science classroom.

I agree that Creationism could be right, and does have some observable evidence that can lead to this conclusion as well. I don't mind creationism calling itself science when it uses observations to support its theory. What I do mind is when it uses passages from the Bible as part of the observation and still calls itself science. The Bible is not part of science, but creationism can be science if it bases itself off of observation instead.

hey I don't think us evolution believers are trying to convert you, you can believe a faerie tale if you want, just get out of the way so we can cure diseases and make the world a better place for our children ok?

I agree too. I haven't read the Bible all the way through. I can't speak for it. But that's what I want, I want people to take your approach to Creationism, that none of the theories on the table have been proven, so we should remain open to observation and shouldn't discard anything at this time.

Jsecure,

For animals with hearts but no lungs, try fish.

For an animal with a dual-purpose organ (originally swim-bladder but now swim-bladder/lungs) see Bob the bichir (post #107).

That's good, but I'm going to need all the proofs at once, not bits of them at a time. Good work though, you guys are bringing me animals to observe that I've never seen before. Quite interesting. But keep going.

By the way, the smarter people here will realise, you're probably not ever going to prove Evolution theory. There's too much missing crucial evidence. But sure, try to fill all the points I set out. That'd at least be a shaky start to proving evolution.

duh, it wouldn't be a theory if we could prove it haha!! but we can provide a whole hell of a lot logical evidence of evolution being a viable theory than some hokey fantasy of the world being made in 7 days and is 4000 years old and dinosaur bones were planted by god to fool us.