Darwinism (Evolution) vs. Intelligent Design

What's your take on this?

Please guys, keep it clean. No need to directly attack anyone or their ideas, just keep an open mind and look at both sides. Try not to bring religion into it, although I do know that if you talk about Creationism at all, it may involve the Bible.

So like I said, please try to keep it clean and repspect eachother.

Happy debating!

I just want to say Intelligent Design and Creationism from the Bible are two totally different things. Some darwinists believe that aliens planted life on earth and then slowly progressed from there which would be intelligent design of the first life form.

I know Micah. I said that part mostly for Harli. She said that both involved the Bible. I can fix the Creationism part. I know I made it sound like they're the same thing, which really wasn't my intention. Sorry for the confusion. My bad. >.<

I see that your title is a bit derogatory. Darwinism, as an ism, identifies it as a belief and not a scientific idea. I think a better term would be Evolution vs. Intelligent design. Then again, it's not my topic.

I take the side of evolution, or "darwinism" as you put it.

Skate6566 wrote: I think a better term would be Evolution vs. Intelligent design. Then again, it's not my topic.

You want it? You got it. Title edited.

I'll stay out of this debate for now though. I'll hopefully have an intelligent reply soon.

Thanks Cody. Intelligent reply? I wouldn't expect any less from you. lol

Ohhhboy. Hey Josh. Long time no debate...(about evolution.) Right now, I'm not going to post the eight freakinn pages I have saved about Creationism. Because. I'm too lazy. I am a hardcore Creationism-ist. (I just made that up right now...xD). More later, perhaps...

Oh yes. I can tell you just made that up I look forward to the debate that may be to come.

How about both evolution and intelligent design/creationism? At the same time. How about THAT.

How about no...

Why not? Some creationists believe that God set up the system of evolution and put it in action. Also a lot of darwinists/evolutionists believe that an alien put the first organism on our planet and from there it evolved. It's not a bad theory actually.

Some, sure, but there are also some creationists that believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Simply because "Some" believe doesn't mean it holds any merit.

Yes, but its a somewhat reasonable explanation. You made it sound as though its the stupidest idea you've ever heard.

How can people possibly believe the Earth is 6000 years old? Thats another great debate topic...

Anyway back to the subject, for the evolutionists out there where do you think life came from?

First mistake: Connecting evolution with the origin of the universe. That's the big bang and/or abiogenesis. This topic is about evolution. Perhaps we should stay on topic?

Though I should point out - Even if you disprove all of science, it doesn't make Creationism or ID true. That's like proving dogs are the best animals ever by putting down cats; you're assuming it's black or white. Just pointing that out, no specific reason.

Why would I have to disprove science to make intelligent design true? Evolution isn't scientific fact, it's a theory.

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection"
-Darwin

And thus Darwin's theory of natural selection and survival of the fittest is proved wrong by symbiosis.

2 Problems:
It seems that you're mixing up scientific theory with everyday theory. Scientific theory is as high as an idea can go in science, e.g. Atomic theory (hiroshima) or Germ theory. They can't go any higher. Even if they become laws, they're still just theories.
Facts are a dime a dozen; we can find facts very simply with observation. Facts make up theories.

Also, that's a logical fallacy; argument from authority. Just because someone doesn't believe something, even if he is the founder of that something, doesn't make it untrue or false.

Finally, I am unable to find that quote anywhere. Perhaps cite a source?

"Extraordinary quotes require extraordinary evidence" -- Sagan (modified)

Evolution and Intelligent design are both just theories. Just because they teach you evolution in school, and scientists get fired for believing in intelligent design doesn't mean that evolution has been scientifically proven.

http://books.google.com/books?id=LDrPI52uFQsC&dq=origin+of+species&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=s6fvSoakFcfHlAfVz7T8CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, page 163.

No, you see Evolution has been observed, there is no contradicting evidence, and there is a TON of evidence for historical evolution. Intelligent design has none of that.

but Evoloution is still a theory not proven fact


i tried to understand this from an un biased point of view and i just cant understand its just to far fetched in my opinion.

Skate6566 wrote:No, you see Evolution has been observed, there is no contradicting evidence, and there is a TON of evidence for historical evolution. Intelligent design has none of that.

Oh really? We've seen something evolve?

Yes TONS of evidence, why don't you explain some of that evidence. Like the fact that we have don't have any of the inbetween species that we should have. and why did we lose tails? Why are there still a bunch of species, if its survival of the fittest then they should have gotten killed off. Why are we protecting animals? We are the most fit, so we should just eliminate them. So then you think Hitler was doing the right thing to kill hundreds of thousands of people? I mean they were just holding our species back from evolving.

I'll just insert myself right here... And uh, jack it up some. <.<
Just to note: I don't side with anyone. I just watch from the sidelines and interject whenever I have something to point out. I am not siding completely with evolution theory here; but I am using science.

So, according to science...

Castigo wrote:Yes TONS of evidence, why don't you explain some of that evidence. Like the fact that we have don't have any of the inbetween species that we should have.

The theory of evolution: start out with a certain simple creature or creatures. As time goes by, it slowly changes to fit in and keep up with its constantly changing environment. As you've heard, in many cases, creatures will change dramatically over long periods of time, so that they seem to be completely different from how they started out. There are no in-between species, but there is a phase from the starting form of the creature to its current form. Sometimes, a new "branch" of phasing will form off of the original line. That's how you get apes and monkeys: apes and monkeys are not our ancestors, because whoever our ancestors were obviously went extinct long ago. Apes and moneys are as modern as we are. Instead, the evolutionary line of our ancestors divided a few times, and some of their descendants include us, apes, and monkeys. There are no in-between species, but evidence (in the form of fossils, for instance) has been found of creatures from various stages along our ancestral lines.

Castigo wrote:and why did we lose tails?

I'd say that most scientists would agree that we lost our tails because we didn't need them much any more. We changed to keep up with the changing environment and lifestyle.

Castigo wrote:Why are there still a bunch of species, if its survival of the fittest then they should have gotten killed off.

The enormous horde of creatures populating our planet all coexist for a reason. Every species makes one piece, one working part, of a huge machine that wouldn't function as soon as you eliminated one of its parts. True, evolution does theoretically work in part by "survival of the fittest," but not in a destructive way. Obviously, animals species are not constantly trying to kill each other just to become the last one in existence. Rather, they coexist to form balanced circles; ecosystems. Species constantly change to keep their part of the machine balanced with all of the other parts.

Castigo wrote:Why are we protecting animals? We are the most fit, so we should just eliminate them. So then you think Hitler was doing the right thing to kill hundreds of thousands of people? I mean they were just holding our species back from evolving.

Again, with the idea of balance. We are the most fit, but the objective of evolution isn't to completely eliminate everyone else--you need everyone else there if you want to last long. Now, I have a completely different view about the course of actions made by humanity--things like mass-killings don't have much to do with natural evolution; they are just the product of human power and action. In this way, I think humans are a bit out of place. We're the only ones with enough power and will to tear the rest of the machine down.

See if each creature is part of a giant machine then when they were evolving they would have all had to evolve at the same exact time in a way that would make it so the machine works.

Also how did the animals evolve? If they needed camo to blend in with their environment then did they just magically get a new skin color? If they needed a tail, did a tail just randomly grow?

Also, there's the woodpecker:
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/woodpecker.htm

Andrew94 wrote:but Evoloution is still a theory not proven fact

Facts are, as I've said, a dime a dozen. You're mixing up a scientific theory with a theory in everyday talk. Also, as I've said, Germs are "just a theory". Proven and observed, but still "just a theory".

Castigo wrote:Oh really? We've seen something evolve?

Yes, we have. The London Underground mosquito is an example, although there are others (like certain mussels in the UK).
The London Underground mosquito is a mosquito that we have observed over the past ~100 years change. The original mosquito was on the surface but with the construction of the London Undergound system, some of them moved underground. Fast forward to today, the two mosquitoes look different, act different, have different features, and are actually unable to mate. This is an example of observed evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_mosquito
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v82/n1/full/6884120a.html
http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html

Castigo wrote:Yes TONS of evidence, why don't you explain some of that evidence. Like the fact that we have don't have any of the inbetween species that we should have. and why did we lose tails? Why are there still a bunch of species, if its survival of the fittest then they should have gotten killed off. Why are we protecting animals? We are the most fit, so we should just eliminate them. So then you think Hitler was doing the right thing to kill hundreds of thousands of people? I mean they were just holding our species back from evolving.

I believe M hit this point perfectly about the 'tween species.

Evolution isn't drowning out the others, it's adapting to your environment. Evolution isn't linear; the line of generations will split.

Evolution by nature and forced evolution are different things, although I must say that Hitler, although an evil man, wasn't wrong. If he had succeeded, then it would have worked. Just because bad people use an idea for evil, doesn't make it incorrect by any means.

Castigo wrote:Also how did the animals evolve? If they needed camo to blend in with their environment then did they just magically get a new skin color? If they needed a tail, did a tail just randomly grow?

No, you have been misinformed. How can you say you don't believe in evolution if you don't even know how it works?

Evolution works off of the idea that mutations happen, which virtually nobody denies and is what causes downs syndrome and so forth. So from one generation to another, mutations occur. These mutations can be either beneficial or not. If the mutation is beneficial, it will raise the organisms chance to survive and, thus, raise it's chance to pass along this mutation (as dead organisms can't pass along there genes after they die). Over generations, this mutation is spread and those non-beneficial mutations are drowned out.

So if, for example, having lighter skin allowed more vitamin C to get into your body (which is why white people have white skin; evidence shows that all of humanity originated in Africa, with dark skins. As we moved in colder areas, with less sun, mutations occured. One of those was having lighter skin, which raised an early human's ability to survive and, thus, pass along this gene to later generations.), and a mutation occurred to have lighter skin, then the body would have a higher chance of surviving and then pass along this gene.

Also, thanks M. You da man.

ok time for me to join in with my suprisingly short rebuttle

point one- darwinism is the beleif that a God created us and we evolved to fit our surroundings
point two- evolutionism is a religios beleif BY DICTIONARY DEFINIATION because noone was there to see it we have no document of it and we have no proof of it, there for you are beleiving in something you cannot see here or touch thereby needing faith thereby being classified as religion
point three- there was a bunch of rocks that collided and we came into existance. by scientific LAW (law's higher then theory haha ^^) nothing can come from nothing, everything has to have an origination or something that it was created from. So where did that debree come from? and that debree? and that debree? ect ect ect, somewhere along the line a being that defied science had to butt in and create something or another. otherwise, there would be nothing =D

Dark_of_the_Night wrote:ok time for me to join in with my suprisingly short rebuttle

point one- darwinism is the beleif that a God created us and we evolved to fit our surroundings
point two- evolutionism is a religios beleif BY DICTIONARY DEFINIATION because noone was there to see it we have no document of it and we have no proof of it, there for you are beleiving in something you cannot see here or touch thereby needing faith thereby being classified as religion
point three- there was a bunch of rocks that collided and we came into existance. by scientific LAW (law's higher then theory haha ^^) nothing can come from nothing, everything has to have an origination or something that it was created from. So where did that debree come from? and that debree? and that debree? ect ect ect, somewhere along the line a being that defied science had to butt in and create something or another. otherwise, there would be nothing =D

Point one: Darwinism doesn't exist. It's a creationist slur used to attempt to downplay Darwin's scientific discoveries. It has nothing to do with a God.

Point two: Read my previous post for just a single example of observed evolution. There are plenty more, as well as evidence in the fossil record.

Point 3: Gravity is a scientific law, but is also "just a theory". Also, you talking about something coming from nothing is off topic; that's abiogenesis, not evolution. Let's stay on topic, shall we?