I was listening to you guys debate and I remembered something Acreationist named Ken Ham said. And I quote: "A computer is one of the most intelligent machines in the world. But, how did it come into existence? Obviously man made it. Do you believe in that man? Do you believe he existed? of course you do. and it's the same thing with God. Man is the smartest thing alive. How did we get here? God made us. Do you believe in God?
little bit of trivia, because i feel like sharing an anecdote. the first personal computer ever made was made at xerox's palo-alto research centre (parc). apple computer, really a techy club from phone-box nerds at the time, went and visited parc's dead-ended desktop computer program, and basically ripped them off for all they were worth.
now, the second people to get into the market for personal computers -- and the first to actually call it by that name -- had their development center right here. by right here, i mean, i passed by it on the bus everyday going to high school. i live within ten miles of where the pc was first built. it was built within my lifetime, and lived here at the time.
what's the point in tell you this?
maybe we can infer design from something like a computer. maybe we can't. but let's say we can. why would this be a reasonable assumption? well, i know where the plant is. the existance of man and his designing ability is not a matter of faith, is it? we know man exists, and we know he builds things. we know what the things he builds looks like.
we don't know, empirically, that god exists. so we can't start with that as a given. god's existance is a matter of faith -- and so faith, it turns out, is the cornerstone of intelligent design.
it is now leap of faith to think that the first pc was built in my home town. i've seen pictures of the designers, used and taken apart pc's, drove past the site countless times... and people definitally exist. the same cannot be said for god.
But they won't allow themselves to look at or listen to the evidence.
i find creationist have this problem. i suggest you stop balking at the idea and what you THINK it says, and actually research fields like geology, biology, and paleontology. the "evidence" most creationists have is basically pot shots taken at something they don't understand, using material they don't understand, and often generally twisted so far from accuracy and take so far out of context that its actual worth becomes next to nothing.
for instance, i once saw a creationist try to justify dating problems by dating inclusions in lava floes. if they'd stopped for a second and thought about what the word "inclusion" meant, their point kind of disappears: of COURSE the inclusions are older.
Also, Ya'll don't understand what evolution is. Evolution is this, millions of mutations change one thing into another. I don't think anyones ever seen a dog that was half turkey do you?
no, actually, ya'll don't understand what evolution is. a half-dog half turkey is not evolution. it's hybridization. it'd be a chimera, not a transitional form. if this is your SERIOUS objection to evolution, then you have nothing to worry about. not only does evolution not claim any such thing, but if such a thing were discovered it would probably rock the foundations on which the theory stands to the extent that it would be over turned.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 08-31-2005 08:53 PM
אָרַח
™ Version 4.2