Also from the Boomer link:
Why, indeed? Here they are trying to call into question an evolutionary mechanism for the parasite. But instead they show how torturous their logic is. A designer would take the “safer” route, whereas evolution uses anything that works. A designer wouldn’t have any need for parasites anyway. Why in the bloody hell would a designer make a tapeworm?
You see, it wasn’t enough for God to toss Adam out of the Garden of Eden. He had to give him tapeworms too. 
TMR
The fact that somewhere a camera is secretly pointed right up the business end of a toilet
and somewhere else someone is hacking a password so we can see it for free is all the thanks we need.
– From http://www.oldmanmurray.com
David:
OK. I’m new to this board, so I don’t have the historical perspective of knowing what YOU think. I maintain that there was a creator, an intelligence, a design, even to the entire universe and everything in it.
And you say…what? That everything spontaneously created itself out of nothing, until the apes arrived, and we are the progeny thereof???
What is your idea of how everything came to be?
I don’t know of anyone with any scientific background who claims “That everything spontaneously created itself out of nothing, until the apes arrived.” There’s about 4-and-a-half billion years between the start of life on Earth and the first appearance of apelike mammals.
Cmkeller said:
My only “leanings” are those of logic and rationality. You, on the other hand, are unwilling to accept anything but your own beliefs, and so you make up stories to deal with the conflict between reality and those beliefs. One of those stories involves a god who makes a counterfeit world to trick people, but you don’t like the fraudulent implication of that, so you try to use weasel words to get around it, calling it an “imitation.”
Give me a break.
Ignorance is Bliss.
Reality is Better.
CalifBoomer said:
I’m thrilled to hear it. Lots of people believe that. That does not, however, automatically mean they believe in a literal biblical interpretation of the six days of creation. Do you? Or do you accept evolution but believe there was a creator behind it, as many religious people do?
Perhaps you’ve heard of the Big Bang? Perhaps you’ve heard of evolution? These are the scientific theories that have evidence behind them. I don’t know what “caused” the Big Bang, though there are some interesting theories out. I do know we are not the progeny of apes.
From the “Good Science” FAQ on the IRC site:
I’ll tell you what, I just hope that someday these scientists will get just a little curious about the world they live in and bother to pick up a freaking book before they start telling me about how their evolution explains where the universe came from.
Oh, hell. I dripped sarcasm on my shirt. You know that’s going to stain.
“Are you frightened of snakes?”
“Only when they dress like werewolves.”
-Preacher
Thank you for asking. I am neither a scientist nor a ‘great thinker’, simply an accountant. I have problems with both the literal interpretation of creation posited by some ‘religious’ people as well as problems with the ‘pure evolution’ of the Darwinians.
Clearly, the earth is more than the 6000-odd years old as asserted by the ‘religious’ dogmaticists (sp?). Better minds than our have shown this to be factual, and there are volumes of evidence (unless physical law has somehow altered over the course of history) to support it. To cite that God created everything in 6 days equal to six solar days here on earth is to ignore other passages in scripture which refer to the length of a day. It is unclear how long a biblical day is.
On the other hand, to deduce that pure evolution, ‘survival of the fittest’ ie, ‘natural selection’ has been the only activity resulting in our existence ignores a couple (at least) salient questions:
What produced the physical laws by which this universe operates?
If ‘evolution’ was the way to what is now, why don’t we see any current evidence of it? In other words, where are the currently evolving species? I don’t see dogs becoming rabbits, etc., (No doubt you will point to the vastness of time relative to our observations, and make the point that our lifetimes, indeed our history, is far to short to have observed empirical evidence of this unproven, unsupported claim).
CalifBoomer, if I may presume to take a stab at your questions:
1)We can’t know. The information exists outside of time and space in the negative direction (that is, before the Big Bang, when time as we perceive it began), and so is beyond our ability to even extrapolate.
2)Every species is a currently evolving species. They’re - no, I should say we’re all the transitional forms that Creationists claim they can’t find. Every single one. Because there are no “terminus species” or whatever that other species are progressing toward. The concept of a “transitional” form only has meaning in retrospect.
All I want to know is this. Where the hell did Cain’s wife come from? The bible is oddly silent on this issue, considering it lists all of Adam’s male descendents.
Batgirl, I do not share your beliefs, but you have defended yours admirably. It is folly to suffer the slings and arrows of those bent on changing your mind while keeping theirs closed.
CalifBoomer:
So just what is the CalifBoomerian theory that explains everything? Be sure to account for all the available evolutionary evidence.
CalifBoomer said:
Who said anything/anyone had to “produce” them? They are part and parcel of the universe.
We do. Tons of it. Ever hear of antibiotic-resistant bacteria? Of weeds and insects becoming resistant to the sprays meant to kill them so they don’t take over crops?
Well, yes, that is one of the points. So if you know it, why aren’t you taking it into consideration? Not to mention the silliness of your dogs-to-rabbits statement. As has already been mentioned, we’re all evolving.
Ignorance is Bliss.
Reality is Better.
David B:
I submit that you have approached this question with the preconcieved opinion that there is no creator. David, as a proponent of scientific procedure, you should well be aware of the fallacy of this method. You know you cannot disprove the existence of a creator. And I, in turn, cannot prove the existence of a creator. By definition, an infinite, all powerful being simply cannot be intellectually comprehended by finite limited creations.
BTW, I do not refute the possibility of the evolutionary process. I refute the notion that it is somehow self-directed and devoid of any design or intelligence.
Ah. Well, in that case, can you tell me why my backbone is so poorly designed for upright walking? I get these awful pains near my numbar vertebrae every so often…
Er, lumbar, not numbar. (Grumble grumble typos.)
CalifBoomer said:
I submit that you didn’t read what I said, or at least didn’t understand it. Please try again.
And if you don’t deny evolution, then why did you post some of the things about evolution that you’ve already said? Do you accept evolution or not?
David, relax.
I’ve already been where you are now and I understand your angst. It is exceedingly difficult to maintain an atheistic philosophy for an extended period of time. Every civilization down through the ages has had the idea of a creator. Now, you will no doubt assert some theoretical hypothesis that because we are so afraid of death-we just can’t deal with finality-nothingness-the our brains have created the concept of a greater being to assuage our fears while alive here. So, according to your theory of ‘everything from nothing’, God has evolved through evolution. Ergo, using your logic, God is a product of our evolution. However, you also assert that there is no intelligence, plan or design to our existence, so it follows that our evolutionary process is inherently flawed.
Is that the essence of your view?
Those darn paleontologists! They just keep finding more dinosaur bones! http://cnn.com/2000/NATURE/03/10/dinosaur.discovery.ap/index.html
In Argentina, they have found the fossils of six dinosaurs, in a single location, each belonging to a previously-unknown species of carnivore, which looks like it was even bigger than the better-known Tyrannosaurus rex. Probable length, 45 feet, 5 feet longer than T. rex. This make the third carnivorous species found that was larger than T. rex. (The others are Carnotaurus, from Africa, and Giganotosaurus, from Argentina.) The ol’ boy may have to surrender his crown. Can’t really be the “tyrant lizard king” any more if you’re only number four on the list!
Earlier on this thread, I posted that enormous herbivores, bigger than any found in North America or Asia, have also been found in Argentina. It makes sense, doesn’t it, that the carnivores would also be larger than those found north of the equator?
And not only were they larger, it also seems like they hunted in packs. Imagine being hunted by six 45-foot-long carnivores…