Evolution: yeah some DNA, some fossils.
Intelligent Design: Heh, come on now, when the guy whose PHD in meterology says this is credible science, who are you to dispute that?
Unintelligent design: Despite no PHD support, this theory suggests the human being is complex but broken, out of the human comes dark matter and smelly cosmic gasses, its obvious isn't it that the creator was drunk or a moron.
So, which of these theories is the most logical to believe?
2006-08-15 07:25:07 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Unintelligent design
2006-08-15 07:47:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
2
2006-08-15 14:29:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Evolution
Adaptations happen in response to the environment. Design only requires an observer it need not be intelligent.
DNA didn't evolve genes did this is why we share the DNA of algae, but we have a very different set of genes.
Intelligence was not a "goal" toward which evolution was directed. Intelligence is not a property of genes.
Example of unintelligent design... Rabbits eat their own excrement. Surely an intelligent designer could have placed the cellulose-eating bacteria at the more logical end of the digestive tract, so the rabbit didn't have to eat the same thing twice.
2006-08-15 16:18:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you could correctly represent each of the choices, I'd choose Intelligent Design, not because of someone with a PHD (which has no credibility in this issue anyway) but because it is the only possible way to define the origin of everything.
Evolution is scientifically impossible and the design of the universe is obviously NOT unintelligently done.
2006-08-15 14:37:45 · answer #4 · answered by Tom C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
look at the odds of spontaneous evolution creating a single "live" (most likely a viral entity) organism
How did it know that it had to replicate?
since most viruses need a host to survive, what was the host?
since evolution implies that organisms evolved how did evolution produce a full organism from the first time? if it did not then how did the first organism survived as it had no defenses against the environment (which everybody tells us it was caustic, ultra hot etc)
it it was not a virus but a cell as we have led to believe then the questions become infinitely more complex as that cell had to have all necessary organs to survive from the beginning
the questions are endless
2006-08-15 14:37:29 · answer #5 · answered by lportil 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Last time I checked you were two years younger than me. Way too young to be repeating yourself like this, bud. Those fundies and bible humpers will never get it.
Off topic, who is your avatar today? Is that from one of the newer StarWars movies? It's hard to tell in that pic. I preferr the monkey-man for some reason. If you have a real pic of you, that would be cool too.
2006-08-15 14:34:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
How about a mix of #1 and #4
Sort of a combo.
I think the creator is fond of a good prank
2006-08-15 14:33:47 · answer #7 · answered by Ragdollfloozie is Pensive! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
With billions of years to think about it, I think an "intelligent" designer could have done a better job.
2006-08-15 14:32:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll still stick with evolution. It may only be partially proved but what has been is enough to make me agree with it.
2006-08-15 14:30:31 · answer #9 · answered by genaddt 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Evolution, of course!
2006-08-15 14:31:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋