Caulfeild

i don't like those options, and i don't believe that the rest of mankind likes them either, but they are the only two we have to choose from (unless you happen to be carlos castaneda). and like i've said before, i can't prove the existence of an intelligent designer, no one can; but then again, no one can prove that species have evolved from other species. mysticism and reason cannot be seperated into two different entities of thought. whether you like it or not, reason is empirical, it cannot be taught.

what about evolution's explanation for the origin of matter? i've asked a lot of people this and they all seem to talk about the big bang and other scientific explanations for the origin of matter, i know it might not be relevant to the debate, but i'd like to know. of course they cannot prove the existence of it, every theory of an intelligent designer contains zero scientific fact, it is a philisophical argument, not a scientific one. this also means that nothing can be simple. i see what you're tring to say, but it doesn't invoke a fallacy into the argument. it's like saying that it's harder to lift the eiffel tower than to pour milk on my cereal, than someone telling me that it's not from their point of view, which is totally acceptable under the theory of special relativity. something always has to be compared with something else.

I don't have time at the moment to respond to the above posts, but i would like to say that i believe in the process of microevolution, macroevolution is impossible.

Wow, well, first of all, i stupidly joined this site not realizing it was an objectivist forum, then i realized it might be an opportunity to learn some more about it. But to the topic at hand, since there are so many of you that accept the evolution theory, what proof has been given you that proves it? Or is it simply a last resort because ID is deemed impossible? I personally believe in ID, nothing else makes any sense, including evolution. the major experiment's that supposedly "proved" evolution have been shown to be worthless (Miller's experiment and the spotted moths are two examples). First of all the 2nd law of thermodynamics can apply to the earth because the earth and the sun can be included in "the closed system." i don't mean to get relativistic on all of you, but a system is whatever you want it to be, if you're saying the earth is not a closed system, you can say that everything else in the universe is not a closed system, then what's the purpose of the law? You may say that a closed system is one in which one object is not affected by another, but this impossible unless you isolate every single atom in the universe. Second, i'm not going to debate the probability of evolution, anything is probable... Thirdly, i would love to start a forum on the contradictions of God, it might be a waste of time, but what the heck, i have too much of that anyway... Oh and i like The Onion article, reminds me of the Family Guy episode, "Everybody knows Christians don't believe in gravity!"

Common sense, what is it? is it a societal standard? do we need it? I have yet to read up on this issue but it seems to me that today's world abandons common sense for the need for freedoms. Comments please...