Hi, here's a thread for evolution vs. intelligent design discussion

Now stop hijacking my thread!

Sheesh. To quote Indiana Jones, "Didn't any of you guys ever go to Sunday school?" In Christian theology, we have the tri-ni-ty:So, Jesus being one of those three "persons," prays to the other two.




As for intelligent design, it's a fairly benign premise, if you ask moi:Now, let's all kill eachother over God-Panic! Weeeeee!

Every other ostensibly sentient being in the universe, including god, is merely an automaton placed here to test me.

How vain! Let's figure out how to kill this tri-ni-ty!

Hey! I thought I was the only kid that had these delusions. Maybe I'm not crazy, after all.

Your pretty smart for a figment of my imagination!

Actually, we are all your alts and you're testing yourself.

No, you fail to understand: you imagine yourself to have delusions because you were programmed that way.

Sheesh!

But if you try to argue that Grape is masturbation, I'm going to say "Only as long as it's someone besides me."

As for evolution versus intelligent design, what if someone (let's hypothetically call him God) designed evolution intelligently?

Or you can hear the argument for intelligent design which states that nothing ever evolved because there were no transition states; and though a new species could replace the old prototypical one, it could not reproduce beyond just a few if just one being got the random mutation that produced the new species.

Most theories for intelligent design state God created the world in only six days in 4004 BC. These theories leave out the stuff he made before that during previous creations which theologians don't believe in.

As for the Trinity, not all theologians believe in it; some say it limits the family of God to three persons.

Ring species can help us to understand this point.

It works as well in time as in space, if you consider parents and childrens in place of neighbors...

what is the holy spirit?

***SPOILER***













She dies at the end of Matrix 3. All is well.

Vodka

Intelligent design assume an intelligent designer.

As the human spine, pain system, and male scrotum all suggest, any possible designer is actually kinda stupid.

Six days could equate to six voluminous spans of time. After all, if you are an omniscient and omnipresent being, you are not bound by space and time as are we mere mortals. Further, I have no qualms with the notion that intra-species evolution (e.g., adapatation) is a component of an intelligent design. Transitory evolution is, in my view, however, still quite theoretical.

As for the trinity, computer science (OOD and ERD) provides some interesting analogies. A class of objects may belong to a single superclass, but still retain individuality. On a more tangible plane, we are all human. Does that mean that we are not also individuals?

Yeah except we've heard the argument of ID and it's the same old piece of shit creationist non-argument tarted up in the trappings of science in effort to subvert a few hundred years of intellectual progress.

ID isn't science, it is dogma and religious dogma at that. It is a propoganda job from the same neanderthals that wouldn't accept that they aren't the end result of some divine scheme to mark them as "special" instead of one of the most vain, shortest lived, and unremarkably undivine animals to have entered life's grand pageant.

If evolution was designed by God intelligently, then what designed God? Replace "God" with "Fred" in that last sentence and you've said the same thing and gained as little insight into the nature of the universe as you had before - which is to say none.

Saying that nothing ever evolved is as fundamentally untrue and as uncontestably wrong as denying the so-called theory of gravity. Claiming that there is no "transitional" evidence is either a perversion of the very concept of evidence or perhaps akin to claiming that there are no numbers between 0 and 1 and then when someone shows you 0.5 changing your claim to "there must certainly not be anything between 0.5 and 1" ad infinitum.

There are a few different ways to be correct in one's statements and an infinite number of ways to be vapidly wrong. One of the more foolish ways to be wrong is to try to argue with somone who has pulled their own ears and eyes out in order that their ID dogma not be challenged.

Have faith in ID if you like for it hurts noone but you. Calling ID a science is an insult to both ID and science.

I vote we ban ALL creation myths from the science classroom. Including the Big Bearded Being, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the Bolt of Lightning striking the Mud and Ammonia.

Not one of these hypotheses, including the "scientific" one, has ever been tested and demonstrated to create life from scratch.

The whole movement to get ID taught alongside the scientific theory of evolution in schools disgusts me. Alot.

But, if theyre willing to make the following changes to the education system, i'll sit back and accept it.


1. Teach students how to stand in the sunlight and photosynthesise, negating the need to eat.

2. Add alchemy to the science curiculum. They may need to make advanced economics obligatory to help students understand the impact of an influx of gold into the market though.

3. Make it obligatory for students to do each others homework, as helping others is a sure way into heaven.

4. Decide where heaven is, and make a map showing where it is in the universe. If creationism is to become a science, then the location of heaven and hell should be introduced into geography class.

5. Issue every student a genie lamp in first grade, and instruct them on the correct method of rubbing it.

6. Develop some pseudo-scientific reasoning why all other deities are false. Probably best to incorporate this proof into ID so students dont get confused as to who made what.

7. Get all proponents of ID to donate part of their income to the SET Institute, so they can prove beyond doubt that we are the only children of god. I realise this is a long-term strategy, but the nature of 'science' dictates that all branches of a theory be explored. (I'm thinking about the 'made in his image' thing here)

8. Stop using the EYEBALL as irrefutable proof that we were designed. Start using the BRAIN as an example isntead, seeing as its a hundred thousand times more complex in its function and structure. Oh, wait, strike that... I forgot we have scientific proof of how that organ evolved.

9. Start teaching ATHEISM in religious studies, to balance out teaching religion in science class.

10. Give every science student who turns up for class a free Ipod Nano. I realise this has nothing to do with ID or science, but it may make sitting through a lecture on ID more palatable to the students.


Before I get flamed, you should inderstand I have nothing against people who firmly believe in their religion. Kudos to you for having something to believe in! If people want to listen to you and accept your faith, thats great.

At the end of the day, faith and belief are good things, and when used wisely can give one a peaceful life full of focus and love. BUT, when that faith and belief are forced onto those that do not share it, you are on the road to becoming a mini dictator, with a selfish disregard of other peoples beliefs.

Do let us also remove plate tectonics and continental drift from the curricula as well. No one was there to videotape it, the mid-atlantic ridge might only appear to be the result of eons of oceanic spreading and the congruence of the coasts and strata of Africa and South America are likely mere coincidence.

Just because we've only become aware that there is such a thing as the mid-atlantic ridge within the last 50 years (easy to do as it is only about 16_000km long 1800km wide and 2000km high) doesn't mean that we are incapable of forming, testing, rejecting, and amending theories of events that happened on an incomprehensible geologic timescale.

True, the rocks that provide supporting evidence for plate tectonics do survive the eons better than small biotic molecules do, so there is more of it around for us to examine. But if you wish to reject the "scientific" hypothesis of the origin of life based on Miller's 1953 creation of amino acids with lightning, mud, and ammonia, your evidence is horribly outdated. I too view 52 year old baby steps in understanding abiogenesis - done in the same year when the structure of DNA was being puzzled out - to be pretty weak support for "lightning, mud, and ammonia". We've learned a lot since then, unfortunately, these things take a while to filter out of the professional journals.

If you wish to reject a corpus of knowledge on a rational basis please do yourself the favor of being slightly more current in the information you bring to bear on the matter. Note also that it was not until a couple of years before Miller's work that transistors were understood and a couple years after that Rosa Parks declined to move to the back of the bus. Things do change in the course of human understanding.

Speaking of which, who invented that fabulous pas de asphyxier that forces our food and air have to cross paths on their way to their destinations?

All of the ID "proofs" I've heard have been, instead, disparaging remarks about (Darwin's) evolutionary theory and vague allusions to the bible.

ID needs evolution to exist, otherwise it has no basis for any of its claims. It uses evolution as a crutch to hobble along an outdated and curiously fervent religious agenda.

Once evolution is gone, how will you "teach" ID? Where's the proof, minus religious writing (which isn't documented and sourced enough to count as a scientific text)?

This is like the "debate" over whether the earth is flat or not.

LF

Yes, and it is worth emphasising that while science might make hypotheses about areas in which we have little knowledge, these are always presented as hypotheses, and are subsequently modified in the light of later knowledge. The opposite applies in the religious view, where a nonsensical belief is maintained steadfastly, despite the avalanche of contrary evidence.

However, many scientific "hypotheses" are force fed as fact.