NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you believe that the complexity of the universe is, in itself, evidence of an intelligent designer or God?

EDIT: added poll with options to reflect different educational backgrounds. i'm just curious about the results, so please be honest.

How about no?

How about no?

Damn Potaria, we disagree. Yep, I do see it as evidence but not proof.

And I will never hurt a precious book! my precious. . .gollum. .. gollum

Do you believe that the complexity of the universe is, in itself, evidence of an intelligent designer or God?
"Complexity" is a relative term, "intelligent design" isn't.

Do you believe that the complexity of the universe is, in itself, evidence of an intelligent designer or God?

No, but it is evidence of a complex universe!!!

"Complexity" is a relative term, "intelligent design" isn't.
erm, okay...i would say they are both relative, but whatever works for you.

Ask a biologist how complicated cellular activity is, or how complicated animal behavior is. Ask a physicist how complex the universe is. It seems hard for me to reason that luck and time created an infinitely complex universe, something must exist.

Its the famous argument that is you spill a bottle of ink on a canvas, you won't end up with an intricate and beautiful landscape. This is a stock argument of creationists everywhere, but in the real world it doesn't hold water.

Creationists often use stuff like ATP Synthase and other tiny and "complex" mecahnisms in the cell as proof of "inteligent design". Problem is, we KNOW how these things eveolved. A super-natural explanation simply is not necessary. Natural selection is a very skilled painter.

Ask a biologist how complicated cellular activity is, or how complicated animal behavior is. Ask a physicist how complex the universe is. It seems hard for me to reason that luck and time created an infinitely complex universe, something must exist.

Yeah, its seems astounding when looked at all together, but in actual fact, when you reach a certain level in the study of science, everything starts making sense in terms of the universal laws of physics - electorstatics, magnetism, gravity, quantum theory. All things are governed by this. For biology natural selection does amazing things over time. Sure there's plenty of stuff we have no clue about, like dark matter/energy...but its only a matter of time and investigation. I don't think the universe is infinately complex- the universe definately is not infinite.

I'm amazed by complexity and beauty every day, too :)

Do you believe that the complexity of the universe is, in itself, evidence of an intelligent designer or God?

EDIT: added poll with options to reflect different educational backgrounds. i'm just curious about the results, so please be honest.

In between no and no.

I'm in the process of a college education, but I haven't completed it yet. I have complete high school though.

I voted Other

The complexity I see every day in the world and the universe at large suggests to me the possibility of a creative force. I would not hold it as evidence though and even if I did I could not even begin to guess as to whether that creative force is still active or is even what people would consider a "god" to be...

It might turn out that "Creator" is little more than the physics/mathematical equation that is eventually determined to have been the cause of everything.

Of course, I have my personal beliefs on the matter but they're personal and not really relevant to this discussion.

In between no and no.

I'm in the process of a college education, but I haven't completed it yet. I have complete high school though.
then you fall on the "i have completed high school" option.

sorry that i couldn't provide yet more categories, but i can only make up to 10 poll options.

I voted Other

The complexity I see every day in the world and the universe at large suggests to me the possibility of a creative force. I would not hold it as evidence though and even if I did I could not even begin to guess as to whether that creative force is still active or is even what people would consider a "god" to be...

It might turn out that "Creator" is little more than the physics/mathematical equation that is eventually determined to have been the cause of everything.

Of course, I have my personal beliefs on the matter but they're personal and not really relevant to this discussion.
by my definition, that would mean you are a "no" on the poll, simply because you don't seem to believe that the complexity is, by itself, sufficient evidence to conclude there IS an intelligent designer. but i can see why you chose "other"...thank you for specifying why :).

By the parameters of your definition, irrespective of my musings of supernatural (heh) involvement, i have to answer no.
I think it more appropriate to state:
The complexity of the universe as it appears to a general observational respect of a human underlies the lack of proportionate capable intellect to interpret the universe in a way that keeps things on relatively equal terms of function, form, and accuracy.
Further, it's somewhat pompous for a species to assume that anything that isn't observable and quantifiable in experiment is truly of a nature of certainty and understanding - it quite simply isn't the whole of the universe that humans can ever really talk about and understand while still being humans. Both the religious conceit and the cosmological conceit need a few steps back. I still, however, am going to err on the side of experiment sooner than i would superstitious supposition.

EDIT - Also, i have graduated and spent a few years pursuing a humanities with a minor in something but find myself challenged enough at this point to maintain the responsibilities i already have as well as self-education (I *heart* BOOKS & THE INTERNET), and EVEN frequent NS on occasion!

Post-edit - Also, as stated in Bloom County, "Irregardless" isn't a word. Pass it on.

I voted Other

The complexity I see every day in the world and the universe at large suggests to me the possibility of a creative force. I would not hold it as evidence though and even if I did I could not even begin to guess as to whether that creative force is still active or is even what people would consider a "god" to be...

It might turn out that "Creator" is little more than the physics/mathematical equation that is eventually determined to have been the cause of everything.

Of course, I have my personal beliefs on the matter but they're personal and not really relevant to this discussion.
It would appear the Emperor ISN'T naked (yet)
Good post.

It seems hard for me to reason that luck and time created an infinitely complex universe, something must exist.

i disagree. there is no logical necesity for the existence of anything.

erm, okay...i would say they are both relative, but whatever works for you.
The point I was trying to make is that "complexity" is dependent upon the viewer's concept of what complexity is. The term "intelligent design" is much more specific and is an "either/or" proposition ... either the universe has been the product of intelligent design or it hasn't.

Raise the level of complexity high enough and many people will conclude that there must have been some intelligence which designed it, since such complexity could not possibly have arisen on its own. This is simply a function of the viewer's ideas about complexity, rather than any sort of proof of intelligent design.

Make sense now? :)

The point I was trying to make is that "complexity" is dependent upon the viewer's concept of what complexity is. The term "intelligent design" is much more specific and is an "either/or" proposition ... either the universe has been the product of intelligent design or it hasn't.

but people may have very different definitions of what would constitute "intelligent design." that is why i see it as subjective. i get what you are saying, though.

Raise the level of complexity high enough and many people will conclude that there must have been some intelligence which designed it, since such complexity could not possibly have arisen on its own. This is simply a function of the viewer's ideas about complexity, rather than any sort of proof of intelligent design.

Make sense now? :)
yes, and i agree with what you have said.

but people may have very different definitions of what would constitute "intelligent design." that is why i see it as subjective. i get what you are saying, though.

yes, and i agree with what you have said.
Which only goes to illustrate your intellect or good taste, take your pick! :D

The point I was trying to make is that "complexity" is dependent upon the viewer's concept of what complexity is. The term "intelligent design" is much more specific and is an "either/or" proposition ... either the universe has been the product of intelligent design or it hasn't.

Raise the level of complexity high enough and many people will conclude that there must have been some intelligence which designed it, since such complexity could not possibly have arisen on its own. This is simply a function of the viewer's ideas about complexity, rather than any sort of proof of intelligent design.

Make sense now? :)
True that MANY PEOPLE WILL CONCLUDE THAT THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOME INTELLIGENCE WHICH DESIGNED IT - >BUT<
such complexity COULD have POSSIBLY arisen on its own, since humans on the whole, as i've stated, only have the parameters of their faculty to determine whether or not anything is possible in the first place. Causality is an issue in favor of human definition ONLY when they cause the situation - the rest is at best educated guess. Humans didn't cause time and also not having had the perspective of all outcomes in the "universe", by that definition specifically, CANNOT know the parameters of possibility and outcome. A good conditioner is the misunderstanding of "infinity"/"paradox". Simply misunderstanding.
True again about the function of the viewer's ideas vs. proof.

I voted no; have finished High school.

My reasoning for this is fairly simple. We don't need to have a supernatural explanation for something which can be explained from natural laws. Admittedly, we're still a long way from figuring it all out, but that does not logically lead to the result that some higher power must be responsible.

Often cited is the 'watch' anaology; if you found a watch, lying in a field, would you assume it had been created through chance? No, you would assume it to have been made by a watchmaker, and dropped by some unfortunate chap in a hurry.

However, this misses two fundamental issues:

1) It is possible that the watch came into being through the random chance of atoms falling. Now, it would be impossible to set a number of probability to that even, suffice it to say that it would be amazingly low, perhaps one in every thousand billion years or some such. However, this leads us directly to point two,

2) What if we waited for a thousand billion years? Then, might we not expect to see, at some point, a random event of such a form? Well, the universe itself has existed for not nearly so long, however - what came before? We don't know. Let us suppose that the chances of the universe coming into being as we observe it are the same as the watch - once in every thousand billion years will this occur. But, how long was the universe sitting there waiting to be born? It could have waited for millions upon billions of years, indeed there could have been billions of universes before this one, and it just so happens that, by chance, in this part of this universe with this set of physical laws, we've come into being. Even if we could calculate this to some extreme degree of improbability, we could still not attribute it to divine intervention, because we don't know the other part of the equation: How long have we had for this random event to occur, and how many other attempts have failed?

That's essentially a form of the weak anthropic model, which says that, rather than the universe being the way it is for us to be here, we are here because the universe is the way it is. We exist only in the place, in this time - another race in another universe five thousand trillion years in the past or future might be asking exactly the same things, but about a completely different set of physical laws.

We have a problem. There are two imposters claiming they created the universe. I want their heads on a pike.

We have a problem. There are two imposters claiming they created the universe. I want their heads on a pike.
i should have made it a public poll, so you could see their names and exact your vengeance :).

say, when people respond, would y'all mind sharing your field of specialization (like if you have a college major, or degree, or a doctorate in something)? i suddenly realized that education level alone isn't necessarily indicative, since an English major might have less background in physics or biology than a high school science nerd.

Due to new strides in the area of artifical digital life, one is lead to believe that complexity arises from a need to adapt to the enviroment.

Take, for example, the Avida Alife program. According to an article in the Discover Magizine, the artifical life that evolves over generations adapts to outside stuimulus. The person working on the project began to kill off all digital life forms that couldn't add 2 and 2. The result, all of them eventually added two and two. Then, he started killing them off if they could add two and two... Low and behold, they adapted. Not by no longer being able to add two and two, but by acting like they couldn't, so that they weren't killed.

Life can evolve complexity. Even enough to lie to their creators. Therefore, the complexity of life, the universe, and everything can be atributed to Chaos Theory.

a collection of atoms =/= intelligent design

I suppose I'll elaborate on my initial "no."

I see it as chance and probability. Everyone who uses the watch and watch maker and spilled ink on a canvas examples as evidence for intelligent design is forgetting one thing: the fact that all this didn't come to be in one shot.

The probability that the first toss of the parts of a watch will make a watch is almost billions to one. Given those billion chances though, at least one time, that toss will create a watch. Pure chance. Pour ink on a canvas a billion times and at least once, Van Gogh's "Starry Night" will appear.

I'm not saying that someone threw together parts of a human and Adam came out of it. But let's go back to primordial ooze status, with everything being reduced to simple chemicals. There are trillions and trillions of trillions of those little chemical chains. In the couple billion years that the Earth had to cool down, the chances that a few of them combined to make something that we call life must have been good enough for it to actually happen. After they were able to reproduce, mutations and natural selection came in and life got on the highway towards thinking individuals that wonder how it all started.

Essentially, there's no need for something to come down and create life. It can happen on it's own, and apparently it did. And I think it's doing a pretty good job on it's own.

1) It is possible that the watch came into being through the random chance of atoms falling. Now, it would be impossible to set a number of probability to that even, suffice it to say that it would be amazingly low, perhaps one in every thousand billion years or some such. However, this leads us directly to point two,



As possible as that is, how would the atoms know where to fall? You are putting as much faith in the random chance of atoms falling as I would in a supernatural being creating it all in just "six days" (actually it was six "YOHMS" or something to that spelling. And a yohm could mean....)

of course we were created.



...by a random series of events that wew neither planned, nor particularly intelligent.

you say "well, we are too complicated to happen accidentally. A tornado sweeping through a junkyard will not construct a fully equipped airplane"

and to that, i say "There is a person named bob who is sitting next to me. or rather, he would be sitting next to me, if he in fact existed. but he doesn't. the material that should be composing him at the moment is now quite busy being a bit of dirt in the corner. you say that we are too complex for chance, and i say that bob (as he is now) is too simple for god. bob does not exist, so there must not be a creator to make him."

in 4 months, i will graduate from high school.
i have been accepted to four colleges so far (IIT, RIT, WIT, DU), and the remaining applications i have yet to hear from.

As possible as that is, how would the atoms know where to fall?

how does a coin "know" which way to fall?

You are putting as much faith in as I would in a supernatural being creating it all in just "six days" (actually it was six "YOHMS" or something to that spelling. And a yohm could mean....)
untrue. belief in the existence of chance is supported directly by physical evidence and experience. unless you claim to have had direct experience of a supernatural creator, the "faith" required for your belief in such a being is greater than that required for belief in chance.

whats the point of arguing it?

whats the point of arguing it?
i enjoy discussing topics like this one. if you do not, feel free to not join this thread.

Due to new strides in the area of artifical digital life, one is lead to believe that complexity arises from a need to adapt to the enviroment.

Take, for example, the Avida Alife program. According to an article in the Discover Magizine, the artifical life that evolves over generations adapts to outside stuimulus. The person working on the project began to kill off all digital life forms that couldn't add 2 and 2. The result, all of them eventually added two and two. Then, he started killing them off if they could add two and two... Low and behold, they adapted. Not by no longer being able to add two and two, but by acting like they couldn't, so that they weren't killed.

Life can evolve complexity. Even enough to lie to their creators. Therefore, the complexity of life, the universe, and everything can be atributed to Chaos Theory.
That was a good article. I ref'd it i think on an "evolution/creationism" thread before. Kinda heartening, indeed.

whats the point of arguing it?
whats the point of arguing anything? because its an interesting discussion

As possible as that is, how would the atoms know where to fall? You are putting as much faith in as I would in a supernatural being creating it all in just "six days" (actually it was six "YOHMS" or something to that spelling. And a yohm could mean....)
Either a measure of spanish coupled resistance or an accompishment of a yoga perogative!

Of course, the world's complex. The idea of creation is perplexing to humans. All I have to say is George Carlin already has the answer to this thread.

whats the point of arguing it?
What's the point of posting?
What's the point of replying?
D'OH!
D'OH!

well, if you want to look at it this way:

for 12341234 trillion years, atoms have been streaming through an otherwise enclosed container.

on this particular year, the atoms construct a fully functioning stopwatch

the stopwatch knows nothing but the past few days during while he looks at nothing but his surroundings.

the chances are infinitely against him being created (or so he thinks) but then, what does he know?

he's only been around for .0000000000000000000001% of the time that the atoms have been streaming by.

to him, it seems impossible that he could be created in such a manner, but the container, who has been sitting patiently by, watching the process has only one thought:

"it's about damn time"


our experience is with nothing more than 30 years or so (for you old-timers out in the audience) but when you look at the age of the universe (uncountable billions of years) it seems just that: about damn time

The argument that the universe had to have been created because it couldn't have arisen naturally is a classic logical fallacy. In fact, it is such a well established fallacy that we even have names for it - the 'argument from ignorance' or 'argument from lack of imagination' link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lack_of_imagination).

Since supporters of intelligent design can't provide a better argument than a well established fallacy, it's not a theory that should be taken seriously.

There are plenty of proofs that have been made for the existance or non existance of a god. These rationalizations are never the basis for belief.

Ie. no one actually believes that there is no god simply because they read Macky's paper on the problem of evil. And no one believes in a god after reading Decartes ontological argument.
They believe there is or is not a god based on other inclinations. All of them non rational in nature (such as intuitions etc.)

Its just so funny that all these arguments are held as irrefutable by those who agreed with them BEFORE they read them.

So it is a silly question. Do you think that anyone just looked around and said, "Jeez, this place IS complex. There must be a God."
Or did he say, "God exists, and I can prove it to you because the universe is REALLY complex."

I would like to discuss some of the less common defenses instead. The cosmological arguments are fun in their mind bogglingliness.

Of course, the world's complex. The idea of creation is perplexing to humans. All I have to say is George Carlin already has the answer to this thread.
this thread does not have a single answer, therefore nobody (not even George Carlin) could have "the answer."

Of course, the world's complex. The idea of creation is perplexing to humans. All I have to say is George Carlin already has the answer to this thread.
Oh, don't be so coquettish.
Indulge, praytell ...?

Where is the "I don't know" answer?

how does a coin "know" which way to fall?

Point taken, but not really understood.


untrue. belief in the existence of chance is supported directly by physical evidence and experience. unless you claim to have had direct experience of a supernatural creator, the "faith" required for your belief in such a being is greater than that required for belief in chance.

Belief in a creator is supported directly by physical evidence and experience. Many claim to have had an experience with a supernatural creator, but even more importantly, many have supportive physical evidence for a creator.


Anyhow a little question of my own, other than those wacky Christians, what other faiths are we told to not just live on faith alone? i.e. "faith without works is dead" and "find a reason and defence for your faith". Dangit I revealed I was a christian I can feel everyone else's flaming and logic zeroing in on me.

There are plenty of proofs that have been made for the existance or non existance of a god. These rationalizations are never the basis for belief.

Ie. no one actually believes that there is no god simply because they read Macky's paper on the problem of evil. And no one believes in a god after reading Decartes ontological argument.
They believe there is or is not a god based on other inclinations. All of them non rational in nature (such as intuitions etc.)

Its just so funny that all these arguments are held as irrefutable by those who agreed with them BEFORE they read them.

So it is a silly question. Do you think that anyone just looked around and said, "Jeez, this place IS complex. There must be a God."
Or did he say, "God exists, and I can prove it to you because the universe is REALLY complex."

I would like to discuss some of the less common defenses instead. The cosmological arguments are fun in their mind bogglingliness.
Sorry, this is "Being Hit On The Head Lessons".
:headbang:

Ask a biologist how complicated cellular activity is, or how complicated animal behavior is. Ask a physicist how complex the universe is. It seems hard for me to reason that luck and time created an infinitely complex universe, something must exist.
Luck? What if it ended up another way, would it still be luck? Further, if there is a creator, what is the evidence for the existence of a creator?

well, if you want to look at it this way:

for 12341234 trillion years, atoms have been streaming through an otherwise enclosed container.

on this particular year, the atoms construct a fully functioning stopwatch

the stopwatch knows nothing but the past few days during while he looks at nothing but his surroundings.

the chances are infinitely against him being created (or so he thinks) but then, what does he know?

he's only been around for .0000000000000000000001% of the time that the atoms have been streaming by.

to him, it seems impossible that he could be created in such a manner, but the container, who has been sitting patiently by, watching the process has only one thought:

"it's about damn time"


our experience is with nothing more than 30 years or so (for you old-timers out in the audience) but when you look at the age of the universe (uncountable billions of years) it seems just that: about damn time
Hear, hear!
*Rattles his measuring cup across the bars*

Belief in a creator is supported directly by physical evidence and experience. Many claim to have had an experience with a supernatural creator, but even more importantly, many have supportive physical evidence for a creator.

there is no possible way that any human being could know for certain they have experienced contact with the being that created the universe, nor is there any existing evidence that such contact has ever occured. but that's a matter for a whole other thread....let's not hijack this one with the issue of essential agnosticism, hmm? :)

Point taken, but not really understood.




Belief in a creator is supported directly by physical evidence and experience. Many claim to have had an experience with a supernatural creator, but even more importantly, many have supportive physical evidence for a creator.


Anyhow a little question of my own, other than those wacky Christians, what other faiths are we told to not just live on faith alone? i.e. "faith without works is dead" and "find a reason and defence for your faith". Dangit I revealed I was a christian I can feel everyone else's flaming and logic zeroing in on me.
When did you reveal that, exactly? Did you visit Heikoku's pseudo-christian thread?
And what's this hubbub about feeling everyone's who-what on in on your when-where?

there is no possible way that any human being could know for certain they have experienced contact with the being that created the universe, nor is there any existing evidence that such contact has ever occured. but that's a matter for a whole other thread....let's not hijack this one with the issue of essential agnosticism, hmm? :)

again...Point taken, but not really understood :gundge:

again...Point taken, but not really understood :gundge:
i like the green zappy emote much better than the uzi-toting emote.

i just felt like sharing that.

well, if you want to look at it this way:

for 12341234 trillion years, atoms have been streaming through an otherwise enclosed container....

We aren't the stop watch, we are the people who found a stopwatch.

When did you reveal that, exactly? Did you visit Heikoku's pseudo-christian thread?
And what's this hubbub about feeling everyone's who-what on in on your when-where?

What???

We aren't the stop watch, we are the people who found a stopwatch.


here, the 'stopwatch' is the first thing that can reasonably be considered alive.

from then on, evolution and natural selection took over

[edit] after some thought, i have decided that you and i are talking about two different stopwatches

yours=stopwatch in feild
mine=stopwatch in container of randomly swirling atoms

We have a problem. There are two imposters claiming they created the universe. I want their heads on a pike.
How d'ya know they aren't two parts o' the "trinity"?
Dang-blasted holy spirit, lazy f*cker never gets 'round to finishing anything.
*gasp*

I voted no; have finished High school.

My reasoning for this is fairly simple. We don't need to have a supernatural explanation for something which can be explained from natural laws. Admittedly, we're still a long way from figuring it all out, but that does not logically lead to the result that some higher power must be responsible.

Often cited is the 'watch' anaology; if you found a watch, lying in a field, would you assume it had been created through chance? No, you would assume it to have been made by a watchmaker, and dropped by some unfortunate chap in a hurry.

However, this misses two fundamental issues:

1) It is possible that the watch came into being through the random chance of atoms falling. Now, it would be impossible to set a number of probability to that even, suffice it to say that it would be amazingly low, perhaps one in every thousand billion years or some such. However, this leads us directly to point two,

2) What if we waited for a thousand billion years? Then, might we not expect to see, at some point, a random event of such a form? Well, the universe itself has existed for not nearly so long, however - what came before? We don't know. Let us suppose that the chances of the universe coming into being as we observe it are the same as the watch - once in every thousand billion years will this occur. But, how long was the universe sitting there waiting to be born? It could have waited for millions upon billions of years, indeed there could have been billions of universes before this one, and it just so happens that, by chance, in this part of this universe with this set of physical laws, we've come into being. Even if we could calculate this to some extreme degree of improbability, we could still not attribute it to divine intervention, because we don't know the other part of the equation: How long have we had for this random event to occur, and how many other attempts have failed?

That's essentially a form of the weak anthropic model, which says that, rather than the universe being the way it is for us to be here, we are here because the universe is the way it is. We exist only in the place, in this time - another race in another universe five thousand trillion years in the past or future might be asking exactly the same things, but about a completely different set of physical laws.
This is the long way around. Quite simply, we KNOW that there are watch makers. We have experience in knowing that watches are made. We have never seen a universe be created, thus we have no way of knowing that universes are created.

Further, the "blind watchmaker" argument assumes that human life is the "goal" of the universe rather then something that is a chance happening. Winning the lottery is a chance happening, but it still happens, doesn't it.

How d'ya know they aren't two parts o' the "trinity"?
Dang-blasted holy spirit, lazy f*cker never gets 'round to finishing anything.
*gasp*


well, in that case, there seem to be 5 parts of the trinity now

I said no, currently at uni.

Interesting presentation you have all given me.

What???
Funnin' with you -
I didn't assume that since you understood some "christian" parlance that you were actually a christian so i didn't see you revealing it. Maybe i missed something.
As fer tha who-what stuff, i figgered i didn't have enough time to post before someone might've jumped you for your statement about flaming "logic" and "zeroing in" - hey, we're all having fun here aren't we? Some people take offense to thinking they have compensatory intellect issues, and given this topic, that is extraordinarily likely (IMHO) to happen, so i thought i'd go the other way with it.
No offense if you took any.

I'm too lazy to read everyone's posts right now... however, it looks like some people have more or less expressed my point of view.

Many creationists (oops, meant to use the euphamism "proponents of intelligent design") point to the eye as an example of how improbable that life evolved without some sort of "intelligent design." My question is always, "Who says that eyes were so great? Seems to me, they're awfully inefficient and prone to breakage... we just think they're so great because we have them, that's all."

I see the argument from complexity as something like this:

1. Wow, look at this place, it is REALLY beautiful and complex.
2. There MUST be a creator because I can't fathom any other way for this all to come into being.
3. Therefore god exists.

Actually Straughn, I this is the second time I have not understood you. I uh..just woke up and stuff so maybe that is why. But I definitely have not taken any offence from you. Trust me, I am a class clown, its hard to hurt my feelings.


ome people take offense to thinking they have compensatory intellect issues,

I even looked up compensatory and I still did not understand that! Anyhow I need to get going, but I should be back in about 4 or five hours.

The whole watch argument is silly. If we found a watch and studied it closely, we'd realize that it is a largely static object with pieces that have no conceivable way of being self assembled, so it is reasonable to conclude that it was made by something else.

Living beings on the other hand are made up of building blocks which are obviously self assembling - we even have a basic understanding of how and why they many of them assemble themselves. We may not know all the details of how they assemble, but we know it can happen. There have been experiments done showing amino acids naturally forming in short time periods given comditions similar to those we believe existed billions of years ago.

As I said before, the intelligent design argument is nothing more than an argument from lack of imagination.

EDIT: fixed a couple typos :P

well, in that case, there seem to be 5 parts of the trinity now
*gasp again*
I heard someone attempting to describe a higher calculus function to me where they PROVED 3 = 5.
Or, the Avida program is being utilized by them now, to some nefarious end i can only assume. *shiver*
;)

Remember, one in a million chances crop up nine times out of ten.

I had a deep thought, but it fell back into the hole it came out of.

I created the universe.

Thank you, that'll be all, Alex, Beaver Brown band for a thousand please.

I'm too lazy to read everyone's posts right now... however, it looks like some people have more or less expressed my point of view.

Many creationists (oops, meant to use the euphamism "proponents of intelligent design") point to the eye as an example of how improbable that life evolved without some sort of "intelligent design." My question is always, "Who says that eyes were so great? Seems to me, they're awfully inefficient and prone to breakage... we just think they're so great because we have them, that's all."
Not to mention that it works backwards and upside down. Nice design. :rolleyes:

How about the throat? TERRIBLE design! We're supposed to eat, drink and breathe through the same hole. Why weren't we designed to put food and drink in a different hole. If we were, then no one would choke to death. Breathing and eating though the same hole is the direct cause of an untold number of deaths throughout time.

The whole watch argument is silly. If we found a watch and stidued it closely, we'd realize that it is a largely static opbject with pieces that have no conceivable way of being self assembled, so it is reasonable to conclude that it was made by something else.

Living beings on the other hand are made up of building blocks which are obviously self assembling - we even have a basic understanding of how and why they many of them assemble themselves. We may not know all the details of how they assemble, but we know it can happen. There have been experiments done showing amino acids naturally forming in short time periods given comditions similar to those we believe existed billions of years ago.

As I said before, the intelligent design argument is nothing more than an argument from lack of imagination.
Uuuuummmmmmm, god-did-it! :gundge:

I'm going to listen to George Carlin right now. I can't remember what he said except the it was good.

I'm going to listen to George Carlin right now. I can't remember what he said except the it was good.


and on the afternoon of the 4th day (he had a bit of time left over from making the other stuff) God created George Carlin. And it was good.

Not to mention that it works backwards and upside down. Nice design. :rolleyes:

How about the throat? TERRIBLE design! We're supposed to eat, drink and breathe through the same hole. Why weren't we designed to put food and drink in a different hole. If we were, then no one would choke to death. Breathing and eating though the same hole is the direct cause of an untold number of deaths throughout time.

And why don't we also mention our genitals as a case study in bad design? I'm reminded of that old engineering joke (http://www.dirtyjokesinc.com/joke-engineer_jokes-712.htm), that human genitals were designed by a civil engineer (because who else would run a sewerage pipe right thru the middle of a playground?).

"When it comes to believing in god, I tried. I really tried but the more you live, the more you look around as realize something is fucked up here. This is not good work. This is the kind of results you expect from a office temp with a bad attitude. If there is a god, I am not impressed. I also believe it would have to be a man because no woman could or would fuck things up like this. If there is a god, I would agree that most reasonable people would believe he's incompetent and maybe just maybe doesn't give a shit...

"When it comes to believing in god, I tried. I really tried but the more you live, the more you look around as realize something is fucked up here. This is not good work. This is the kind of results you expect from a office temp with a bad attitude. If there is a god, I am not impressed. I also believe it would have to be a man because no woman could or would fuck things up like this. If there is a god, I would agree that most reasonable people would believe he's incompetent and maybe just maybe doesn't give a shit...

Really, the conclusion you would have to draw is that his is incompetent OR doesn't give a shit. Could be he's quite competent when he can be bothered. :D

Originally posted by Quorum
Really, the conclusion you would have to draw is that his is incompetent OR doesn't give a shit. Could be he's quite competent when he can be bothered.

Not really. If god has a divine plan, then why do you have to pray? If it's in his plan, then it will happen. It's god's will, thy will be done.

And why don't we also mention our genitals as a case study in bad design? I'm reminded of that old engineering joke (http://www.dirtyjokesinc.com/joke-engineer_jokes-712.htm), that human genitals were designed by a civil engineer (because who else would run a sewerage pipe right thru the middle of a playground?).
ROFL!!!!

THE CREATION OF A PUSSY


Seven wise men, with knowledge so fine, created a pussy to their design.

First was a butcher, with smart wit, using a knife he gave it a slit.

Second was a carpenter, strong and bold, with a hammer and chisel he gave it a hole.

Third was a tailor, tall and thin, by using red velvet he lined it within.

Fourth was a hunter, short and stout, with a piece of fox fur he lined it without,

Fifth was a fisherman, nasty as hell, threw in a fish and gave it a smell,

Sixth was a preacher, whose name was McGee, he touched it and blessed it and said it could pee,

Last was a sailor, that dirty little runt, he sucked it and fucked it and called it a ****.

THE CREATION OF A PUSSY


Seven wise men, with knowledge so fine, created a pussy to their design.

First was a butcher, with smart wit, using a knife he gave it a slit.

Second was a carpenter, strong and bold, with a hammer and chisel he gave it a hole.

Third was a tailor, tall and thin, by using red velvet he lined it within.

Fourth was a hunter, short and stout, with a piece of fox fur he lined it without,

Fifth was a fisherman, nasty as hell, threw in a fish and gave it a smell,

Sixth was a preacher, whose name was McGee, he touched it and blessed it and said it could pee,

Last was a sailor, that dirty little runt, he sucked it and fucked it and called it a ****.
:eek: I'm shocked! Shocked and laughing! :D

.

Not really. If god has a divine plan, then why do you have to pray? If it's in his plan, then it will happen. It's god's will, thy will be done.
Actually, praying would make sense if there were no divine plan. If there was a divine plan, then praying does no good. What's god supposed to do, change his divine plan? If there is no divine plan, then praying might make a difference, because there's no plan to get screwed up.

I have completed college/university and I can't figure it out - but I want to believe... I think believing in a higher force is essential, but I'm not sure if I believe that a higher force INTENTIONALLY created the universe.

"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep." -Scott Adams

...maybe "God," etc. is really just a divine artist.

No, but it is evidence of a complex universe!!!


...and that my friends is beautiful. Good call CelebrityFrogs.

Oksana, you crack me up. :D

Originally posted by Vynnland
Actually, praying would make sense if there were no divine plan. If there was a divine plan, then praying does no good. What's god supposed to do, change his divine plan? If there is no divine plan, then praying might make a difference, because there's no plan to get screwed up.

I think we're agreeing on the same thing, hon. :)

I think we're agreeing on the same thing, hon. :)
Oh. Is that what you meant? Uuuummmmm, I knew that. :D

I'm in third year of a univeristy degree... do i go with highschool as my highest level completeld or do i get to round up (being more than halfway through) and click the uni one?

here, the 'stopwatch' is the first thing that can reasonably be considered alive.

from then on, evolution and natural selection took over

[edit] after some thought, i have decided that you and i are talking about two different stopwatches

yours=stopwatch in feild
mine=stopwatch in container of randomly swirling atoms

Even in the case of the first living entitiy arising, no great leaps of faith, or stopwatch-in-swirling-box-of-atoms arguments are necessary. The first living entity, which is believed to be a piece of self-replicating RNA, or a ribozyme, arose by chance, yes, but not in a swirling stream of atoms.

The prebiotic "soup" was an energy-rich medium that comtained many of the organic molecules that life is built of- they just had not come together yet. Experiments, (like Miller's famous gases+electric shock=organic molecules one) have shown that the formation, and polymerization of organic molecules (like amino acid, nucleic acid, polymers, as well as lipids) was not at all unlikely given the atmospheric, and energetic conditions of early Earth.

Clearly, the simplest bacterial cell is still far too complex to have arisen by chance, because it needs information-coding stuff (DNA) AND stuff to translater the genes into functioning proteins (enzymes) that can be used for replication machinery, which are THEMSELVES proteins. Hence, we have a paradox.

RNA is the perfect solution because it has both information-storing, and catalytic capabilities. If an RNA molecule, by chance was able to catalyze its own replication through some functional group on its tail that facilitated base-pair bonding, and unzipping, then we're off to the races! Natural selection can take over. Considering that the Earth was covered in prebiotic soup,the event is unlikely in any particular location, but likely over thousands of years everywhere on Earth.

So no leaps of faith needed...only first-year evolutionary biology.

Actually Straughn, I this is the second time I have not understood you. I uh..just woke up and stuff so maybe that is why. But I definitely have not taken any offence from you. Trust me, I am a class clown, its hard to hurt my feelings.




I even looked up compensatory and I still did not understand that! Anyhow I need to get going, but I should be back in about 4 or five hours.
M'kay, i meant that there is a sizeable percentage of the populace who take great offense to the idea that someone might consider them of lesser intelligence, and therefore spend a great deal of effort trying to make themselves look smarter than they might be. There was a fella on that pseudo-christian thread who seemed to have a big problem with that idea. I copied down all of their remarks involving how smart they thought the people involved were (or weren't) without actually dealing with the meat of the topic. I could post it here for humour's sake but a few might take offense.
As for my reference to Heikoku's thread, that one went on QUITE a while and had a lot of defining characteristics of christianity about it, and there were a few who were very well versed in, as i'd said, christian parlance, but who weren't christians themselves.
Hope that clears it up.

Not to mention that it works backwards and upside down. Nice design. :rolleyes:

How about the throat? TERRIBLE design! We're supposed to eat, drink and breathe through the same hole. Why weren't we designed to put food and drink in a different hole. If we were, then no one would choke to death. Breathing and eating though the same hole is the direct cause of an untold number of deaths throughout time.
One of the most notorious almost-deaths might have involved a pretzel!
*curses at pretzel and goes off to bomb someone*

"When it comes to believing in god, I tried. I really tried but the more you live, the more you look around as realize something is fucked up here. This is not good work. This is the kind of results you expect from a office temp with a bad attitude. If there is a god, I am not impressed. I also believe it would have to be a man because no woman could or would fuck things up like this. If there is a god, I would agree that most reasonable people would believe he's incompetent and maybe just maybe doesn't give a shit...
Thanks for the indulgence!

I voted "no".

My personal belief is that some sort of divine consciousness either created or was created as a necessity to the universe - but I didn't come to this conclusion based on complexity, and I'm not sure which one I think is true or maybe a combination. Plus I'm not certain that exactly counts as an intelligent design theory anyway, even in the "created the universe" sense because even in that case I think this consciousness hasn't done anything except think existence into reality and set down then abide by the ground rules - the rest just happened according to the rules a.k.a. physics so s/he/it didn't really "design" the complexity of the world anyway.

Anyway, I have not completed high school. I'm currently in the last week of the second trimester of my freshman year.

Actually, praying would make sense if there were no divine plan. If there was a divine plan, then praying does no good. What's god supposed to do, change his divine plan? If there is no divine plan, then praying might make a difference, because there's no plan to get screwed up.

Incidentally, George Carlin commented on this as well. I can't remember the precise wording he used, but the gist of it went more or less like:

You know one thing that really interests me: prayer at football games. Before the game, both sides are praying to God to help out their team. Now of course, one side has got to lose no matter how much God interferes, because football is a game that automatically has a winner and a loser. So how does the loser console himself? It's God's will, that's what he says. So what interests me is: if it is God's will that you lose the game, why are you praying to God in the first place?

As for the main topic, I'd have to say no, for the simple reason that intelligence is not a sufficient nor a necessary condition for complex things to exist. By this I mean that there can be intelligence that doesn't produce complex things, and there can be complex things that aren't produced by intelligent agents. If so, then there isn't really a way to decide whether the universe (which clearly is complex) is one of those things that happened via intelligent design or not.

Examples of the first instance are easy to see. In fact, I am in many respects a perfect example of this. I am in most respects an intelligent agent, and yet at the same time I would have difficulty producing many simple things, much less a complex thing. I can easily tell you more than you want to know about Spinoza, but ask me to sculpt a vase with clay, and very likely the best I could do would be to give you a crudely constructed bowl.

Now I suppose that you could say that the example here isn't fair, as God is much more intelligent and capable than I am, in point of fact he is infinitely so. To that I'd say sure, but for all the complexity in the universe, there are plenty of cases where He clearly didn't do a bangup job, supposing that He did create the universe. The human body, in the abstract at least, is a marvel of engineering. Why then, if God is responsible for the blueprint of the human body, did God insist on going off the blueprint for so many people? Why if God created the eye are so many people suffering from nearsightedness or astigmatism, for instance. Evolutionary biology has little or no trouble with this. If you want to be religious, however, you can only answer by assuming God is some kind of sadist (he wanted you to overcome your natural failings), or reply with what amounts to a cosmological blowoff (God works in mysterious ways). As such, either we need to rethink how God is, or we need to concede that he had nothing to do with how eyes are.

As for the fact that complex things can arise lacking an intelligent agent, you work around such things all the time. Traffic jams are incredibly complex events, involving millions of events involving millions of actors (some intelligent, some non-intelligent), yet I don't think anyone would say that there is someone who "designed" the traffic jam; and a good thing too, because that person would probably have been quickly shot for his efforts. Another good example is something you probably step on every day: an anthill. Ants are very primitive creatures, who very likely obey only a very small set of predetermined rules. No one would say, however, if they looked at an ant colony or an ant behavior that ants as a species are primitive and uncomplicated animals.

In many ways, I think a better way of explaining the teleological argument is as a fallacy of scale. If, for example, you had an engine composed of nothing but triangular parts, would you therefore say that the engine is triangular? Of course not. Would you say if an engine was triangular that all of its parts must be triangular? Of course not. But suddenly when you start talking about intelligent actors in the universe, people assume that there must be an intelligent actor that created them. That simply does not follow.

I see the argument from complexity as something like this:

1. Wow, look at this place, it is REALLY beautiful and complex.
2. There MUST be a creator because I can't fathom any other way for this all to come into being.
3. Therefore god exists.
i see it less kindly:

1. Wow, look at that!
2. I don't get that.
3. It might be possible for me to get that if I read a bit or obtained more schooling.
4. But I am lazy, and don't particularly want to.
5. So I will decide to believe in a very simple explanation because it's easier.
6. Therefore, god exists.

i see it less kindly:

1. Wow, look at that!
2. I don't get that.
3. It might be possible for me to get that if I read a bit or obtained more schooling.
4. But I am lazy, and don't particularly want to.
5. So I will decide to believe in a very simple explanation because it's easier.
6. Therefore, god exists.

Unfortunately the fact that there are scientists with plenty of education who do not believe in evolution makes your view undeniably incorrect.

Michael Behe, author of Darwins Black Box is far from lazy and uneducated. Actually he is a biochemist.

Another famous critic of Darwin is Michael Denton, a senior research fellow in human genetics currently studying the molecular genetics of retinitis pigmentosa. Doesnt sound lazy or uneducated to me.

Dr. William Dembski, another well known critic is associate research professor in the conceptual foundations of science at Baylor University and a senior fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. He has taught at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas and has pursued post doctoral studies at MIT and Princeton. Sure does sound lazy and uneducated to me.

There are plenty of examples of why your statement is dumb.

i see it less kindly:

1. Wow, look at that!
2. I don't get that.
3. It might be possible for me to get that if I read a bit or obtained more schooling.
4. But I am lazy, and don't particularly want to.
5. So I will decide to believe in a very simple explanation because it's easier.
6. Therefore, god exists.

I thought the argument from complexity was:

1. Man, the universe is complex.
2. Way too complex to have just randomly shown up!
3. Wait, I've got it! If something EVEN MORE COMPLEX had just randomly shown up earlier, it could have designed the universe!
4. Hang on....this makes zero sense.

Unfortunately the fact that there are scientists with plenty of education who do not believe in evolution makes your view undeniably incorrect.

um, no. my "view" as stated in that post has nothing to do with accepting evolution or not. this thread is not about whether evolution is true or not, nor does it have anything to do with the validity of evolutionary theory. this thread is about whether or not the complexity of the observable universe is, in itself, proof of an intelligent designer.

you need to read more carefully, and avoid leaping to conclusions, especially if you plan to go around telling people their views are dumb. by doing so, you will avoid embarassing yourself this way in the future.

have a nice day!

1. Man, the universe is complex.
2. Way too complex to have just randomly shown up!
3. Wait, I've got it! If something EVEN MORE COMPLEX had just randomly shown up earlier, it could have designed the universe!
4. Hang on....this makes zero sense.
Proof Of God #172: ARGUMENT FROM SIMPLICITY

1) Simple explanations are generally better than more complex explanations.
2) The universe can be explained as the creation of God, a being who is omniscient (where omniscience is defined as having all knowledge of true propositions knowable by an Anselmian supreme being in all possible worlds which do not imply weird McEar paradoxes), omnipotent (where omnipotent is defined as having the ability to do any and all logically possible actions coherent with the idea of a supreme being and those by unsupreme beings), morally perfect (where morally perfect is defined as being of a perfectly good will and only does good actions, and only allows good actions or those actions which lead to even better results), immaterial (where immaterial is defined as not being composed of matter or described by physical laws of any logically possible world, including those comprising nothing physical), and a person (where person is defined as having intellect, intent, will, and worthy of moral respect and able to make moral decisions), and this is a fully simple explanation, given the simple and immediately understandable (by anyone) definition of God (where simple is defined as having a nature identical with his existence, and all properties of X being identical to any other properties of X, and these properties not identical to any other beings other than X).
3) Therefore, God exists.

um, no. my "view" as stated in that post has nothing to do with accepting evolution or not. this thread is not about whether evolution is true or not, nor does it have anything to do with the validity of evolutionary theory. this thread is about whether or not the complexity of the observable universe is, in itself, proof of an intelligent designer.

you need to read more carefully, and avoid leaping to conclusions, especially if you plan to go around telling people their views are dumb. by doing so, you will avoid embarassing yourself this way in the future.

have a nice day!

Neither was mine about accepting or rejecting evolution, it was about your false assertion that those who claim that complexity is evidence of intelligent design are uneducated and lazy. All of the names I offered include complexity (usually irreducible complexity) as part of the evidence in favor of intelligent design.

Neither was mine about accepting or rejecting evolution, it was about your false assertion that those who claim that complexity is evidence of intelligent design are uneducated and lazy. All of the names I offered include complexity (usually irreducible complexity) as part of the evidence in favor of intelligent design.
really? your post had nothing to do with accepting or rejecting evolution?

"Unfortunately the fact that there are scientists with plenty of education who do not believe in evolution makes your view undeniably incorrect."
-LazyHippies

reading comprehension is fun, kids!

not to mention that you totally and completely overlook the intended HUMOR of the initial post, and have decided to take a joke as absolutely literal. you need to a) read more carefully, b) read much more carefully, and c) chill out.

really? your post had nothing to do with accepting or rejecting evolution?

"Unfortunately the fact that there are scientists with plenty of education who do not believe in evolution makes your view undeniably incorrect."
-LazyHippies

reading comprehension is fun, kids!

Yup, and your stated view was that people who believe in complexity as evidence of intelligent design are lazy and uneducated. A quote of the post I was replying to was conveniently included in my original post, didnt you notice? That is the "your view" that I was reffering to. Reading comprehension is indeed quite fun.

- The number of planets is infinite.
- Not all planets are inhabited.
- Thus the number of inhabited planets is finite.
- Any finite number divided by infinity is pretty close to 0.
- Therefore the Average population on all planets is 0.
- So anyone you meet is actually just a product of your deluded imagination!

:p

Unfortunately the fact that there are scientists with plenty of education who do not believe in evolution makes your view undeniably incorrect.
They are in the minority, the VERY small minority who can't allow evolution to interfere with their religious dogma.

Neither was mine about accepting or rejecting evolution, it was about your false assertion that those who claim that complexity is evidence of intelligent design are uneducated and lazy. All of the names I offered include complexity (usually irreducible complexity) as part of the evidence in favor of intelligent design.
To reject evolution and default to creation is a false dichotamy. Even if evolution turns out to be incorrect, there is no evidence FOR creation.

Do you believe that the complexity of the universe is, in itself, evidence of an intelligent designer or God?

Third-year student at a university. The complexity of the universe is indeed evidence. It is not proof, however.

Many creationists (oops, meant to use the euphamism "proponents of intelligent design") point to the eye as an example of how improbable that life evolved without some sort of "intelligent design." My question is always, "Who says that eyes were so great? Seems to me, they're awfully inefficient and prone to breakage... we just think they're so great because we have them, that's all."

And eyes are fairly easy to come about, anyway...

Light-sensitive cells on skin to detect daylight cycles Sets of light-sensitive cells to detect which direction daylight is Light sensitive cells in pit in skin (deeper the pit, better the directional sensitivity) Transparent membrane on surface of pit (keeps detritus and dirt and muck out) Lensing of membrane improves matters etc

I've truncated that a bit, but at no point is there a 'half eye' that does not work, and they all work as well as they need to (the ones that don't are on creatures that are relitively disabled) compared with their environment and contemporary predators/prey/etc.

It's all a bit of a theory, but there's no major problems with it that I can (ahem) see...

No it's not an evidence. There is no reason why the possible 'creator' would have maked the world complicated.

Although complexity itself is rather ill-defined at best my Masters degree is involved with studying it, or in more puplulist terms I have a master's in the study of dynamical systems and chaos theory.

Even 3 non-linear equations can produce some of the most beautiful and complex stuctured graphs or fractals you've ever seen and yet every step is governed by the most simple of rules.

for example, one of the simpler fractals, the Mandelbrot set:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2854/gall06.gif

If this is what can happen in 2 dimensions with just a single particle, no wonder the universe is so complex with trillions upon trillions of particles.

edit: so in conclusion, complexity can easily come from a set of simple rules, so it is useless argument when arguing the existence of a creator.

Although complexity itself is rather ill-defined at best my Masters degree is involved with studying it, or in more puplulist terms I have a master's in the study of dynamical systems and chaos theory.

Even 3 non-linear equations can produce some of the most beautiful and complex stuctured graphs or fractals you've ever seen and yet every step is governed by the most simple of rules.

for example, one of the simpler fractals, the Mandelbrot set:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2854/gall06.gif

If this is what can happen in 2 dimensions with just a single particle, no wonder the universe is so complex with trillions upon trillions of particles.

edit: so in conclusion, complexity can easily come from a set of simple rules, so it is useless argument when arguing the existence of a creator.

Beautiful … too bad all my networking graphing is usually linear busty patterns ;) they are rather plain and look almost exactly alike irregardless of the scale

Although complexity itself is rather ill-defined at best my Masters degree is involved with studying it, or in more puplulist terms I have a master's in the study of dynamical systems and chaos theory.

Even 3 non-linear equations can produce some of the most beautiful and complex stuctured graphs or fractals you've ever seen and yet every step is governed by the most simple of rules.

for example, one of the simpler fractals, the Mandelbrot set:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2854/gall06.gif

If this is what can happen in 2 dimensions with just a single particle, no wonder the universe is so complex with trillions upon trillions of particles.

edit: so in conclusion, complexity can easily come from a set of simple rules, so it is useless argument when arguing the existence of a creator.
I'm going to use this argument in the future. :cool:

no creationist replies to my post eh? so did I solve this or what!?

No, George Carlin solved it.

Third-year student at a university. The complexity of the universe is indeed evidence. It is not proof, however.

Would it not be a disproof? An infinitely intelligent being would know that the best solution is the simplist (rather 2+2=4 than 2+2+2+2/2=4) providing there is no need of complexity (and in an existence where a creator is the only thing extant, there is no need for complexity), therefore creating a universe much more simple than our current one would be for the best.

In fact, if the universe WERE less complex than I would consider that a more damning counter-proof against the atheist viewpoint, as our natural universe tends towards overall entropy (or, as the creationist/IDist prefers, chaos/disorder). A clear, ordered universe would be much more seeming of design than the barely controlled chaos we live in.

No, George Carlin solved it.

George Carlin? :confused:

Do you believe that the complexity of the universe is, in itself, evidence of an intelligent designer or God?
No; I believe that an intelligent observer is responsible for the complexity of the universe.

No.

Take this for an example: Fractals

---you can make incredibly complex patterns with incredibly simple rules sets.

Complexity doesn't mean there has to be a designer, more likely that it is random or following rules sets that we don't understand yet.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I could have been bothered to read through all the other pages of answers to the question I may well have noticed others making the same argument a few posts ahead of me. Still, great minds think alike ...occasionally. :D

A quote from George Carlin:

Originally Posted by Oksana
"When it comes to believing in god, I tried. I really tried but the more you live, the more you look around as realize something is fucked up here. This is not good work. This is the kind of results you expect from a office temp with a bad attitude. If there is a god, I am not impressed. I also believe it would have to be a man because no woman could or would fuck things up like this. If there is a god, I would agree that most reasonable people would believe he's incompetent and maybe just maybe doesn't give a shit...

No; I believe that an intelligent observer is responsible for the complexity of the universe.
Excellent post. You do indeed ROCK.

Excellent post. You do indeed ROCK.
Don't be too quick to praise. I didn't exactly answer the question that was asked. ;)

RAW's latest:

Thought for the Month
3.11.93 Jia Shen, Year of the Monkey

I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions.

I strongly suspect that a world "external to," or at least independent of, my senses exists in some sense.

I also suspect that this world shows signs of intelligent design, and I suspect that such intelligence acts via feedback from all parts to all parts and without centralized sovereignity, like Internet; and that it does not function hierarchically, in the style an Oriental despotism, an American corporation or Christian theology..

I somewhat suspect that Theism and Atheism both fail to account for such decentralized intelligencce, rich in circular-causal feedback.

I more-than-half suspect that all "good" writing, or all prose and poetry that one wants to read more than once, proceeds from a kind of "alteration in consciousness," i.e. a kind of controlled schizophrenia. [Don't become alarmed -- I think good acting comes from the same place.]

I sometimes suspect that what Blake called Poetic Imagination expresses this exact thought in the language of his age, and that visits by"angels" and "gods" states it an even more archaic argot.

These suspicions have grown over 72 years, but as a rather slow and stupid fellow I do not have the chutzpah to proclaim any of them as certitudes. Give me another 72 years and maybe I'll arrive at firmer conclusions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm on the fence with Robert

The Chaos theory itself, seems to me to be evidence of a creator. I won't say proof, but it does score a point for Christians IMO. And for those of you who don't know what the Chaos theory is, its kinda the oppositte of its name. It says that everyting in the universe has a very high order of complexity, so high that humans cannot really determine all the numerous interrelated systems. In fact, I believe many scientists now subscribe to an infinite complexity.

great so 17 other people created the universe? :|

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm on the fence with Robert

Let's hear it for R. A. Wilson!

One of the truly great minds of more recent decades. :D

great so 17 other people created the universe? :|

We all created the universe, some people aren't willing to take responsibility for it yet though and want to blame somebody else. ;)

at this time, with 141 responses to the poll, my calculations show that:

33% of respondants who have at least a high school diploma said "yes."
25% of people with college degree or higher said "yes."
23% of higher degree holders said "yes."

just thought you all might want that update :).

The Chaos theory itself, seems to me to be evidence of a creator. I won't say proof, but it does score a point for Christians IMO. And for those of you who don't know what the Chaos theory is, its kinda the oppositte of its name. It says that everyting in the universe has a very high order of complexity, so high that humans cannot really determine all the numerous interrelated systems. In fact, I believe many scientists now subscribe to an infinite complexity.

Someone has very little to no idea what they're talking about.

Hint: it isn't me.

Ask a biologist how complicated cellular activity is, or how complicated animal behavior is. Ask a physicist how complex the universe is. It seems hard for me to reason that luck and time created an infinitely complex universe, something must exist.

Oddly enough, everything there can be explained chemically, or mathematically. We are on the vurge of a Unified Feild Theory already, a theory that explains why Gravity seems so much weaker than the other forces. We know now that cell activity is based nothing more on random combinations of ATCG, that took aeons to develop even the simplest sucessful living creature.

Animal behavior is determined similarly. Chemical processes of hormones drive it to mate in the right season, eat when it's hungry, and so on, and so forth. The only real unknown here is human behavior. But even that is becoming understood. Adolf Hitler understood human nature, and used it to his advantage.

Complexity? Yes. Intelligent design? Not really. After aeons and aeons of developing from single celled organisms, the creatures adapt to their enviroments to find more efficent ways to gather energy, and survive. Humans are the pinnacle of the endless process of natrual selection. The ones who survive breed, the ones who don't, die. Ad infinitum, for countless generations. The survivors have diffrent traits, branch off, and become more sophisticated, and variant.

There is no intelligence in having sex with the best and the strongest.

Someone has very little to no idea what they're talking about.

Hint: it isn't me.
Why not make an argument instead of slinging around ad hominems?

[snip]Humans are the pinacle of the endless process of natrual selection.[snip]...only so far. :)

You used the word 'endless', so I know you know appreciate that, I'm just being pedantic and as such wonder if you might even be an optimist. With luck, we're just a transitional species, but the way we interact with the environment we could equally be an evolutionary dead end (and, by proxy, of a lot of other species!). Time will tell.

It might not tell us, but hopefully it will tell someone... :)

There is no intelligence in having sex with the best and the strongest.
well, perhaps you should say, "there is no need for an outside intelligence to explain why individuals have sex with the best and strongest."

after all, i think it's quite intelligent to have sex with only the best :).

well, perhaps you should say, "there is no need for an outside intelligence to explain why individuals have sex with the best and strongest."

after all, i think it's quite intelligent to have sex with only the best :).
Damn right. :cool:

Any one who states that complexity - inteligent design, clearly has a very poor grasp about evolution, its all about the trillions of freak mutations that have occured have all formed a working human nervous, circulartory. Hell even the average cell its self is as complex as hell but sure as shit one thing that proves evoltion made it for me are the mitochondria, they became sybotes some where during evoltion, and arnt technically part of us as they have their own dna.

...only so far. :)

You used the word 'endless', so I know you know appreciate that, I'm just being pedantic and as such wonder if you might even be an optimist. With luck, we're just a transitional species, but the way we interact with the environment we could equally be an evolutionary dead end (and, by proxy, of a lot of other species!). Time will tell.

It might not tell us, but hopefully it will tell someone... :)

Ahh, you caught me. I am an optimist. However, I do believe that no matter where Humanity goes in the process of evolution, humans as they are right now are the best they will ever be. Why? Because now we're heading down hill on the correct process of natrual selection.

Many people's ideas of who is the best and the strongest mate is being twisted by society. We're looking for more brawn and less brain, just as it was back in the days of the wooly mammoth. Our idea of what love is is twisted, a s well. The sensation of love, after all, shuts down the part of the brain that judges mates. We are devolving, I think, as those who would have died because of their genetic faults many thousands of years ago, maybe even a century ago, contine to live and breed. But I'm glad I won't be around for it. Either that, or when I become Supreme Dictator of the Planet, I'll make things head in the right direction again.

I also think that we'll work like bacteria. Follow carefully the life cycle of bacterial life. First, it finds a place where it can grow. When it finds it, it begins to divide, multipy, exponentially, especially if it has more than enough resources and nutrients. Then, it enters a period of stasis, where death rate meets the birth rate. Eventually, and quickly, the bacteria will start dying fast as they consume all availiable resources, and are left poisoned by their own waste.

I think, that here in America, we're entering the state of stasis. Soon, I feel that as the baby boomers begin to die off, and as here in the south, death rates climb due to the recent comeback of Malaria, the spread of Rabies, AIDS, we can expect deaths to start to climb fast. When this happens, I suspect that houses will be left empty, and either torn down, reinhabited, or left to waste. The first and third cases bother me. More trash, more chemicals in the ground. We will poison our resouces, our land with our own homes.

I feel there are ways to stop the downfall.


Improved public sanitation and awareness programs for disease.
More Research to find a cure or vaccination for AIDS.
New sources of power such as hydrogen fusion, hydrogen fuel cells, and enviromentally safe contruction materials.

Ahh, you caught me. I am an optimist. However, I do believe that no matter where Humanity goes in the process of evolution, humans as they are right now are the best they will ever be. Why? Because now we're heading down hill on the correct process of natrual selection.I don't think you can head downhill on the landscape of natural selection. (And I include social pressures and the like as 'natural' because that is in our 'nature' as we have evolved to use it, unless such things as language, intelligence, extelligence and the spread of memes is considered as breaking the cycle of 'nature'.)

So the natural selection against people fit to reproduce is being mitigated by better medical care of the ill adult, child, premature babies et al (bad health, even genetic instability being no barrier to stayting in the gene pool), with the normal cycle of instinctive reproduction being broken by contraception (the urge to copulate is no longer a high-factor advantage passed on in a significant part of the gene pool) and mutations causing reproductive failure now have a much better chance of being inherited (test-tube babies and similar assistance for barren couples), but if you accept that human hyper-biological progress is just an extension of the "altering of the environment" concept that makes a beaver's dam 'natural' and the crow's tool-use an evolutionary adaptation then what we do to ourselves, as described above, is part of an evolutionary pressure where there are people 'fitter to reproduce' because they seek help in overcoming infertility who sideswipe people like me off the map (have the urges but actively use contraception) and that is much like the aquatic mammals, upon returning to the seas, selecting against the legs that were so useful when originally (by way of their amphibians ancestors) attaining their places on land. Legs were no longer necessary for their advancement, instead they developed hge lung capacities. Natural breeding still works for us, but there's a foreseeable future where the advantage of large heads makes non-caesarian delivery impractical and pregnancy is largely dependant upon technological assistance also. (It means we become a dead-end whenever technology fails us/is taken away from us/cannot satisfy our needs, but I think that most 'fall' scenarios occur well in advance of that point of no return... Assuming we don't all die off at the time.)


I agree with a lot of what you say. Here in the UK we also have a situation where the baby boom is dropping off already and causing problems with population metrics. Early society and human development relied upon the existence of grandparents to reinforce the passing on of knowledge and advance understanding of the world. These days we can 'inherit' knowledge sideways a lot more and 'old people' are now just (in general terms) an encumberance on the society. If truly evolutionary terms applied, then our upper age limits might even start reducing again, but the timescales are much too long to get something like that happening under our noses and is currently offset by our ability to deal with heart disease, cancer, even depression leading to suicide (which, like that 'gay gene' incurring advantages by proxy on siblings and thus being propogated, could also have, on an a very long-term view, an altruistic push on the surviving gene-pool).


And the arising and spread of AIDS (and re-emergance of 'old enemies' malaria and rabies and TB and SARS and MRSA and various other nasty things) is a natural process, on the part of the viral/biological agents concerned. Adaptations spurred by changes and availability in the 'working enviornments' for such pathogens (i.e. our own bodies, they in turn being mega-packed and ultra-mobile throughout the world to aid inter-body transmission).

I'm waiting for a proven example of natural/spontaneous AIDS-reistance being inherited to arise. If we did not have the technology to understand AIDS at all, then (theoretically) a much larger proportion of the world would be infected, including such individuals, and these people's descendants would essentially inherit the Earth. As it is, we're mitigating such advantages by: a) reducing the spread (at least in civilsed parts of the world), b) making it more likely that other pressures destroy the gene-line. (Wouldn't it be ironic if the person with an AIDS-resistant system never even encountered the disease and instead died of MRSA?) In evolutionary terms, this makes it less likely that such a purely genomic solution becomes dominant. Instead, cultural and wealth issues are dominant parts, and should be integrated into the calculations of the 'fall of humanity' much as their large size and huge food demands lead to the fall of the vegetarian dinosaurs following the (assumed) 'meteor winter' of 65mil years ago.

I was going to say "Yes, to this end we must [enact such environmental reforms] to survive" but that would not stay true to the theme of this message. Instead let me say that "should we evolve (through science and culture) better methods of dealing with our survival, then we shall survive". This involves 'evolving' space colonies that allows survival of the next global catastrophe (which relies on a those space-colonies being 'well adapted' for survival on their own, and they could equally suffer the fate of extinction) and/or evolving cultural changes that protect our environment and/or evolving a society-based responsibility and/or just evolving a technology that mitigates more propblems than it creates.

This is all way beyond my normal outspoken philosophy (I'm not really a humanist, environmentalist, things like that, though I suppose I'm a technologist who'd like to see space colonisation, I'll put my hands up to that) but is merely an extension of the theme of this post to a conclusion (or at least a natural waypoint that's not too distant from the original point). I'm not attempting to be a 'rabid environmentalist' or a rabid anything, it's just a consequence of my style of posting that tends to veer off topic a little, letting the 'little grey cells' run amok on whatever premise I was originally intending... :)

Well, one big point against ID is that if you look at the biomass, the amount of complex life is negligibly small. The most sucessful type of life on the planet are bacterias. :)

Well, one big point against ID is that if you look at the biomass, the amount of complex life is negligibly small. The most sucessful type of life on the planet are bacterias. :)And you need very small screwdrivers to make them! :p

And you need very small screwdrivers to make them! :p
Usually, it's a bit easier to put them together with a hammer and nails, I think.

Usually, it's a bit easier to put them together with a hammer and nails, I think.
A rubber mallet, when carefully applied, is frequently the only tool you'll ever need.

But I digress, I still find my idea of ID perfectly able to integrate into evolution & science in generally simply because my ID all happens before the big bang - from that point on it's all chaos, randomness and natural selection.

Of course, I realise I'm fairly alone amongst ID'ers with that particular belief.

Believers
21% Have Not Completed High School
38% Have Completed High School
29% Have Completed College
12% Have Completed Advanced degrees

Non-Believers
20% Have Not Completed High School
31% Have Completed High School
34% Have Completed College
10% Have Completed Advanced degrees

I dont see any statistically significant difference yet, although this poll is far from statistically significant anyway. So, it seems that there is no relation between education and beleif in God by those choosing to answer this poll.

A rubber mallet, when carefully applied, is frequently the only tool you'll ever need.

But I digress, I still find my idea of ID perfectly able to integrate into evolution & science in generally simply because my ID all happens before the big bang - from that point on it's all chaos, randomness and natural selection.

Of course, I realise I'm fairly alone amongst ID'ers with that particular belief.If there's a pre-BB ID being, I imagine him as having an infinitly large kitchen with an infinitely large number of jam-jars upon the sufficieintly-sized table, and in each of them he has poured a slightly different mix of 'universal constants', and he (or she, of course, but I don't want to suggest a female deity's role is in the cosmic kitchen) is watching which ones fizz and which ones glow and which ones burn through the table-top and occasionally emptying a jar down the sink, and seeing which ones do interesting things. Whether us 'doing interesting things' is criteria for continued interest or instead for disposal, I wouldn't know... Let's hedge our bets and go with the flow, eh? :cool:

(And that's generally the limit to my positive convictions regarding ID... :))

A rubber mallet, when carefully applied, is frequently the only tool you'll ever need.

But I digress, I still find my idea of ID perfectly able to integrate into evolution & science in generally simply because my ID all happens before the big bang - from that point on it's all chaos, randomness and natural selection.

Of course, I realise I'm fairly alone amongst ID'ers with that particular belief.
Isn't that a bit paradoxical? How can something be intelligently designed before the big bang and then everything after it is chaos? Chaos is the opposite is the opposite of deliberate design. :confused:

Appendix =|= Intelligent Design

Believers
21% Have Not Completed High School
38% Have Completed High School
29% Have Completed College
12% Have Completed Advanced degrees

Non-Believers
20% Have Not Completed High School
31% Have Completed High School
34% Have Completed College
10% Have Completed Advanced degrees

I dont see any statistically significant difference yet, although this poll is far from statistically significant anyway. So, it seems that there is no relation between education and beleif in God by those choosing to answer this poll.

But it is geting fairly close

There is another school of thought that says something along the lines of "Human perception creates the universe." Or something along that lines. It reminds me kind of the teachings of The Buddha. Noetic sciences. If you're interested in taking a look, check it.

http://www.bleepspace.com/download/WTBstudyGuide.pdf

Creationists often use stuff like ATP Synthase and other tiny and "complex" mecahnisms in the cell as proof of "inteligent design". Problem is, we KNOW how these things eveolved. A super-natural explanation simply is not necessary. Natural selection is a very skilled painter.

While we may know the mechanism, we dont know the cause. Someone may know how an internal combustion engine works, but that doenst mean he/she has a detailed knowlege of the factory machinery's workings which put that engine togther.

Believers
21% Have Not Completed High School
38% Have Completed High School
29% Have Completed College
12% Have Completed Advanced degrees

Non-Believers
20% Have Not Completed High School
31% Have Completed High School
34% Have Completed College
10% Have Completed Advanced degrees

I dont see any statistically significant difference yet, although this poll is far from statistically significant anyway. So, it seems that there is no relation between education and beleif in God by those choosing to answer this poll.

that's because you are looking at the stats backwards. you looked at what percentage of yes/no individuals have completed each level of schooling, but you should try looking at the difference in beliefs between individuals on each level of schooling; as my original break down showed, individuals who have completed higher levels of schools are (according to this poll) significantly more likely to say "No" than individuals with less schooling.

While we may know the mechanism, we dont know the cause. Someone may know how an internal combustion engine works, but that doenst mean he/she has a detailed knowlege of the factory machinery's workings which put that engine togther.
and yet that person will probably not simply assume there is a supernatural cause for the workings of the machinery just because they personally don't know how those machines work. why should people make such a leap when applied to the universe?

and yet that person will probably not simply assume there is a supernatural cause for the workings of the machinery just because they personally don't know how those machines work. why should people make such a leap when applied to the universe?

I can answer that one!

Because people like pretending, or feeling that they know, rather than admitting ignorance and leaving it be. False confidence, false knowledge is more appealing than honest humility and just saying "I don't know." No one wants to say "I don't know." People would rather say "Yes, I know... and I am going to Heaven because I know, whereas you don't know and thus you are going to fucking HELL bitch hahaha I RULEZX)R LOLROFLORL!1!!"

...is what it comes down to.

I can answer that one!

Because people like pretending, or feeling that they know, rather than admitting ignorance and leaving it be. False confidence, false knowledge is more appealing than honest humility and just saying "I don't know." No one wants to say "I don't know." People would rather say "Yes, I know... and I am going to Heaven because I know, whereas you don't know and thus you are going to fucking HELL bitch hahaha I RULEZX)R LOLROFLORL!1!!"

...is what it comes down to.
if you all will pardon a long post, i would like to share The Parable Of The M&Ms, borrowed from a friend of mine:

Think about all the candy bars you’ve eaten in your lifetime. Snickers, Mars bars, Almond Joy, Mounds, Hershey bars, Payday, Zero (do they even make Zero anymore?), York Peppermint Patties, all those other things.

If you’re like me, you’ve never been to a candy factory, and you really have no solid proof about how these things are put together.

But … you could probably figure out the basic scheme of each bar with little trouble.

You start with a thick caramel-like ooze, mix it with lots of peanuts, form it into little bars, dip those bars into molten milk chocolate, and then lay them out on a cool surface to harden. Voila! Snickers.

You stamp out discs of peppermint dough, send them for a swim through dark chocolate, then lay them out on a cool surface to harden. Kazaam! York Peppermint Patty.

You take a short strip of candied coconut, drop a couple of almonds on top of it, dunk it in milk chocolate, and then lay it out on a slick marble countertop to cool and harden. Poof! Almond Joy.

See? Nothing to it. No magic, no gods, no super-scientific alien civilizations required.

Ah, but …

Think about M&Ms.

There’s this little button of chocolate in the middle, coated with a hard candy shell, and then painted with some kind of candied color. Or a peanut covered with chocolate, then the hard candy, then the color.

And it has no flat side.

There is never a time in an M&M’s life when it lies on a cool surface to harden.

How the heck do they DO that??

If you’ve been through the M&Ms factory, you probably know the answer. But I don’t know the answer, and in a way I don’t want to know it. In this case, I’m content with the fun mystery – content to let it serve as a little koan for godders convinced that anything you can’t explain must be due to the influence of this god or that.

Because in this case, though I don’t know the answer, I know I could find it out in about five minutes.

I could find out just exactly how M&Ms are made.

They make them in the space shuttle, I’ll bet, and they spray on the candy coating and the color while they’re floating in zero gravity. It hardens in mid-air, and never has any flat spot because it never touches anything until it’s hardened.

Or they drop them from a tower a thousand feet high, and they get sprayed with the chocolate and candy and color as they float down. When they reach the bottom, they’re cool and solid and they go right into the bags.

Or they form them like every other type of candy bar, but they then put them in a jeweler’s lapidary tumbler with a fine grit that, over a period of weeks, polishes off the flat side to a perfect roundness.

They grow them in the Andes Mountains on genetically-engineered mutant chocolate plants, where they’re picked by child labor. Hundreds of old guys who look exactly like Juan Valdez carry them down the mountain with long strings of pack donkeys, and they take them to a factory where thousands of tiny Filipino women making 11 cents a day snip off the stems and paint over the scar with matching colored paint.

Okay, it’s none of those things. You and I both know it. And those are all fairly mundane answers, with no magic or god-power required.

I don’t know how the cheap speakers in my stereo were made, but I know it wasn’t magic. They were put together by low-paid technicians in a big industrial facility somewhere, and they work by simple principles of physics.

I don’t know how my computer was made, but I know there’s no magical elf in the box, no telepathic alien. It’s basically a light switch on steroids, programmed by nerdy young guys hopped up on Jolt Cola and strawberry Pop Tarts until they’re driven so insane they start to think in computer code.

I don’t know exactly how the supermarket door knows to open when I walk up to it, but I’m pretty sure – no, I’m absolutely certain – that it isn’t an invisible genie enslaved by sorcery. It’s hidden switches and motors and this infrared electric eye thingie that -- because I'm so short -- misses seeing me about half the time.

Physics. Electricity. Ordinary everyday stuff, with a lot of technical skill thrown in to make it jump through complex and useful hoops.

Just because I don’t know how these things work is not reason enough to leap at the Almighty Master of the Universe as the answer.

In this case, the answers to these mysteries, though they’re not known to me, are known to SOMEBODY. I just haven’t gotten around to looking into them myself.

It’s friggin’ amazing to me that a lump of metal, a magnet, can repel another magnet with a totally invisible force. And that when you turn one of them around, it works just opposite – they cling together like Vulcan lovers in the throes of their every-seven-years mating frenzy.

And it’s fascinating to me that a wound on your arm can heal back to be level with the rest of your skin, instead of healing into a ragged little canyon, or bubbling up with new flesh until it forms a large irregular lump.

Does anybody know the explanation to these mysteries? Maybe. I hope so. But even if they don’t, is there reason to believe they’re magic? Reason to call on the Big Magic Juju Guy as the One. True. Answer?

No.

Just because you don’t know the answer does NOT mean that it’s evidence of God, or gods – or witches or demons or mind-reading aliens from Planet Z.

Our here in the real world, things just don’t work like that.

God didn’t make M&Ms. They only taste that way.

God didn’t make M&Ms. They only taste that way.

I agree. Mmmm, M&Ms.

Sorry, was there more to it than that? :p I got distracted.

I agree. Mmmm, M&Ms.

Sorry, was there more to it than that? :p I got distracted.
*munch munch munch*

theology makes me hungry!

God didn’t make M&Ms. They only taste that way.
Great post Bottle. Kudos.
And as I was trying to explain earlier, many of the un-understandable things about the origin of life people cite is actually thoerized (if not well understood) in evolutionary biology....give us a few more years in the lab, and we may have created life in a test tube.

Great post Bottle. Kudos.
And as I was trying to explain earlier, many of the un-understandable things about the origin of life people cite is actually thoerized (if not well understood) in evolutionary biology....give us a few more years in the lab, and we may have created life in a test tube.
yeah, we can already make amino acids from the raw material that was present on the ancient Earth, and we've only had the technology and materials to attempt this for about half a century...considering the billions of years that it took the Earth to manage this feat, i would say we're making pretty good time :).

I have completed college/university and I can't figure it out - but I want to believe... I think believing in a higher force is essential, but I'm not sure if I believe that a higher force INTENTIONALLY created the universe.

i missed this a while back, and i am curious: why would it be essential to believe in a higher force?

Is anyone else totally unsurprised by the fact that currently 11.23 percent of poll respondents have chosen the "I created the universe" response? :D

Is anyone else totally unsurprised by the fact that currently 11.23 percent of poll respondents have chosen the "I created the universe" response? :D
I'm not surprised by that, but I am surprised by the fact that I wasn't one of them.
:p

Have a master in molecular biology and are now studing to get at bachelor in chemistry here in Sweden.

After reading courses in genetics and a lot of chemistry, I can only come to one conclusion. And that is "no".

Reason? Some have already been taking up, but repition makes perfect ;)

1. Which intelligent design? Humans are far from perfect. I can come up with at leats a dozen improvments, and then I am not even almighty (or am I?).

2, The complexity we see, isn't that complex to explain, as the eye which is the most common ID argument. Give me pretty much any complex biological feature and I can explain in a evolutionary way, or find it out. And if I can't, at least I'll say that we don't knwo yet, come back in a couple of years. I wont say, hay, thats a evidnece for God.

3. To say "hay, this is pretty complex...at leats I can't explain it, and you cant trust those darn scientist....so therefore God created it" isn't sound science, nor should it be for any kind of thinking.

Is anyone else totally unsurprised by the fact that currently 11.23 percent of poll respondents have chosen the "I created the universe" response? :D


Yes, and they are all wrong. I created them to belive that, for I am the mighty pepsidrinking God...

Or it just shows that 11.23 procent have to big thoughts about themself :D

3. To say "hay, this is pretty complex...at leats I can't explain it, and you cant trust those darn scientist....so therefore God created it" isn't sound science, nor should it be for any kind of thinking.
This sounds like EXACTLY what I hear coming out of the mouths of creationists.

Even IF intelligent design were taught in class, how long would it take? About 5 seconds? "OK, everything was created, but we don't know how, maybe god did it . . . That's about it for this unit, let's move onto to some actual science now." Wow, what a great friggin class. :rolleyes: