NationStates Jolt Archive

Many scientists, looking at recuring patterns in nature and astronomical odds of the conditions being just right against the spontaneous generation of life on earth, are wondering if somehow the universe was created by an Intelligent Designer. Even mathematicians engaged in chaos theory are finding underlying patterns in their work.

In an effort to keep things on an intellectual forum, I suggest that we discuss the "Intelligent Designer", not as a personal God, but simply as the Designer or Creator.

So, among this audience, what are your serious and polite thoughts on Intelligent Design.

So, among this audience, what are your serious and polite thoughts on Intelligent Design.

He fucked up, it seems.

Many scientists

Who are these "many scientists"? What defines "many"? What is their field of study?


I call bullshit on your premise.

Intelligent Design is not science, it is Young-Earth creationism in a lab coat. Please post links to peer-reviewed papers describing predictions made by ID, or experiments done that confirm any predictions made by ID.

It is nonsense that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

I find a distinct lack of intelligence in this supposed design.

Yea! We haven't had one of these in awhile.

You can't simply drop God as Dembski frequently refers to God.

Overall, it's a bunch of malarky designed to try and skirt under the radar of the Constitution.....

Many scientists, looking at recuring patterns in nature and astronomical odds of the conditions being just right against the spontaneous generation of life on earth, are wondering if somehow the universe was created by an Intelligent Designer. Even mathematicians engaged in chaos theory are finding underlying patterns in their work.

In an effort to keep things on an intellectual forum, I suggest that we discuss the "Intelligent Designer", not as a personal God, but simply as the Designer or Creator.

So, among this audience, what are your serious and polite thoughts on Intelligent Design.

Many scientists might do so in their spare time, but unless they test their hypothesis, collect data and refine their hypothesis, they aren't doing science.

astronomical odds of the conditions being just right against the spontaneous generation of life on earth

actually, the odds look really good. i'd be fairly surprised if there isn't more life elsewhere in this solar system and very surprised if there isn't life elsewhere.

space is big and the universe has had lots of time.

He created a world in which evil leads to success, and goodness leads to suffering; where the most dominant species on the planet became that way by exploiting other species, and ruining the innocent of its own.

Parkus for God! Change!

I believe that there is a intelligent designer, but only insofar as he created our Universes little rules. I think he made this whole place as a good story.

Originally posted by Trve
I call bullshit on your premise.
Among the types of scientists that wonder if Intelligent Design is a viable theory, there are Astronomers, Molecular Biologists, Brain Surgeons. I am at my job, on my lunch break, so I don't have all materials available.
I can recommend the documentary movie by Ben Stein, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

Among the types of scientists that wonder if Intelligent Design is a viable theory, there are Astronomers, Molecular Biologists, Brain Surgeons. I am at my job, on my lunch break, so I don't have all materials available.
I can recommend the documentary movie by Ben Stein, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

Indeed, the title was very informative. I found no intelligence in that movie.

Among the types of scientists that wonder if Intelligent Design is a viable theory, there are Astronomers, Molecular Biologists, Brain Surgeons. I am at my job, on my lunch break, so I don't have all materials available.
Prove it. Lets see a source. I am particularly interested in how many biologists believe that.
I can recommend the documentary movie by Ben Stein, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".
You actually recommended that tripe. This is where I write off anything you have to say.

Dont bother with the sources, I now know they dont exist and your talking about your ass.

Among the types of scientists that wonder if Intelligent Design is a viable theory, there are Astronomers, Molecular Biologists, Brain Surgeons. I am at my job, on my lunch break, so I don't have all materials available.
I can recommend the documentary movie by Ben Stein, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

Ben Stein? :D

ID hasn't even passed the hypothesis level.....

Many scientists, looking at recuring patterns in nature and astronomical odds of the conditions being just right against the spontaneous generation of life on earth, are wondering if somehow the universe was created by an Intelligent Designer. Even mathematicians engaged in chaos theory are finding underlying patterns in their work.

In an effort to keep things on an intellectual forum, I suggest that we discuss the "Intelligent Designer", not as a personal God, but simply as the Designer or Creator.

So, among this audience, what are your serious and polite thoughts on Intelligent Design.

God of the gaps.

Just because we don't currently have an empirically verifiable explanation for the apparent fine tuning of the universe, does not imply that the universe must have been created by an intelligent designer.

Among the types of scientists that wonder if Intelligent Design is a viable theory, there are Astronomers, Molecular Biologists, Brain Surgeons. I am at my job, on my lunch break, so I don't have all materials available.
I can recommend the documentary movie by Ben Stein, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

Please name said scientists. I'll start for you: Michael Behe. You name the rest.

To counter "Expelled" I recommend the Nova episode "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial".

Among the types of scientists that wonder if Intelligent Design is a viable theory, there are Astronomers, Molecular Biologists, Brain Surgeons. I am at my job, on my lunch break, so I don't have all materials available.
I can recommend the documentary movie by Ben Stein, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

I'm sorry, no. Scientists may wonder if there is an intelligent designer, but Scientists don't wonder if Intelligent Design is a viable theory. Because in order to be a viable theory, it must be tested.

Ben Stein? :D

ID hasn't even passed the hypothesis level.....

Indeed. Im 100% certian that no scientist would say its a 'viable theory', because in order to be a theory, it has to be scientifically testable.

And I like to tell myself that a scientist would actually understand the scientific method.

And I like to tell myself that a scientist would actually understand the scientific method.

You can stop lying to yourself. No scientist understands the Scientific method. Anyone who says otherwise is obviously an atheist being bribed by the big, evil, God-hating Satanists.:tongue:

So, among this audience, what are your serious and polite thoughts on Intelligent Design.
I know for a fact that it works.

In fact, I'm among the people receiving our 30 pieces of silver for it. Where is your evolution now?

I believe that there is a intelligent designer, but only insofar as he created our Universes little rules. I think he made this whole place as a good story.

This seems to be a serious thought. I have no idea why an Intelligent Designer would create a universe. Where would the Intelligent Designer come from? Where did the exploding core of the Big Bang come from?

Could the Intelligent Designer be an extra-dimensional scientist? As opposed to a personal god?

This seems to be a serious thought. I have no idea why an Intelligent Designer would create a universe. Where would the Intelligent Designer come from? Where did the exploding core of the Big Bang come from?

Could the Intelligent Designer be an extra-dimensional scientist? As opposed to a personal god?

Or, as I have proposed, some Omnipotent being looking for a good story?

This seems to be a serious thought. I have no idea why an Intelligent Designer would create a universe. Where would the Intelligent Designer come from? Where did the exploding core of the Big Bang come from?

Could the Intelligent Designer be an extra-dimensional scientist? As opposed to a personal god?

All excellent questions. But they aren't scientific theories.

Methinks the OP has 'science' and 'philosophy' mixed up.

Methinks the OP has 'science' and 'philosophy' mixed up.

I second this motion, and propose we turn this into a philosophy thread!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X8aifay678&feature=PlayList&p=AC3481305829426D&index=22

There you go OP. Watch and be amused, or horrified. Since you like that Ben Stein stupidity. That's a fair decent savaging of it.

Farnhamia Redux originally wrote:
To counter "Expelled" I recommend the Nova episode "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial".
Thank you for the helpful information. I will see if I can find a chance to view it. Is it on sale at retail stores?

All excellent questions. But they aren't scientific theories.

We could test the idea that the Creator is an extra-dimensional science grad student.

What we do is, we take a bunch of rocks, big rocks, and we spell out "ATTENTION THESIS DEFENSE COMMITTEE: THIS STUDENT OBTAINED THIS REALITY FROM UNCITED WORK BY ANOTHER STUDENT IN VIOLATION OF THE OMNIVERSITY'S ACADEMIC INTEGRITY POLICY. PAGE 6."

Then, if the universe is destroyed, we were right.

Thank you for the helpful information. I will see if I can find a chance to view it. Is it on sale at retail stores?

I couldn't say. Google "nova judgment day" and you'll find it at the PBS web site. If it is on sale, that's where you'll find out.

We could test the idea that the Creator is an extra-dimensional science grad student.

What we do is, we take a bunch of rocks, big rocks, and we spell out "ATTENTION THESIS DEFENSE COMMITTEE: THIS STUDENT OBTAINED THIS REALITY FROM UNCITED WORK BY ANOTHER STUDENT IN VIOLATION OF THE OMNIVERSITY'S ACADEMIC INTEGRITY POLICY. PAGE 6."

Then, if the universe is destroyed, we were right.

Maybe we can lure him into our universe with a massive sign pointing at the Heavens saying, "Free Ramen"

We could test the idea that the Creator is an extra-dimensional science grad student.

What we do is, we take a bunch of rocks, big rocks, and we spell out "ATTENTION THESIS DEFENSE COMMITTEE: THIS STUDENT OBTAINED THIS REALITY FROM UNCITED WORK BY ANOTHER STUDENT IN VIOLATION OF THE OMNIVERSITY'S ACADEMIC INTEGRITY POLICY. PAGE 6."

Then, if the universe is destroyed, we were right.

How do we know it's page 6?

Trve wrote:Methinks the OP has 'science' and 'philosophy' mixed up.
So, how did elements form amino acids and protiens that combined to make the simplest working life forms?

We could test the idea that the Creator is an extra-dimensional science grad student.

What we do is, we take a bunch of rocks, big rocks, and we spell out "ATTENTION THESIS DEFENSE COMMITTEE: THIS STUDENT OBTAINED THIS REALITY FROM UNCITED WORK BY ANOTHER STUDENT IN VIOLATION OF THE OMNIVERSITY'S ACADEMIC INTEGRITY POLICY. PAGE 6."

Then, if the universe is destroyed, we were right.

A bit of a risk don't you think?

Never antagonise university ethics committees, they're a bunch of bastards.

So, how did elements form amino acids and protiens that combined to make the simplest working life forms?

Random chance.

How do we know it's page 6?

Would HE know it's page 6? ;)

Thank you for the helpful information. I will see if I can find a chance to view it. Is it on sale at retail stores?

Available at Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/Judgment-Day-Intelligent-Design-Trial/dp/B000YY6VIC)

Methinks the OP has 'science' and 'philosophy' mixed up.

not any philosophy worth paying attention to

Would HE know it's page 6? ;)

Valid point! He might destroy us before he gets caught.

You know, on the off chance...

*forms a religion*

Trve wrote:
So, how did elements form amino acids and protiens that combined to make the simplest working life forms?

I dont know what youre asking exactly. How did it start? We dont know exactly.

Science doesnt claim to have all the answers. But just because we dont know doesnt mean that there is some creater.

Random chance.

And a fucking long time.

Hee hee...

Step One: Trap grad student with ultra cheap noodles
Step Two: Grad student explains his universe doesn't use integers for pages
Step Three: Omniversity Ethics Committee puts us all in jar in cabinet for hearing scheduled sometime in the next ten business iterations of universal expansion and collapse.
Step Four: ????
Step Five: Profit, plus Gallo and Sniffage meet hot undergrads and get laid.

This seems to be a serious thought. I have no idea why an Intelligent Designer would create a universe. Where would the Intelligent Designer come from? Where did the exploding core of the Big Bang come from?

Could the Intelligent Designer be an extra-dimensional scientist? As opposed to a personal god?

Maybe in the future scientist will actually travel back to the past and accidently create the universe.

Hee hee...

Step One: Trap grad student with ultra cheap noodles
Step Two: Grad student explains his universe doesn't use integers for pages
Step Three: Omniversity Ethics Committee puts us all in jar in cabinet for hearing scheduled sometime in the next ten business iterations of universal expansion and collapse.
Step Four: ????
Step Five: Profit, plus Gallo and Sniffage meet hot undergrads and get laid.

I cast my vote in favor of this plan.

Maybe in the future scientist will actually travel back to the past and accidently create the universe.

He was looking for a quiet place to jerk off to his downloaded porn, and 3.5 billion years ago seemed like a nice quiet place.

Hee hee...

Step One: Trap grad student with ultra cheap noodles
Step Two: Grad student explains his universe doesn't use integers for pages
Step Three: Omniversity Ethics Committee puts us all in jar in cabinet for hearing scheduled sometime in the next ten business iterations of universal expansion and collapse.
Step Four: ????
Step Five: Profit, plus Gallo and Sniffage meet hot undergrads and get laid.

I'm afraid you've executed an internet meme unsuccessfully. The Council of Random Angry Posters must now decide whether to execute you for meme crimes, or allow you plea bargain yourself down to unknowing meme mistake, thus only banning you for life. Your date is on the ninth of fail, in the site between wikipedia and google. Have a nice day.;)

I dont know what youre asking exactly. How did it start? We dont know exactly.

Science doesnt claim to have all the answers. But just because we dont know doesnt mean that there is some creater.

Yes and thanks to the chaos theory we can show that there are some things that science will never be able to explain. And no person is going to just allow something to be left unexplained.

Hee hee...

Step One: Trap grad student with ultra cheap noodles
Step Two: Grad student explains his universe doesn't use integers for pages
Step Three: Omniversity Ethics Committee puts us all in jar in cabinet for hearing scheduled sometime in the next ten business iterations of universal expansion and collapse.
Step Four: ????
Step Five: Profit, plus Gallo and Sniffage meet hot undergrads and get laid.

Well I'm happy with this outcome. The universe as we know it may be in peril but damn I love nailing 18 year olds.

Maybe in the future scientist will actually travel back to the past and accidently create the universe.

But, if he never travels back, then the universe would never exist, which means he could never trav-

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/protestwarriors/ScannersExplodingHead.gif

Hee hee...

Step One: Trap grad student with ultra cheap noodles
Step Two: Grad student explains his universe doesn't use integers for pages
Step Three: Omniversity Ethics Committee puts us all in jar in cabinet for hearing scheduled sometime in the next ten business iterations of universal expansion and collapse.
Step Four: ????
Step Five: Profit, plus Gallo and Sniffage meet hot undergrads and get laid.

I think we have a plan. :)

Conservative Morality replied,Quote:
Originally Posted by You-Gi-Owe
So, how did elements form amino acids and protiens that combined to make the simplest working life forms?

Conservative Morality: Random chance.

Well, random chance seems kind of vague. A sun has to have a planet. The planet has to be both far and close enough for it to be capable of having liquid water. A large moon for a tidal influence and agitation of primordial seas wouldn't hurt the odds. And it needs to be a big moon. No other planetary body has a moon and planet size ratio like Earth and it's moon. That's an astronomical amount of random chance.

not any philosophy worth paying attention to

What's your beef with the teleological argument? If taken in a general intuitive, 'think about it' kind of context, rather than a, "this is a valid argument with an absolute conclusion" context, it's not so horrible.

Trve wrote:
So, how did elements form amino acids and protiens that combined to make the simplest working life forms?

amino acids are easy. they exist in outer space, even.

Conservative Morality replied,
Well, random chance seems kind of vague. A sun has to have a planet.
Says who?
The planet has to be both far and close enough for it to be capable of having liquid water. A large moon for a tidal influence and agitation of primordial seas wouldn't hurt the odds. And it needs to be a big moon. No other planetary body has a moon and planet size ratio like Earth and it's moon. That's an astronomical amount of random chance.
The universe had a loooooooooong time to get it right.

amino acids are easy. they exist in outer space, even.

Yep. Most of the elements found in our bodies are also found in stars.

Conservative Morality replied,

Well, random chance seems kind of vague. A sun has to have a planet. The planet has to be both far and close enough for it to be capable of having liquid water. A large moon for a tidal influence and agitation of primordial seas wouldn't hurt the odds. And it needs to be a big moon. No other planetary body has a moon and planet size ratio like Earth and it's moon. That's an astronomical amount of random chance.

Do you know why we use that bolded word there?

Conservative Morality replied,

Well, random chance seems kind of vague. A sun has to have a planet. The planet has to be both far and close enough for it to be capable of having liquid water. A large moon for a tidal influence and agitation of primordial seas wouldn't hurt the odds. And it needs to be a big moon. No other planetary body has a moon and planet size ratio like Earth and it's moon. That's an astronomical amount of random chance.

It's a big universe.

Here, this might help:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk

No other planetary body has a moon and planet size ratio like Earth and it's moon. That's an astronomical amount of random chance.

And you know this how?

But, if he never travels back, then the universe would never exist, which means he could never trav-

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/protestwarriors/ScannersExplodingHead.gif

This can be explained by that theory that if you travel back to change something you will most likely cause it to happen. Or something along those lines hmm ADD is starting to- hey where did you get that picture from?

Conservative Morality replied,

Well, random chance seems kind of vague. A sun has to have a planet. The planet has to be both far and close enough for it to be capable of having liquid water. A large moon for a tidal influence and agitation of primordial seas wouldn't hurt the odds. And it needs to be a big moon. No other planetary body has a moon and planet size ratio like Earth and it's moon. That's an astronomical amount of random chance.

And the Universe has an astronomical (I made a funny!) amount of stars, making that one-in-a-hundred-trillion chance very likely that there would be at least one such planet.

Sdaeriji wroteDo you know why we use that bolded word there?

Do you know why I intentionally chose the word?

And you know this how?

Better question, why does it matter? Answer, it really doesn't.

What's your beef with the teleological argument? If taken in a general intuitive, 'think about it' kind of context, rather than a, "this is a valid argument with an absolute conclusion" context, it's not so horrible.

if intelligent design stuck to just the teleological argument, it would be on firmer ground than it is. but ID's arguments instead focus on all sorts of random shit that is just flat out wrong.

I'm afraid you've executed an internet meme unsuccessfully. The Council of Random Angry Posters must now decide whether to execute you for meme crimes, or allow you plea bargain yourself down to unknowing meme mistake, thus only banning you for life. Your date is on the ninth of fail, in the site between wikipedia and google. Have a nice day.;)

I guess I should've familiarized myself with the works of 20th Century philosopher Ayn Rand.

Conservative Morality replied,

Well, random chance seems kind of vague. A sun has to have a planet. The planet has to be both far and close enough for it to be capable of having liquid water. A large moon for a tidal influence and agitation of primordial seas wouldn't hurt the odds. And it needs to be a big moon. No other planetary body has a moon and planet size ratio like Earth and it's moon. That's an astronomical amount of random chance.

It's a great big universe. How do you know that no other planetary body has a moon the size of ours? We're just beginning to get anywhere with exploring other solar systems and the pictures are still a little fuzzy.

Just because you find it incredible that life should have arisen doesn't mean it required a miracle or divine intervention for it to happen. If life had arisen without one of the things you mention, people would be saying that that combination proves there was a creator.

Gotta get back to my job

Sdaeriji wrote

Do you know why I intentionally chose the word?

To demonstrate the concept of irony?

if intelligent design stuck to just the teleological argument, it would be on firmer ground than it is. but ID's arguments instead focus on all sorts of random shit that is just flat out wrong.

Well yeah, but I thought you were referring to the teleological argument in your post. Sorry if I was mistaken.

Do you know why we use that bolded word there?

Nice.

Because in order to be a viable theory, it must be tested.

Playing DA: The question is, can you test to see if something can be irreducibly complex?

Playing DA: The question is, can you test to see if something can be irreducibly complex?

Well the most obvious way to test it would be to create life and see how simple we can make certain physical features of it.

I feel like having everyone yelling at me here goes: I think that intelligent design is a great idea and that all schools should learn that instead evolution which implies that god did not create the universe. God obviously created the universe it says so in the bible.

I think if you do it for that reason, its considered trolling dude. Even if its not, its just low-end need for attention.


I do that sometimes. But we shouldn't.

I feel like having everyone yelling at me here goes: I think that intelligent design is a great idea and that all schools should learn that instead evolution which implies that god did not create the universe. God obviously created the universe it says so in the bible.

We have a name for this.

Well the most obvious way to test it would be to create life and see how simple we can make certain physical features of it.

And if we can't create life, then...?

And if we can't create life, then...?

I suppose that would be a big red mark against the possibility of an intelligent creator.

It's a big universe.

Here, this might help:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk

I studied physics at a level and we used to have a game called physics karaoke where we'd sing songs at the back of the class during boring lessons, we never thought the teacher knew about it because we were quiet.

One christmas we were in the middle of a cosmology module and the teacher, who we all thought was a masive geek because he look liked Eagon from the ghostbusters and used phrases like "No more yahoo" to quiet us down, started the lesson by putting song sheets on all our desks and pulling out his guitar and told us that it was to be a karaoke lesson. The song was the galaxy song and then he spent the rest of the lesson taking requests so we could all sing along.

The guy was a fucking legend. I wish everyone could have teachers like him.

I suppose that would be a big red mark against the possibility of an intelligent creator.

Because we're not as smart as they are?

hey where did you get the picture of that guy?

I suppose that would be a big red mark against the possibility of an intelligent creator.
How so? Assuming an Intelligent Creator is Omnipotent, that says nothing.Hell, even assuming it isn't, just because we can't do doesn't mean something else can't. Come now LG, be rational about this.

Well the most obvious way to test it would be to create life and see how simple we can make certain physical features of it.

Really, the only beef I have actually is that people keep saying irreducible complexity is unfalsifiable. And then later claim it is 'wrong'. Something can't both be wrong and unfalsifiable. If people show evidence and demonstrate how something which is claimed to be irreducibly complex is in fact not, then they are falsifying the theory. This means I conclude irreducible complexity is wrong, but not unfalsifiable.

We have a name for this.

When you are ignored in life as much as I am you become desperate for attention.

Intelligent design hmm... Who came up with this idea anyway?

In an effort to keep things on an intellectual forum, I suggest that we discuss the "Intelligent Designer", not as a personal God, but simply as the Designer or Creator.

So, among this audience, what are your serious and polite thoughts on Intelligent Design.


What is it with this idea of a "Designer?" Just one? Isn't it far more likely that this designer would in fact be a cross-functional team of many specialists, each contributing their own expertise to the project?

Seriously, and politely then, if I were going to create the fiction called Intelligent Design, I'd have made it a bit more plausible in that regard. Instead, I'll just go with science for my belief system, and dabble in writing bad science fiction on my own terms.

Because we're not as smart as they are?

I'm not convinced that you have to be smarter than us to create us. Have you seen us lately?

How so? Assuming an Intelligent Creator is Omnipotent, that says nothing.Hell, even assuming it isn't, just because we can't do doesn't mean something else can't. Come now LG, be rational about this.

Why start now? :D

I'm not convinced that you have to be smarter than us to create us. Have you seen us lately?

I'm not convinced that if we can't create life, it means that something else can't.

Why start now? :D
:tongue:

How so? Assuming an Intelligent Creator is Omnipotent, that says nothing.Hell, even assuming it isn't, just because we can't do doesn't mean something else can't. Come now LG, be rational about this.

If the ID creator was omnipotent, or even marginally intelligent, then life wouldn't be so shoddily put together.

Who came up with intelligent design anyway?

I'm not convinced that if we can't create life, it means that something else can't.

I'm not convinced that we can't create life.

Who came up with intelligent design anyway?

Kent Hovind?

Some protestant nutter.

I'm not convinced that we can't create life.

considering the fact that there are over 6 billion people on the earth I'd say we definitly mastered that feat.

He fucked up, it seems.

Ja. Thanks Almighty for killing a lot of people in central Italy 19 hours ago.

Or maybe the design is quite fucked up.

Ja. Thanks Almighty for killing a lot of people in central Italy 19 hours ago.

Or maybe the design is quite fucked up.

Satan did it. God would never intentionally kill his subjects...


HAHAHAHA... Oh my..

If the ID creator was omnipotent, or even marginally intelligent, then life wouldn't be so shoddily put together.
What better pastime than to laugh at little creatures running around, causing general harm to each other, and acting like they matter? We might be some form of satire.:p
I'm not convinced that we can't create life.
Neither am I, I'm just saying that if we can't, it doesn't rule out the possibility of a God that created us.

If the ID creator was omnipotent, or even marginally intelligent, then life wouldn't be so shoddily put together.

Not necessarily. He might just be a dick.

We don't know anything!! We could be part of a vast ocean of bubbles that we only know one of, the universe. When we only know the tip of the iceberg and try to base all the information, for either side of this debate, it does only one thing and that is make us look foolish.

Our world could just be in a locker at some bus or train station.

We tend to forget in these discussions that "intelligent design" was deliberately invented by creationists in the US to get around the Supreme Court decision that forbade the teaching of "creation science" in public schools. The concept did not exist before 1987.

All one has to do is compare a pre-1987 edition of the textbook Of Pandas And People to one published after 1987 to see where each instance of "creation" and "creationist" and "creator" has been replaced by some phrase in line with "intelligent design." In the Kitzmiller case it was shown that the editors had made a mistake in replacing those entries in one case. Instead of replacing "creationists" with "design proponents" the person had instead selected only the middle of "creationists" and ended up with "cdesign proponentsists".

Who came up with intelligent design anyway?

I think it was Charles Thaxton who first used the phrase.

Our world could just be in a locker at some bus or train station.

I've told you before, that is not the last suit you will ever wear.

We tend to forget in these discussions that "intelligent design" was deliberately invented by creationists in the US to get around the Supreme Court decision that forbade the teaching of "creation science" in public schools. The concept did not exist before 1987.

All one has to do is compare a pre-1987 edition of the textbook Of Pandas And People to one published after 1987 to see where each instance of "creation" and "creationist" and "creator" has been replaced by some phrase in line with "intelligent design." In the Kitzmiller case it was shown that the editors had made a mistake in replacing those entries in one case. Instead of replacing "creationists" with "design proponents" the person had instead selected only the middle of "creationists" and ended up with "cdesign proponentsists".

*adds "cdesign proponentsists" to lexicon of mocking titles for opponents on this issue*

Nice one. :D

I've told you before, that is not the last suit you will ever wear.

*Pulls out sunglasses, excuse me sir I need you to look at this for me...

*Pulls out sunglasses, excuse me sir I need you to look at this for me...

That's it, flashing is a crime and this time you're being reported.

That's it, flashing is a crime and this time you're being reported.

No please I have a pregnant teen wife and I'm way to soft to be going to the big house.

No please I have a pregnant teen wife and I'm way to soft to be going to the big house.

And people in this thread think there is some kind of intelligence behind all this. I think the forum is proof positive that there is no intelligence behind humanity, there is barely any intelligence in humanity.

1.Now I, being your LORD, would make some points.
2.I, Myself, did NOT create the Universe.
3.I was created by you people to rule upon you,
4.provide guidance, moral comfort, or whatever.
5.It's not an easy task what you placed on Me,
6.Me being your LORD, again, since you people
7.Seem more interested in bitching all the time,
8.Occasionally stopping for killing off each other,
9.or for pursuing idiotic things like off-track snowboarding
10.when the risk of causing an avalanche
11.is 6 on a scale of 5, 5 being the sixth number after -1.
12.So, take your own responsibilities!
13.Because I am your LORD,
14.The One Who Likes To Speak In Quotes
15.And I'm going on STRIKE for the sake of Mine!


Damn, this funny guy with a beard and sandals continues to hijack my account. It's hard to be a prophet.

And people in this thread think there is some kind of intelligence behind all this. I think the forum is proof positive that there is no intelligence behind humanity, there is barely any intelligence in humanity.

well... we did have to eat a fruit to know right from wrong. :tongue:

Damn, this funny guy with a beard and sandals continues to hijack my account. It's hard to be a prophet.

It's normally best if, when you live in a big city, to not take your laptop outside, as far into the alleyways as possible and hook up to NSG via a Wireless Internet Connection. Hobos can be quite aggressive.

It's normally best if, when you live in a big city, to not take your laptop outside, as far into the alleyways as possible and hook up to NSG via a Wireless Internet Connection. Hobos can be quite aggressive.


I'm in my home and I surf the net via a cat.5 shielded Ethernet cable. This guy is... like... omnipresent...

We tend to forget in these discussions that "intelligent design" was deliberately invented by creationists in the US to get around the Supreme Court decision that forbade the teaching of "creation science" in public schools. The concept did not exist before 1987.

All one has to do is compare a pre-1987 edition of the textbook Of Pandas And People to one published after 1987 to see where each instance of "creation" and "creationist" and "creator" has been replaced by some phrase in line with "intelligent design." In the Kitzmiller case it was shown that the editors had made a mistake in replacing those entries in one case. Instead of replacing "creationists" with "design proponents" the person had instead selected only the middle of "creationists" and ended up with "cdesign proponentsists".

I loved the bit in that trial where "cdesign proponentsists" was jokingly held up as an example of a "transition fossil." Too funny. :D

I'm in my home and I surf the net via a cat.5 shielded Ethernet cable. This guy is... like... omnipresent...

A modified vampire clip. Mundate explaination for a seemingly supernatural occurance.

Overall, it's a bunch of malarky designed to try and skirt under the radar of the Constitution.....
Can you explain this to me?

Intelligent design is awful. It looks to what science can't yet explain and says "God did it!" so what you're left with is a God that gets smaller as human knowledge expands.

The Language of God by Francis S. Collins (the scientist who led the Human Genome Project) is a good read.

Can you explain this to me?

Attempts to get creationism taught in schools got thrown out by the Supreme Court under the seperation of church and state. Thus they repackaged creationism in a supposedly secular package called intelligent design. The problem is they did it badly as shown by cdesign propentionists and it generally gets thrown out for being unscientific anyway.

Can you explain this to me?

In 1987, the US Supreme Court said - in Edwards v Aguillera, I believe - that "creation science" was not science but Christian creationism and so couldn't be taught in public schools.

Several creationists in the US then came up with "Intelligent Design" as a new disguise for their agenda, removing specific mention of a divine creator and saying instead that certain aspects of life on Earth were too complex to have arisen through evolution and so must have been designed by some intelligent agency.

It has come to light in subsequent investigations that their agenda is a redefinition of science to allow for supernatural causes and to promote the reform of US culture along more Christian principles.

You can look this up, Wiki has a good summary, which I'm just condensing.

Intelligent design is awful. It looks to what science can't yet explain and says "God did it!" so what you're left with is a God that gets smaller as human knowledge expands.

The Language of God by Francis S. Collins (the scientist who led the Human Genome Project) is a good read.

So's The Tower of Babel by Robert (?) Pennock.

All one has to do is compare a pre-1987 edition of the textbook Of Pandas And People to one published after 1987 to see where each instance of "creation" and "creationist" and "creator" has been replaced by some phrase in line with "intelligent design." In the Kitzmiller case it was shown that the editors had made a mistake in replacing those entries in one case. Instead of replacing "creationists" with "design proponents" the person had instead selected only the middle of "creationists" and ended up with "cdesign proponentsists".

specifically,

Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38:
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/img/1987_Biology_and_Origins_p3-33_clip.png


Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41:
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/img/1987_Pandas_ID_p3-41_clip.png

Intelligent design is awful. It looks to what science can't yet explain and says "God did it!" so what you're left with is a God that gets smaller as human knowledge expands.

The Language of God by Francis S. Collins (the scientist who led the Human Genome Project) is a good read.

Why can't we just look at everything science discoverd and say "(insert deity here) did it"? Basically what I am saying is why can't we christians believe in evolution? The way the bible describes the beggining of the univers sounds a lot like the big bang theory.

Why can't we just look at everything science discoverd and say "(insert deity here) did it"? Basically what I am saying is why can't we christians believe in evolution? The way the bible describes the beggining of the univers sounds a lot like the big bang theory.

A great many Christians have no problem with evolution. Indeed, it is the official position of the Catholic Church that evolution does happen. Some other Christians, however, seem to feel that saying that people are descended from ape-like ancestors is an insult. Go figure.

Really, the only beef I have actually is that people keep saying irreducible complexity is unfalsifiable. And then later claim it is 'wrong'. Something can't both be wrong and unfalsifiable. If people show evidence and demonstrate how something which is claimed to be irreducibly complex is in fact not, then they are falsifying the theory. This means I conclude irreducible complexity is wrong, but not unfalsifiable.

The problem here is that you can't demonstrate that something is not irreducibly complex. You can propose a mechanism by which it might have developed. You can show all the supporting evidence for it. And someone who has decided it is irreducibly complex can still shout, "Nuh uh! That wouldn't work!"

Remember that science does not prove theories to be correct. It either supports or disproves them. We can't support or disprove "Nuh uh! This is too complicated!"

A great many Christians have no problem with evolution. Indeed, it is the official position of the Catholic Church that evolution does happen. Some other Christians, however, seem to feel that saying that people are descended from ape-like ancestors is an insult. Go figure.

I don't see why science and religion fight. Both can support the other (Einstein has some quote about this). Or is the fight just between the church and atheist who use science as their defence/offense?

Many scientists, looking at recuring patterns in nature and astronomical odds of the conditions being just right against the spontaneous generation of life on earth, are wondering if somehow the universe was created by an Intelligent Designer. Even mathematicians engaged in chaos theory are finding underlying patterns in their work.

In an effort to keep things on an intellectual forum, I suggest that we discuss the "Intelligent Designer", not as a personal God, but simply as the Designer or Creator.

So, among this audience, what are your serious and polite thoughts on Intelligent Design.

Trying to discuss intelligent design by discussing the designer as "the creator" and not God is like discussing drunk driving with the drunk driver being simply the vehicle operator and not a law breaker, or traffic danger.

I don't see why science and religion fight. Both can support the other (Einstein has some quote about this). Or is the fight just between the church and atheist who use science as their defence/offense?

It's largely between the variety of theist who likes to think that every question that is not currently answered is the direct and observable work of God for exactly as long as no one tries to observe it and everyone who thinks it would be nice to find out how things work.

There is no proof.

Plus, your use of weasel words like "many scientists" makes me believe you are making at best an undecuated, unintelligible, and personally-based claim stemming from your personal opinion. I could be wrong, but perhaps instead of saying that many scientists beleive this, you should portray this as a controversial issue between all kinds of people.

For my opinion, there is no proof. As a self-declared Atheist (former Hindu) I'm tired of institutional religion. While I can see how many believe it is impossible for anything other than an intelligent overlord to create such complex systems that comprise living organisms and our environment, I believe that you need to work on expanding your imagination and your understanding of natural processes. If you are extremely religious, try doing what we're doing: think outside the box!

Many scientists, looking at recuring patterns in nature and astronomical odds of the conditions being just right against the spontaneous generation of life on earth, are wondering if somehow the universe was created by an Intelligent Designer. Even mathematicians engaged in chaos theory are finding underlying patterns in their work.

In an effort to keep things on an intellectual forum, I suggest that we discuss the "Intelligent Designer", not as a personal God, but simply as the Designer or Creator.

So, among this audience, what are your serious and polite thoughts on Intelligent Design.

Show me a peer reviewed journal article on the subject. Until then No.

There are two things that annoy me very deeply about creationism/ID and its proponents:

1) Dishonesty. It is religion dressed up as science. It is a lie. Its proponents lie about their beliefs, about their goals, about their politics, all to try to get in by stealth what they could not get by a direct approach. It destroys science, violates the Constitution, insults the intelligence of the public, and makes a whore of religion.

2) Arrogance. To the point of hubris, really, because creationists/IDers presume to tell their God, who is supposed to be all-powerful, how he did things and how he couldn't do things. Creationism/ID is full of things God didn't do, wouldn't do, couldn't possibly do, things that the creationists/IDers declare to be impossible because they know everything about what their ultimate God of all of existence did. They take a grand concept of a universal god and try to squish it down to fit into the tiny little box that is all their feeble imaginations can grasp. They've got a lot of friggin' nerve, in my opinion.

So, among this audience, what are your serious and polite thoughts on Intelligent Design.

"Dear congregation. We shall now sing hymn no. 34."

The problem here is that you can't demonstrate that something is not irreducibly complex. You can propose a mechanism by which it might have developed. You can show all the supporting evidence for it. And someone who has decided it is irreducibly complex can still shout, "Nuh uh! That wouldn't work!"

doesn't this assume that they can't be wrong? i mean, if you show a single possible way to make something from component parts, doesn't that mean that it isn't irreducibly complex by definition and anyone saying otherwise is just dumb?

doesn't this assume that they can't be wrong?i mean, if you show a single possible way to make something from component parts, doesn't that mean that it isn't irreducibly complex by definition and anyone saying otherwise is just dumb?

No, they assume they can't be wrong. What that means is that, when shown a possible mechanism by which the supposedly "irreducibly complex" feature could have come about, they can (and will) still insist that it is too complicated.

Since we can't actually prove that it did come about that way, we can't really objectively disprove their statement.

Now, rational human beings will most likely look at that possible mechanism and say, "Yeah, I guess it could have happened that way." But rationality doesn't often come into the ID side of the ID debate. They have a strongly held belief and any "evidence" that might possibly back it up will be held onto as earnestly as possible.

Among the types of scientists that wonder if Intelligent Design is a viable theory, there are Astronomers, Molecular Biologists, Brain Surgeons. I am at my job, on my lunch break, so I don't have all materials available.
I can recommend the documentary movie by Ben Stein, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

Thank you. I have not spit water on my monitor in quite awhile. It was a delightful change of pace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X8aifay678&feature=PlayList&p=AC3481305829426D&index=22

There you go OP. Watch and be amused, or horrified. Since you like that Ben Stein stupidity. That's a fair decent savaging of it.

Oh hell. That's painful to watch.

No, they assume they can't be wrong. What that means is that, when shown a possible mechanism by which the supposedly "irreducibly complex" feature could have come about, they can (and will) still insist that it is too complicated.

Since we can't actually prove that it did come about that way, we can't really objectively disprove their statement.

Now, rational human beings will most likely look at that possible mechanism and say, "Yeah, I guess it could have happened that way." But rationality doesn't often come into the ID side of the ID debate. They have a strongly held belief and any "evidence" that might possibly back it up will be held onto as earnestly as possible.

Sounds like my excuse to the unemployment office.
It is obviously too complicated for me to get off my fat ass and get a job.

Conservative Morality replied,

Well, random chance seems kind of vague. A sun has to have a planet. The planet has to be both far and close enough for it to be capable of having liquid water. A large moon for a tidal influence and agitation of primordial seas wouldn't hurt the odds. And it needs to be a big moon. No other planetary body has a moon and planet size ratio like Earth and it's moon. That's an astronomical amount of random chance.

Good thing we're dealing with astronomy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X8aifay678&feature=PlayList&p=AC3481305829426D&index=22

There you go OP. Watch and be amused, or horrified. Since you like that Ben Stein stupidity. That's a fair decent savaging of it.

Personally I think this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc)even more brutally savages Ben Stein.

Christ! Children would find this insulting. I especially liked the bit at about 3:50 where Dawkins is trying to explain what it would take to make ID falsifiable and therefore a bona fide theory.

It would be like asking a priest "What would it take to prove to you that the God's of Olympus exist?"

"Well, if you took me up to the top of Olympus and introduced me to them, that would do it."

"Hey! Did you hear that everyone? Father here thinks that the Greek gods might exist!"

Did Stein ever get out of High School?

Why do so many people assume that life can only exist in the conditions seen on earth? Isn't it possible that there are forms of being beyond the carbon-based ones we know? It seems to me that's a bit of an "irreducibly complex" fallacy. It's like looking at an igloo in the Arctic and saying, "This must be the only place where houses exist---no other part of earth is cold enough" (yes, it's a crappy analogy, roll with it!). If you assume that all houses are igloos, that may be true, but that's a pretty limited assumption.

Did Stein ever get out of High School?

Unfortunately, he did, because he forever disgraced my university with his association. :(

To quote Robin Williams:

Who Runs a Sewage Disposal Line through a Recreation Center?!

If we are truly created in God's image, then I submit to you that God is a Civil Engineer.

Did Stein ever get out of High School?

He was apparently valedictorian of Yale law school.

Who came up with intelligent design anyway?

Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, probably. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People#Pandas_and_.22cdesign_proponentsists.22)

Well, random chance seems kind of vague. A sun has to have a planet.
Nothing limits life to requiring a planet.

The planet has to be both far and close enough for it to be capable of having liquid water.
This is an enormous range. Mars had liquid water until relatively recently. One of the moons of Saturn still does. Even ignoring this, liquid water is only required for carbon-based life, or at least carbon-based life as we know it. A hypothetical lifeform based on silicon would not necessarily need liquid water.

A large moon for a tidal influence and agitation of primordial seas wouldn't hurt the odds.
Tides would have had no effect whatsoever on the probability of life. This is completely irrelevant.

And it needs to be a big moon. No other planetary body has a moon and planet size ratio like Earth and it's moon.
Pluto/Charon. Not technically a planet, but the ratio is much smaller than that of Earth and its moon.

That's an astronomical amount of random chance.
You've yet to demonstrate anything that would make the probability of life lower.

Incidentally, any argument based on odds is a very, very bad one. If life never came about, we wouldn't be here to have this conversation. That we are having this conversation is evidence that, somehow or another, life did come about. As such, the individual odds of a method by which life comes about are completely irrelevant. One can compare the odds of two or more different methods and make a guess that has a higher probability of being correct than from sheer blind chance, but I don't see you, or anyone doing that. What are the odds of an intelligent designer? At the very most, they're the same as the odds for life.

My serious and polite thoughts on "intelligent design" is that it is a load of rubbish, designed by christian fundamentalists to grandfather in their creator.

I know for a fact that it works.

In fact, I'm among the people receiving our 30 pieces of silver for it. Where is your evolution now?

Technically, you don't get 30 pieces of silver. You get a paycheck. Or you used to anyway, unless you got rehired when I wasn't looking. Nobody would pay for stupidly designed naval systems. Or at least nobody sensible.

[/subverted]

Incidentally, any argument based on odds is a very, very bad one.

Indeed, it's as though one took a handful of salt and cast it on the table and then said that the specific resting place of each grain is simply incalculable in terms of odds and therefore the salt cannot be spread on the table the way it is by chance, someone must have planned how they fell.

Looked at that way and it would seem clear that the odds are, in fact, against an intelligent designer.

Who are these "many scientists"? What defines "many"? What is their field of study?


I call bullshit on your premise.

It is nonsense that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

^^^This

/thread...

No, they assume they can't be wrong. What that means is that, when shown a possible mechanism by which the supposedly "irreducibly complex" feature could have come about, they can (and will) still insist that it is too complicated.

Since we can't actually prove that it did come about that way, we can't really objectively disprove their statement.

Now, rational human beings will most likely look at that possible mechanism and say, "Yeah, I guess it could have happened that way." But rationality doesn't often come into the ID side of the ID debate. They have a strongly held belief and any "evidence" that might possibly back it up will be held onto as earnestly as possible.

yeah, but that just means they refuse to accept that things which have been demonstrated have been demonstrated. their standards are the standards of idiots and have no claim on us.

Many scientists, looking at recuring patterns in nature and astronomical odds of the conditions being just right against the spontaneous generation of life on earth, are wondering if somehow the universe was created by an Intelligent Designer.

No they are not.

Among the types of scientists that wonder if Intelligent Design is a viable theory, there are Astronomers, Molecular Biologists, Brain Surgeons.

No there aren't. Maybe a very small amount believe in it, but you'd have to be an utter moron to believe it's a viable theory, just for the fact it can't really be tested.

Trve wrote:
So, how did elements form amino acids and protiens that combined to make the simplest working life forms?

That's abiogenesis, not evolution.

My thoughts on Intelligent Design, in brief:

1. Their's no way to disprove it.

2. It has yet to be proven.

3. It is used by Creationists as a backdoor to get their agenda in.

4.It ultimately displaces rather than answers the question of how everything started, since we're left with the question of who the designer is. This works for a religion, because it can be described as the infinite mystery of God that we cannot comprehend. As a scientific theory however, it simply dodges the question.

5. While the odds are incredibly long on our universe being created by random chance, for all we know, we could be universe number 9,342,899,456,304.347 to the power of 569,003,562,341. Also, there is still the question of where the designer came from, and what are the odds of the random creation of a designer who could create such a universe?

astronomical odds of the conditions being just right against the spontaneous generation of life on earth

1. in an infinite universe, i should imagine the probability of abiogenesis forming life (as we know it) SOMEWHERE in the universe approaches 1. i'm no probability expert, but that makes sense to me.

2. Intelligent Designers are too Earth-centric in their thinking. its not "ZOMG the Earth has life, the conditions for which are improbable, therefore a Creator/God did it." its a case of "we were lucky enough to be on a planet that happened to meet the criteria for the genesis of our forms of life, and, while improbable, there's no point denying it because that's what happened. if it hadn't happened we wouldn't be here to argue about it."
its like winning the lottery and then saying "nope, i'm not going to collect my winnings because the odds of winning are so low i can't have won"


Incidentally, any argument based on odds is a very, very bad one. If life never came about, we wouldn't be here to have this conversation. That we are having this conversation is evidence that, somehow or another, life did come about. As such, the individual odds of a method by which life comes about are completely irrelevant. One can compare the odds of two or more different methods and make a guess that has a higher probability of being correct than from sheer blind chance, but I don't see you, or anyone doing that. What are the odds of an intelligent designer? At the very most, they're the same as the odds for life.

QFT

Many scientists, looking at recuring patterns in nature and astronomical odds of the conditions being just right against the spontaneous generation of life on earth, are wondering if somehow the universe was created by an Intelligent Designer. Even mathematicians engaged in chaos theory are finding underlying patterns in their work.

In an effort to keep things on an intellectual forum, I suggest that we discuss the "Intelligent Designer", not as a personal God, but simply as the Designer or Creator.

So, among this audience, what are your serious and polite thoughts on Intelligent Design.

I have no problems with beliving that a creator God initiated the 'big bang'.

I have no problems with beliving that a creator God initiated the 'big bang'.

[insert required sexual inuendo]

To bring back one of the classical argument, Who created the creator?

(the standard answer to which is "he/she/it/his noodliness always existed. At which point the standard reply is if he/she-ok you get the point- always existed then isn't it equally possible that (see above) didn't exist and the universe always existed?)

[insert required sexual inuendo]

To bring back one of the classical argument, Who created the creator?

(the standard answer to which is "he/she/it/his noodliness always existed. At which point the standard reply is if he/she-ok you get the point- always existed then isn't it equally possible that (see above) didn't exist and the universe always existed?)

I'm gonna go with the standard answer, and say that yes it is possible that the universe has just always been.

I don't belive so though.

I'm gonna go with the standard answer, and say that yes it is possible that the universe has just always been.

I don't belive so though.

I'm curious (genuinly i swear! :D) what's your take? (fairly sure theres no provable right or wrong answer to this question.)

1. in an infinite universe, i should imagine the probability of abiogenesis forming life (as we know it) SOMEWHERE in the universe approaches 1. i'm no probability expert, but that makes sense to me.


actualy anything (except 1/infinity and possibly zero) multiplied by infinity is infinity. thus the probability of life multiplied by an infinit universe= infinit life. Fortunetly the universe is (to the bestof my knowledge) finit (at least this one is I refuse to get into parallel universe stuff) so we don't run into the issue of infinit life. Unfortunetly this means we would need a quantifiable number to multiply by a quantifiable probability in order to determine the likelyhood of life (anywhere not simply on earth) niether of which exist at this time.

I'm curious (genuinly i swear! :D) what's your take? (fairly sure theres no provable right or wrong answer to this question.)

It's easy really, I belive in a creator God, I belive also in evolution and the big bang.

So I have no problem reconsiling both belifes. If I imagine a God created the universe via the big bang, then all of our scientific laws and princilpes of how the universe works also stem from the same source.
Basicly at first there was only God as 'spirit', perfect in knowledge, but with no practical experiance, thus God created the universe from Godself, in order to experiance 'Matter'.

In short we are all God experiancing what it means to be(in the physical sense).

1. in an infinite universe, i should imagine the probability of abiogenesis forming life (as we know it) SOMEWHERE in the universe approaches 1. i'm no probability expert, but that makes sense to me.

2. Intelligent Designers are too Earth-centric in their thinking. its not "ZOMG the Earth has life, the conditions for which are improbable, therefore a Creator/God did it." its a case of "we were lucky enough to be on a planet that happened to meet the criteria for the genesis of our forms of life, and, while improbable, there's no point denying it because that's what happened. if it hadn't happened we wouldn't be here to argue about it."
its like winning the lottery and then saying "nope, i'm not going to collect my winnings because the odds of winning are so low i can't have won"


If anyone decides this is the case then please forward the winnings to me.


As for the "Intelligent Life" lottery we did win however we are the one's blowing it on stupid shit and probably will end up with nothing in the end.

It's easy really, I belive in a creator God, I belive also in evolution and the big bang.

So I have no problem reconsiling both belifes. If I imagine a God created the universe via the big bang, then all of our scientific laws and princilpes of how the universe works also stem from the same source.
Basicly at first there was only God as 'spirit', perfect in knowledge, but with no practical experiance, thus God created the universe from Godself, in order to experiance 'Matter'.

In short we are all God experiancing what it means to be(in the physical sense).

That seems like a completely rational and interesting belief system which, i'm assuming, is only slightly related (if at all) to any organized religion.
What's your position on death/afterlife/zombiehood?

Personally I think this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc)even more brutally savages Ben Stein.

Christ! Children would find this insulting. I especially liked the bit at about 3:50 where Dawkins is trying to explain what it would take to make ID falsifiable and therefore a bona fide theory.

It would be like asking a priest "What would it take to prove to you that the God's of Olympus exist?"

"Well, if you took me up to the top of Olympus and introduced me to them, that would do it."

"Hey! Did you hear that everyone? Father here thinks that the Greek gods might exist!"

Did Stein ever get out of High School?

Dear god, did he put that in his movie?

That seems like a completely rational and interesting belief system which, i'm assuming, is only slightly related (if at all) to any organized religion.
What's your position on death/afterlife/zombiehood?

Reincarnation for those who fail to 'get down with God' and an end to the cycle of birth-death-rebirth for those who do.

Reincarnation for those who fail to 'get down with God' and an end to the cycle of birth-death-rebirth for those who do.

I've always wanted to ask a believe in reincarnation this: how do you explain increase/decrease in population, and also when a massive disaster kills thousands, do loads of women/geese/houseflies suddenly become pregnant?

1. in an infinite universe, i should imagine the probability of abiogenesis forming life (as we know it) SOMEWHERE in the universe approaches 1. i'm no probability expert, but that makes sense to me.
Thing is, life is in existence; we exist.

Pointing to this existence and noting its likelihood isn't a good argument in any way. To make a hopefully not too convoluted example, it's like rolling a million D20's and having them all land on 20; though incredibly unlikely, it is possible. Simply because an unlikely, but still possible, possibility happens, is no reason to ascribe unnecessary agency to said possibility.

Though we humans are very adept at doing just that; ascribing agency is a pretty good survival mechanism.

Reincarnation for those who fail to 'get down with God' and an end to the cycle of birth-death-rebirth for those who do.

Which begs the question where are all these extra souls coming from? We are a world of over 6 billion of them and growing. The soul factory seems to be working overtime coupled with the fact many are loosing faith seems to equal disaster coming up. Possibly the apocalypse!

I've always wanted to ask a believe in reincarnation this: how do you explain increase/decrease in population, and also when a massive disaster kills thousands, do loads of women/geese/houseflies suddenly become pregnant?

That question sorta presupposes the concept of a finite amount of 'souls'(for want of a better word) doesn't it?

Here though are two possiblities for you.

1) Reincarnation effects every living thing, so it does not necesaryly mean that one will be reincanated as human, as oppsed to say an ant.

2) Reincarnation is goverend by such laws as a creator God made during the creation. Are we then to place a limit on the powers of such a being? I mean if God can create the phyiscal universe from the spirtual body of itself, then why can't it perrform actions that we humans may find logicaly inconsistant?

Reincarnation for those who fail to 'get down with God' and an end to the cycle of birth-death-rebirth for those who do.

cool :) thanks for the explanation.

Thing is, life is in existence; we exist.

Pointing to this existence and noting its likelihood isn't a good argument in any way. To make a hopefully not too convoluted example, it's like rolling a million D20's and having them all land on 20; though incredibly unlikely, it is possible. Simply because an unlikely, but still possible, possibility happens, is no reason to ascribe unnecessary agency to said possibility.

Though we humans are very adept at doing just that; ascribing agency is a pretty good survival mechanism.


Which makes me think that once we do cross paths with another intelligent species they will have their own "God" which will then create a Holy War to see who's is greatest.

That question sorta presupposes the concept of a finite amount of 'souls'(for want of a better word) doesn't it?

Here though are two possiblities for you.

1) Reincarnation effects every living thing, so it does not necesaryly mean that one will be reincanated as human, as oppsed to say an ant.

2) Reincarnation is goverend by such laws as a creator God made during the creation. Are we then to place a limit on the powers of such a being? I mean if God can create the phyiscal universe from the spirtual body of itself, then why can't it perrform actions that we humans may find logicaly inconsistant?
[possibility 3]
reincarnation is not time-sensative. If you die you may be reincarnated thousands of years later or fifteen minutes before.

cool :) thanks for the explanation.

You're welcome.;)

Which makes me think that once we do cross paths with another intelligent species they will have their own "God" which will then create a Holy War to see who's is greatest.

or not? seeing as how "we" don't have a single god (and some of us don't have one at all.) Assuming an "alien" society would be unified behind a single god is just silly.

[possibility 3]
reincarnation is not time-sensative. If you die you may be reincarnated thousands of years later or fifteen minutes before.

Indeed, I have never really considered that, I guess now my thanks must go to you!:D

[possibility 3]
reincarnation is not time-sensative. If you die you may be reincarnated thousands of years later or fifteen minutes before.

Given how fast the Dali Lama seems to be reincarnated I would say it doesn't take that long at all. ;)

or not? seeing as how "we" don't have a single god (and some of us don't have one at all.) Assuming an "alien" society would be unified behind a single god is just silly.

Or they may have a greater undestanding of the one God?

Given how fast the Dali Lama seems to be reincarnated I would say it doesn't take that long at all. ;)
Maybe he is unique, or its possible that they got it wrong and anyway he may not reincarnate linierily (sp????) this could actually be his4 200005637 reincarnation while the next one will be his 1st, whos to say?

The appropriate response to Intelligent Design is Intelligent Disdain.

Or they may have a greater undestanding of the one God?

entirely possible, or many gods, or no gods, or "alot of god but he's actually in one place so everywhere becomes a single point and-" who knows? Speculating about alien beliefs when there may not be aliens is probably a waste of time.

The appropriate response to Intelligent Design is Intelligent Disdain.

Bwahahahahah! No wait!

or not? seeing as how "we" don't have a single god (and some of us don't have one at all.) Assuming an "alien" society would be unified behind a single god is just silly.

I would bet that if we get to a point of interstellar travel we will have consolidated a lot compared to now. It would take a world wide effort to become space travelers on a large scale. Consolidation would bring the one government approach and probably a very dominate religious viewpoint such as one god. I don't think it would be a stretch to think it wouldn't be any different for another species out there that is capable of large scale space travel. However I could be making a lot of assumptions here.

Indeed, I have never really considered that, I guess now my thanks must go to you!:D

lol no problem :) wouldn't it be awesome if by some reallllly unbelievable coincidence we all reincarnated at exactly the same point a few trillion years from now and created the second (or possibly not second, who knows) big bang?

I would bet that if we get to a point of interstellar travel we will have consolidated a lot compared to now. It would take a world wide effort to become space travelers on a large scale. Consolidation would bring the one government approach and probably a very dominate religious viewpoint such as one god. I don't think it would be a stretch to think it wouldn't be any different for another species out there that is capable of large scale space travel. However I could be making a lot of assumptions here.

just a few :) lol though honestly your guess is as good as anyones in that I'm faily sure no one here (except LG) knows how the future will go. Just a point here. The god we all unify under could easily not be your personal god. . .it could also be no god or it might be your god again . . .who knows?

entirely possible, or many gods, or no gods, or "alot of god but he's actually in one place so everywhere becomes a single point and-" who knows? Speculating about alien beliefs when there may not be aliens is probably a waste of time.

Well that I would suggest is highly subjective? I mean of course what each of us considers a waste of time.

Well that I would suggest is highly subjective? I mean of course what each of us considers a waste of time.

well seeing as how we're both on Nsg . . . .no your right, of course. Wate of time wasn't exactly what I meant to say I was going for spurious but couldn't, for the life of me, remember how to spell it lol. Actually I'm not sure that's exactly right either . . .hmmmmmm

lol no problem :) wouldn't it be awesome if by some reallllly unbelievable coincidence we all reincarnated at exactly the same point a few trillion years from now and created the second (or possibly not second, who knows) big bang?

Or even better, the second NSG :eek:

lmao :D

Consider some of the things that we know are intelligently designed:
The internet
The IRS
The offside rule

Does it really seem preferable for the whole universe to be intelligently designed?

Ben Stein is a comedian... and as the Above states, he hasn't make it past the hypothesis level.

I've always wanted to ask a believe in reincarnation this: how do you explain increase/decrease in population, and also when a massive disaster kills thousands, do loads of women/geese/houseflies suddenly become pregnant?

Which begs the question where are all these extra souls coming from? We are a world of over 6 billion of them and growing. The soul factory seems to be working overtime coupled with the fact many are loosing faith seems to equal disaster coming up. Possibly the apocalypse!

Both of these assume that Earth is the only planet with life on it. That if a being dies here, it will reincarnate here. It also assumes that spirit can only be incarnated in certain forms.

It also assumes a direct ratio of spirit to matter, as if the amount of spirit in the universe is directly reflected in the amount of matter.

I see no reason to assume either of those things.

As an animist, I believe that souls/spirits are immortal and continue forever, but I also believe there is very little or no limit to how they can incarnate, or where. They may even have the option not to incarnate sometimes.

Also as an animist, I tend to view the universe as cyclical, so I guess I'd say it has always existed, "dying" and "reincarnating" in cycles of big bangs, expansions and collapses over and over, forever into the past and forever into the future. To me, the universe might do that in much the same way as human bodies breathe.

Many scientists, looking at recuring patterns in nature and astronomical odds of the conditions being just right against the spontaneous generation of life on earth, are wondering if somehow the universe was created by an Intelligent Designer. Even mathematicians engaged in chaos theory are finding underlying patterns in their work.

In an effort to keep things on an intellectual forum, I suggest that we discuss the "Intelligent Designer", not as a personal God, but simply as the Designer or Creator.

So, among this audience, what are your serious and polite thoughts on Intelligent Design.
It is essentially a fancy way of dressing up creationism so it can vaguely pretend to be science. Sadly for it, such pretensions fail because it is still unfalsifiable, thus untestable, thus not science.

NEXT!

It is essentially a fancy way of dressing up creationism so it can vaguely pretend to be science. Sadly for it, such pretensions fail because it is still unfalsifiable, thus untestable, thus not science.

NEXT!

"I'm not really a theory of the development of life, I just play one in the movies."

Creationism in a lab coat.

It is essentially a fancy way of dressing up creationism so it can vaguely pretend to be science. Sadly for it, such pretensions fail because it is still unfalsifiable, thus untestable, thus not science.

NEXT!

Bwahahaha! Shit man, read the OP again, and come back with a proper answer huh!:eek2:

yeah, but that just means they refuse to accept that things which have been demonstrated have been demonstrated. their standards are the standards of idiots and have no claim on us.

No, it means that they refuse to accept that something has been adequately supported. What one person considers adequate evidence needed to accept something as true will certainly be different from what another does. If you've a priori decided that something is not true, the level of evidence you sill need to change your mind will be higher than someone with no preconceived notions going in.

No, it means that they refuse to accept that something has been adequately supported. What one person considers adequate evidence needed to accept something as true will certainly be different from what another does. If you've a priori decided that something is not true, the level of evidence you sill need to change your mind will be higher than someone with no preconceived notions going in.

but we don't need evidence that a proposed pathway actually was followed to destroy their claim. their claim is that there are no pathways by which x could have occurred naturally; that some biological structure cannot be formed from simpler functional precursors. if we show any possible pathway then their claim is wrong, whether they agree or not.

i guess the other way to put it is that i don't care about changing their minds, i care about not letting them have their way.

but we don't need evidence that a proposed pathway actually was followed to destroy their claim. their claim is that there are no pathways by which x could have occurred naturally; that some biological structure cannot be formed from simpler functional precursors. if we show any possible pathway then their claim is wrong, whether they agree or not.

i guess the other way to put it is that i don't care about changing their minds, i care about not letting them have their way.

You mean like debunking the Irreducible Complexity thing? TalkOrigins (http://www.talkorigins.org) has a good section on that.

but we don't need evidence that a proposed pathway actually was followed to destroy their claim. their claim is that there are no pathways by which x could have occurred naturally; that some biological structure cannot be formed from simpler functional precursors. if we show any possible pathway then their claim is wrong, whether they agree or not.

i guess the other way to put it is that i don't care about changing their minds, i care about not letting them have their way.
I agree. I understand Dem's point about WHY they say what they do, but I also agree that their why's are irrelevant. Creationism/ID is not science. Period. They can pretend otherwise if they like, but the rest of world is not obliged to and most definitely should not indulge their fantasies.

but we don't need evidence that a proposed pathway actually was followed to destroy their claim.

Without evidence, a proposed pathway is just a story, with just as much backing as the "God did it" claim.

And, without evidence, someone could definitely still say, "No, it couldn't have happened that way."

their claim is that there are no pathways by which x could have occurred naturally; that some biological structure cannot be formed from simpler functional precursors. if we show any possible pathway then their claim is wrong, whether they agree or not.

One cannot determine the possibility or lack thereof of a pathway without evidence.

i guess the other way to put it is that i don't care about changing their minds, i care about not letting them have their way.

I don't really care if they change their minds or not, so long as they keep their nonsense out of my science.


I agree. I understand Dem's point about WHY they say what they do, but I also agree that their why's are irrelevant. Creationism/ID is not science. Period. They can pretend otherwise if they like, but the rest of world is not obliged to and most definitely should not indulge their fantasies.

Indeed. I hope you don't think I was arguing to the contrary. In fact, I was pointing out a specific way in which ID is not science.

Without evidence, a proposed pathway is just a story, with just as much backing as the "God did it" claim.

And, without evidence, someone could definitely still say, "No, it couldn't have happened that way."

One cannot determine the possibility or lack thereof of a pathway without evidence.

in this case, the just-so stories constitute evidence. unless the just-so story can be shown to violate known principles, it completely undermines the universal claim that it is impossible for x to have evolved naturally. all we need is a possibility, and having presented one, the burden of proof shifts to those claiming impossibility to demonstrate why it isn't really a possibility after all.

Indeed. I hope you don't think I was arguing to the contrary. In fact, I was pointing out a specific way in which ID is not science.

Oh, of course! I should hope I know that. I just meant to convey that, when it comes down to brass tacks, why they think the way they do is only of, at most, academic interest. Regardless of why they think the way they do, and regardless of whether anyone could ever shift their thinking, the creationism/ID agenda must not be allowed to get its way.

If someone can understand the reasons they think the way they do, and use that understanding to help shift their thinking, then that would be great, because it is always better to be able to bring someone around to agreement than just to block opposition. But if it is not possible, and some of what you said suggests that for many it may not be possible to change their thinking, then they must just be blocked from getting their way.

in this case, the just-so stories constitute evidence. unless the just-so story can be shown to violate known principles, it completely undermines the universal claim that it is impossible for x to have evolved naturally. all we need is a possibility, and having presented one, the burden of proof shifts to those claiming impossibility to demonstrate why it isn't really a possibility after all.

Or to present evidence of the intelligent designer.

Kansas anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Many scientists, looking at recuring patterns in nature and astronomical odds of the conditions being just right against the spontaneous generation of life on earth, are wondering if somehow the universe was created by an Intelligent Designer. Even mathematicians engaged in chaos theory are finding underlying patterns in their work.

In an effort to keep things on an intellectual forum, I suggest that we discuss the "Intelligent Designer", not as a personal God, but simply as the Designer or Creator.

So, among this audience, what are your serious and polite thoughts on Intelligent Design.

Think of someone who won a national lottery. The odds of them winning were very low. It doesn't mean it was intelligent design. It just happened.

"Low odds" don't prove anything.

Or to present evidence of the intelligent designer.

Indeed. If there is one I want to know what crazy obsessive compulsive mofo decided to design all snow flakes different.

Indeed. If there is one I want to know what crazy obsessive compulsive mofo decided to design all snow flakes different.

http://gizmodo.com/5020325/bill-gates-a-fashionable-guy

There an intelligent designer.

I proved intelligent design!!!

He was apparently valedictorian of Yale law school.

Well, that explains it. A lawyer's training does not equip him to arrive at truth. It equips him to demonstrate that the lie is the more plausible possibility if it suits his bank balance to do so.

Well, that explains it. A lawyer's training does not equip him to arrive at truth. It equips him to demonstrate that the lie is the more plausible possibility if it suits his bank balance to do so.

Who then would be educated to find the truth ?

Who then would be educated to find the truth ?

On evolution? Scientists, more specifically biologists.

On evolution? Scientists, more specifically biologists.

I think I would call those facts rather then truth.

I think I would call those facts rather then truth.

Without facts how can you find truth?

Without facts how can you find truth?

truth is subjective the car is green
Facts are objective light bounces off the car with a frequency between 526–606 THz.

truth is subjective the car is green
Facts are objective light bounces off the car with a frequency between 526–606 THz.

Surely, that's just semantics..

Surely, that's just semantics..

For someone who is color blind is not green.
For someone who is totally blind what is green?

Furthermore we knew the car was green before we knew what eletromagnetic radiation was.

Trve wrote:
So, how did elements form amino acids and protiens that combined to make the simplest working life forms?

This is what we call in Philosophy as the "only game in town" fallacy, just because I lack an answer does not mean I have to take yours. It just means we haven't found the answer yet.

truth is subjective the car is green
Facts are objective light bounces off the car with a frequency between 526–606 THz.

i'll give you the subject/objective distinction there (though i'd argue its greenness isn't purely subjective), but that divide between truth and fact won't hold. after all, i could claim that all of the light bouncing off that green car has a wavelength of 42nm. my factual claim would be the opposite of the truth.

Who then would be educated to find the truth ?

Scientists. The word "science" itself means knowledge.

The problem here is that you can't demonstrate that something is not irreducibly complex. You can propose a mechanism by which it might have developed. You can show all the supporting evidence for it. And someone who has decided it is irreducibly complex can still shout, "Nuh uh! That wouldn't work!"

Remember that science does not prove theories to be correct. It either supports or disproves them. We can't support or disprove "Nuh uh! This is too complicated!"

I disagree. Read the wiki article on Irreducible Complexity. It seems to be thoroughly disproved.

Edit: But my main point is, if it is not falsifiable, then don't at the same time claim it is false. That is contradictory.

Scientists. The word "science" itself means knowledge.

Knowledge is facts and information.
Facts are things that can be proven or disprove.
Truth is something more subjective and flexible.

By and large truth should not be taught in school outside of courses like philosophy and theology.

Knowledge is facts and information.
Facts are things that can be proven or disprove.
Truth is something more subjective and flexible.

By and large truth should not be taught in school outside of courses like philosophy and theology.

Actually Science cannot "prove" anything. Facts in this sense would then be things we are unable to disprove. Philosophy would argue that Truth is not flexible. I think Plato stated something about truth being "saying what is, is and what is not, is not."

Intelligent Design is not science, it is Young-Earth creationism in a lab coat.

Overall, it's a bunch of malarky designed to try and skirt under the radar of the Constitution.....

I speak from a Christian perspective: These guys (Farnhamia and Black Forrest) are correct in what they've said there. It's YEC after substituting the preacher's vestments for a scientist's coat in an attempt to dupe people into thinking it's not YEC under there. Good for debate amongst private citizens on their own time, but keep it out of the public schools.

I know for a fact that it works.

In fact, I'm among the people receiving our 30 pieces of silver for it. Where is your evolution now? Watch out this might be the post that you hang yourself with.