I hate intelligent design

Sandok

First of all that article didn't show me any of these so called "old stars" and it's far from the same science... You think evolution and the big bang theory doesn't have scientific support as you said earlier, well I can honestly say good bye to this thread since there is no reason to debate with a person who think scienists know as much as his cat...

Cya around BWX

BWX

I never said I knew.. People that trust someone just because they are better at math are too gullible though. So is that the consensus? That life came from a meteor? Let's talk about that.. let's think about that for a minute. You thinking? I have some questions if that is the theory that evolution starts off with. From people who hate intelligent design of course, because they would be the one's who know.

__________________

BWX

Do you live under a rock?


http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/age.html


I said the scientists know about as much about the beginning of life AS MY CAT nows about calculus. Learn to read more carefully before you get so defensive man.


It is just as far beyond their comprehension as calculus is to a cat. Do you understand what I said now?

__________________

Zelig

That's the ekpyrotic universe theory, which I mentioned in my last post... sort of like the big bang, but with another dimension, it's pretty recent, first publically disclosed in 2001 IIRC. Doesn't disprove the big bang at all though.

As I've said, evolution is in no way incompatible with a divine creation of life. I personally know biologists who are religious and believe that life originated from a divine source, but that has nothing to do with evolution.

The stellar evolution data talked about here is wrong. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, with a margin of error of 200 million years.

So should they simply forego any attempt at learning anything about it?

Great, so to get everyone to agree, we'll be able to teach philosophy and languages, nothing else.

__________________
--

BWX

No but Sandok should not misinterpret it and cry and take his toys and go home! LOL

















Well, they shouldn't make things up.. like how life formed, and teach it to people as fact.



They can play with the Hubble constant all they want to make the universe fit into their mathematical models. If the math doesn't work, change the math.
The whole point about that was that they change "what is true" about the universe as fast as they discover new things about it. Believe something today? Get ready to know tomorrow that you were wrong..

I still want to talk about this meteor theory, because that is the basis of life on the planet if you don't believe in intelligent design.. That's still pretty funny to me.
All these really smart scientist and that is all they can come up with. Then you have people that don't even believe we landed on the moon, and that GW blew up WTC.. It just proves people will believe anything if enough people agree with them.

__________________

Nacht

To put it simply:

Science works on observations, evidence, and proof. There is evidence for evolution, the evolvement of DNA, RNA, our brains, etc.

What there is no evidence for, however, is "Intelligent Design". Citing the complexity of species is not evidence of anything other than them being complex.

BWX

Hmm the evolvement of DNA... Where are all the less evolved humans? Where is the evidence of less evolved human brains? Where is the missing link? I guess that's why they call it "missing"..

Evolution needs a beginning.. Still the comet? Lightning? Oh well.. beating a dead horse.. no one has the answer that sounds more than laughable.

__________________

Maddogg6

I agree here. There's FAR more evidence proving that we have evolved from something, more so than 'chicken or the egg' argument as I.D. infers. (the existance of evolution IS NOT proof of I.D. either- btw - its a cop out answer that means 'I dunno')

Intelligent Design infers some 'architect' - ok lets say 'God' was responsible for all the elements that make up everything (from the periodic table..), if so, where did this god come from? What is HE made up of? What did this 'supreme architect' use to make everything? (rhetorical questions, meant to make the open minded think, not start an argument with those who already have strong beliefs)

Have you ever watched bacteria 'evolve' - or algae... in a matter of weeks or even hours. Now, how far of a strectch is it that humans have evolved over millions of years, if not billions.

[color=Red]When I asked:[/color] 'why did God make us rely on air and water to live, when it can be polluted or poisoned?'
[color=Red]The answer I got was: [/color]'Because God made us that way'
[color=Red]So I asked: [/color] 'But, Why?'
[color=Red]The answer to this was:[/color] 'Its Gods will - and to challenge it, is blasphamous'

All - to avoid the 'I dunno' that makes one sounds less intelligent, but IS what that conversation equated to.

But Thank Science, we most likely, will probably eveolve, and develope a tolerance to those poisons. Maybe we'll put that dusty appendix to good use, or maybe it will evolve into a second liver..?? Who knows... Does GOD? - if so I'd like an answer on appropriate letterhead and stamped as being certified from 'the supreme architech' - or what ever he may call him self.

Picks up phone - 'Gods, residence (pause) - thats it... them damn telemarketers are in for it now'

Rediculous isnt it... no one can call god, but we CAN call the scientists that theorize and test how evolution works. I prefer to get info first hand, not from some lackey (priest), who knows a guy(bishop), that knows another guy(pope), who talks to God on a regular basis.
It is after all the religious proponants who are pushing for ID right? I KNOW its not the athiests pushing for ID.

YAYitsAndrew

Here you go, skulls from our ancestors.

http://park.org/Canada/Museum/man/begin.html

If you dig into the earth, you find history; much more history than the length of the bible, for instance (a length derived from jesus' lineage as described in the gospels).

Take that egg off your face.

__________________
"It is because the resistance to paying for copyrighted material, although often characterized as arising from a supposed technical burden or principled concern for the public interest, arises rather from exactly the same segment of the brain that is dominant in shoplifters."
- Mark Helprin, Digital Barbarism
In other words, it's never okay to steal even if you think you have a good reason!

www.yayitsandrew.com

Falstaff

what if the very engineer you seek is within the very mitochondria in cells? And what of RNA and DNA...interesting isnt it, that Gods very own creation is what we seek to emulate..
we are seeking God.....perhaps with intelligent design..

__________________

Zelig

No scientific body teaches any specific origin of the formation of life as fact. Seriously, evolution is fact, we have not yet discovered the origin of life, nobody is claiming we have.

That's the great thing about science, it supports the theories that have the most evidence.

I disagree, as would a majority of disbelievers in intelligent design. I didn't see anybody here advocating any theory about life arriving on a meteor.

The moon landings were faked. I mean, all the people who know them to be faked are obviously more intelligent and capable than the entire organization of the Soviet Space program and KGB.

The evolution of species doesn't necessarily work that way. There is no such thing as a "less evolved" species, simply one less well suited to a changing environment and competition from similar species.
Say you have protohuman A. Tribes number 1-3. Over the course of a few generations, tribe #1 develops a slower metabolism, allowing them to survive better in the cold. Tribe #1 gets in conflict with tribe #2, they're healthier, kill off tribe #2. Repeat process with tribe #1 and #3. Everyone left has slower metabolisms, and there are no "less evolved" humans left, and the species has not even changed as a "species" yet.

There is no "missing link" in the human evolution "family tree". A "missing link" simply refers to a transitional fossil or skeleton of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with the more derived life-forms to which it is related. 50 years ago, there were still transitional fossils in the human evolutionary chain which remained undiscovered, however, it is quite well mapped at the present.

Here's a pretty complete diagram, lifted from wikipedia.


Again, the origin of life being unexplained does not equal a problem with the theory of evolution.

Let's look at these two scenarios:

1. A divine being created all life, nearly as is, and almost no evolution has occured since then.

2. A divine being created the first life millions of years ago, and it has evolved naturally since then.

Are you seriously saying that only the first scenario is possible, that in comparison, the second one is completely bogus?

__________________
--

Falstaff

so much banter back and forth about a very simply thing really....
they say the devil is in the details...
where do yo think God is....
I am sure all of you will avoid responding......

__________________

Zelig

Well, I wasn't going to respond, since I don't have much to say in response, but that's almost a challenge.

I don't personally believe in a gods/devils, but I do not judge others on their religious beliefs or lack thereof, and would prefer if they would extend the same courtesy to me.

__________________
--

BWX

Those 3 pieced together bones and 5 drawings proves the theory of evolution? I think not.. Anyways isn't it intelligent design you hate so? Even if there were more evolved monkeys than there are now, it proves nothing.. I am debating the origin of life mainly.. while you keep wanting to debate evolution. If evolution ever happened it needed a start right? So where did it start? Is your theory a meteor, comet, or lightning? Or something else? Aliens? Maybe not "intelligent" aliens but very dumb ones?

The more I hear that, the more I laugh.. I mean it really is funny.


We are talking about Intelligent Design here... yes without a starting point, evolution falls apart. Still you guys keep skirting around one very important thing.. with no response.


OK, so now for your evolution theory- you use creationism for the "first life"?
So you are not using the meteor thing or lightning now? Just trying to find out which you believe happened so we can at least discuss it. Or I suppose I could stop asking and let you guys debate about cell structure or old monkey bones amongst yourselves while you go on "hating a theory" of all things.



[COLOR=Red][/COLOR]

Ok, if you really think that-- then you have proven the point.. no need to go on, at least not with someone who thinks we never went to the moon.

My personal belief is that anyone who believes that conspiracy theory is too far gone to reason with. - like troadas..

__________________

Falstaff

excellent....

I speak from experience that so much we attempt to explain or describe with what exists within our skulls pales in comparison to real truth beyond our understanding. whether we believe in a supreme being or not, faith has always been a part of science, as science has been of faith. Spirituality cannot grow in a vacumn and I think if we never challenged ourselves or the truth of our own beliefs we wouldnt have tried so hard to get where we are now. In time, we might even believe that we are Gods so to speak, with the power to create and destroy and ignore the subtle truthes in say for instance...the banana...LOL

__________________

BWX

There is no spoon.

__________________

YAYitsAndrew

BWX as the topic starter, I'm asking you to leave the discussion. You aren't contributing anything at all. As me and Zelig have said millions of times already, the origin of life is irrelevant. That's not what we're trying to talk about or discuss.

kthxbye

__________________
"It is because the resistance to paying for copyrighted material, although often characterized as arising from a supposed technical burden or principled concern for the public interest, arises rather from exactly the same segment of the brain that is dominant in shoplifters."
- Mark Helprin, Digital Barbarism
In other words, it's never okay to steal even if you think you have a good reason!

www.yayitsandrew.com

Zelig

Wow, that's some pretty selective quoting on your part... I would appreciate it if you attempted not to quote my stuff out of context, especially cutting sentences in half. I've been trying not to quote your stuff out of context.

Okay, so here we should at least have an agreement in why we disagree, that we are not going to get anywhere with.

Me: The origin of life is currently unknown. Evolution occurred, and is not related to the origin of life.
You: The origin of life is currently unknown, therefore evolution did not occur.

Correct?

You ignored both my question, and the point I was making. If we agreed upon the fact that a divine being created life, as you do (I'm assuming), would you consider it more likely that no evolution has occurred since then, rather than evolution having occurred since life was created?

I do not use creationism for the "first life". The fact that I don't know how life originated means exactly that. It does not mean that I am going to believe that it was created supernaturally.



I really thought this would give me away:

__________________
--

Drakon

The man is speaking his mind and now you want to "throw" him out? Talk about irony!!!!

BWX

LOL- the origin of life is irrelavant to the discussion of intelligent diesign!?!


Well, I guess if someone hates "intelligent design" so much that they refuse to discuss it.. it is their loss. It is funny seeing someone at a loss for an explanation to some very basic questions.

Remember you are the one who brought it up and you are the one that is feeling all this "hate" inside.

I'm just trying to have a somewhat deep conversation about some very philosophical questions.. and when it comes down to it- my questions to you guys go unanswered.. I am laughing at you guys BTW .. for some reason it's very entertaining for me to see you get all irritated about something so benign. But hey- if you want to hate, nobody can stop you from being a hater.



Think about the words..

Intelligent and design..

I like intelligence, I love design, especially good design.. What's to hate?

Maybe you would like the opposite?

Unintelligent Chaos?

Stupid disorganization?



You see how silly that sounds?

__________________

BWX

Please read that article.. It's funny it came out today... after this "discussion" started.

The scientists have NO idea.. it cracks me up.


Updated: 3:38 p.m. ET May 8, 2006
One of the biggest mysteries in cosmology could be explained by a controversial theory in which the universe explodes into existence not just once, but repeatedly in endless cycles of death and rebirth.

Called the cyclic universe theory, it could potentially explain why a mysterious repulsive form of energy known as the "cosmological constant," which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, is several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by the standard Big Bang model.

In the May 5 issue of the journal Science, Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University propose that the constant was once much larger, but that its value decayed with each incarnation of the universe.


The cosmological constant, also known as "lambda," is thought to be a form of energy that gravitationally repels itself and causes the expansion of the universe to speed up.

Albert Einstein initially proposed it as a counterforce to the gravitational attraction of matter to explain why the universe appeared static, neither growing nor shrinking. He later discarded the idea, however, when observations by astronomer Edwin Hubble revealed the universe was in fact expanding.

Lambda was revived in the late 1990s when astronomers discovered that the universe was not only expanding, but that it was doing so at an accelerated pace.

Scientists are still not sure what lambda is. According to one popular idea, it is the energy of space itself. According to quantum physics, the seemingly empty vacuum of space actually contains phantom particles that continually blink in and out of existence like flecks of sea foam. These particles are fleeting, but their energies combine to give every cubic centimeter of space a certain amount of energy. According to general relativity, this "vacuum energy" produces an antigravitational force that pushes space — and the matter in it — apart.

But there is a problem: The lambda that scientists have detected is more than a googol (1 followed by 100 zeros) times smaller than what theory predicts. To explain such a large discrepancy, physicists have been forced to come up with ever wilder theories.

Explaining lambda
One idea is that the lambda is not really small, but only seems so because it is being cancelled out by another unknown force with near perfect precision. To date, though, no mechanism has been found that can cause this cancellation.

An alternative solution is that of "anthropic selection," a controversial idea that attempts to explain why so many constants in nature appear to be precisely the right value to produce life. If lambda were too large, for example, the universe would have instantly blown up shortly after the Big Bang.

According to the so-called Anthropic Principle, certain features of the universe are selected by the requirement that observers — in our case, humans — can detect them. In other words, only in a universe where lambda is small can intelligent beings exist who can wonder why it is small.

There are different ideas about how anthropic selection works. One possibility is that there are many parallel universes coexisting together; each would have constants of different values and in our universe, those constants can sustain life.

A similar idea is that there is only one infinite universe, but lambda varies from region to region. We just happen to live in a rare bubble where the constant is just right for galaxies and stars — and us — to form.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12690177/

__________________

YAYitsAndrew

He only here to push buttons, I believe it's called trolling. He knows there is a seperation between origin of life and evolution; you can talk about evolution no matter what the origin of life is. Because he can not realize this simple fact and stop discussing what is irrelevant to the topic, he can not seriously be here to debate.

Here's an example of his bait:

Of course that doesn't make ANY SENSE.
I like patriotism. I like acting.
The patriot act must be great!

I'm not going to keep entertaining a troll when I'm looking for actual discussion on the topic; unfortunately the entire topic has been spent feeding on his bait. I think that's enough to ask him to leave.

__________________
"It is because the resistance to paying for copyrighted material, although often characterized as arising from a supposed technical burden or principled concern for the public interest, arises rather from exactly the same segment of the brain that is dominant in shoplifters."
- Mark Helprin, Digital Barbarism
In other words, it's never okay to steal even if you think you have a good reason!

www.yayitsandrew.com

BWX

OIC you just want people to agree with you.. how is that a debate?











Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute[2], say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories[COLOR=Red] regarding the origin of life.[/COLOR]


See I think that the main issue is the origin of life.. that is why I keep bringing it up. I think that is the weakest part of your theory... that is why you get so mad I guess. No answers to the questions.

See I am not trying to prove anything.. you however are trying to DISprove something. I'm just debating some points about a theory that you say you hate.. Then when I make a point you want me to leave. That is funny to me still. The fact is you cannot prove your theory, it is impossible- but you want me to agree or leave. Pretty lame.

-if I am not as seriously as you are about it and I make a point you think that is trolling? I just want to talk about that part of the issue for obvious reasons you want to avoid it - I understand.. If you can't stand the heat get out of the political debate forum. (the proverbial kitchen).

Maybe start a thread in a week or so and I will miss it and then you can just have a bunch of people agree with you until the thread dies. Either that or we can talk about how life got here.. if you can handle that? Without flaming..

You can't pick and choose what part of the issue people are going to agree or disagree with.. of course the weakest part of your theory will be picked apart and you will have to try to make sense out of it. If that is frustrating for someone, they should think twice about taking part in a FRIENDLY debate.

__________________

BWX

I only quoted what I was responding to actually... The rest didn't matter because after you tried to explain evolution after creationism- that made no sense..
But to humor you, no.. I don't agree like you that evolution is responsible for "everything" that is alive. I don't believe we came from a blob of goo that evolved into a plant that evolved into a fish that evolved into a mammal that evolved into a monkey that evolved into a man. I think that takes a huge leap of faith that people blindly follow like clones. Part of the reason I don't believe that is that the people who came up with that theory expect me to believe that life first came here when a lightning bolt hit a blob of goo with some protein in it and that made the life that all that started from. Either that or a meteor or comet or something.. It is all very integral to the theory.

I know you guys believe it.. at least you haven't said otherwise.. I want to know how it happened.. More specifically I want to know how the "Intelligent Design Haters" think it happened.





First post- Yesterday, 01:41 PM

Now- Today, 02:19 AM

Time for a break....


Somethings been bugging me! Now I remember..
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/showpost...78&postcount=1
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/showpost...3&postcount=14
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/showpost...7&postcount=16
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/showpost...3&postcount=20
Now I remeber... Maybe I'll just leave you to debate about this with someone else..
I forgot who I was dealing with!'

__________________

YAYitsAndrew

That definition doesn't speak of origin of life in the same terms that we are, though. They are using it pretty broadly. I've set it at a specific point: Where the first life on earth came from. After that, I don't give a damn about the origin and care only about how that origin evolved. It doesn't matter if a god put it there, or a meteor, or your cat's calculus homework. Intelligent design is about how life was designed and it is in direct opposition with evolution, a theory dealing with the progression of life after the origin.

This is why I don't answer your question. I don't care about the answer. No matter how life got here, I'm only interested in what happened after that moment.

So I've completely defined what I mean by origin of life (for the fifth time), and I've stated why it doesn't matter what that moment was. So now we can stop talking about it.

And the signature image and title should be enough to tell you who you're dealing with :P

__________________
"It is because the resistance to paying for copyrighted material, although often characterized as arising from a supposed technical burden or principled concern for the public interest, arises rather from exactly the same segment of the brain that is dominant in shoplifters."
- Mark Helprin, Digital Barbarism
In other words, it's never okay to steal even if you think you have a good reason!

www.yayitsandrew.com

Vuen

BWX, of course the origin of life has everything to do with intelligent design. What people are telling you is that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution does not require life to have spontaneously appeared. It does not matter how life formed; it's completely irrelevant to the evolutionary process. Whether it was a bolt of lightning, a meteor, or the hand of god that crafted the first cell, it is at that point that evolution took over.

So stop saying that evolution can't explain the origin of life, because it's not supposed to. It was never meant to. Most of the people who believe in evolution, indeed most everyone I know, don't believe life spontaneously formed; they believe God built the first DNA chains and the first cells, and used evolution as a way to form humans.

Pompey

From my experience Intelligent design is nothing more than "you dont know how life started, so therefore GOD (or "designer") did it". We dont know how life started, but that does not mean any one theory is automatically correct. There is no default.

I have a great evolution site that deals with creation/ID and these deals with the claim that ID is a scientific theory:



I am interested in the wole debate and I have yet to find a credible creationist/ID argument so BWX if you know any I would appreciate it. I have made an effort to read creationist and evolutionist sites and examine their argument (I find the crap they spew annoying). Me and many others members of this site would be grateful if you made the same effort before simply declaring evolution to be wrong. The source of the article I just posted has a lot of info.

Back on topic,
I dont believe evolution for the reason I stated at the beginning of my post. I dont believe there is enough evidence to say that any scientific explanation regarding the origin of life is correct. The key difference is the scientific explanations are transparent. You can see how they came to their conclusions and investigate them for your self even if you dont agree with them. Thats why I am willing to consider them.

__________________
One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer.

Nacht

I think that the reason many people (including myself) dislike Intelligent Design is very simple.

Most of these people would be fine if you just claimed a religion and stuck to it. Almost everyone is extremely tolerant of that, and wouldn't degrade you in any way. However, Intelligent Design is simply a shoddy attempt at getting (religious) creationism taught in schools. They figured thats the only way they could get it into a public classroom along side evolution.

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.
It is a spiritual/creationist belief.

Sandok

You can't argue with people who leave the blinds down in front of their eyes...

Maddogg6

AMEN TO THAT!

Furthermore....
Greek/Roman mythology was NOT always 'mythology' - it WAS a belief system, now long since proven false by scientists. If you don't believe anything similar can happen to the god you pray to now, your nieve and your setting yourself up for disappointment and humility.

ANY school that DOES teach creationalism/ID - is clearly, a religiously influenced/ran school, and has taken a MAJOR leap backwards.

Religious leaders have ALWAYS been against scientific progress in fear of loosing their jobs, or worse, being humiliated as a fanatic of modern 'mythology'. Of course they rationalize such discoveries as being 'the devils work'. But thats another subject.

Science has a track record of dis-proving beleif systems - I have confidence it will continue to do so. And I'm certain I.D. is on the scientists 'to-do' list.

ID is the 'repression inducing' answer in leu of 'I do not know'.
Example:
Nothing sets a curious mind in motion more than the 4 words 'I DO NOT KNOW'.
Teaching creationalism/ID at a young (and impressionable) age - *could* remove the curiosity that drives one to investigate, and we may loose a scientist, or worse - a great scientific discovery they may have made as a result of their curiosity.
ID is a mechanism that could extinguish ones drive to learn the truth. No need to investigate anything, if everything is 'gods will' or by some supreme 'design'- right?

IMO, THE worst thing an individual can be, is closed minded - as thats where learning and progress stop, and irrational fear and action begin. If there is such a thing as a 'sin' - THATS IT.

ID in science class = BAD
Even worse if its in PUBLIC schools science class.
Private schools - teach what ever the parents want - as long as the minimum requirements are met also.

Otherwise keep ID in church and OUT of public schools altogether. ID is at best a philosophical subject - but the danger is clear, that it DOES NOT condone further investigations.