Intelligent design isn't science

[Yonivore]

Either matter was created or it materialized out of inifinite nothingness.

Given the order of things, I'm banking on it having been designed by an intelligent creator.

What's your answer?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

C'mon CBF please..... Is this supposed to be an argument with any statistical relevance??? I seriously doubt you went around asking all your professors whether they were atheists or not... Anyway, if the professors at my university (@ MIT) were cleary divided on the issue how is it that your establishment wants to say there is no debate...


:lmao its funny cuz you basically say the exact same thing at the end of this paragraph that you mock me for in the beginning.


.

Give me one experiment that proves evolution....


give humanity a few more hundred years
theres plenty of experiments supporting natural selection, variable inheritence, survival of the fittest, descent with modification, etc, but, i dunno if you would take those as supporting evolution or not.


Let us not forget, you were the one who asked me how "Raptor species living on one continent were same as from another continent after millions of years of seperation"

[MasterYoda]

from the Good side of the force, was life created.

[velik_m]

Either matter was created or it materialized out of inifinite nothingness.

Given the order of things, I'm banking on it having been designed by an intelligent creator.

What's your answer?

And how did this creator came to be? Did he come from infinite nothingness?

[Phenomanul]

still does not mean its impossible


:rolleyes


to recapitulate....

Let us consider the chance of development of a very simple system composed of only 200 integrated parts (simple compared with living systems). The probability of forming such an ordered system is 1 in 200 factorial, or 1 chance in 788,657,867,364,790,503,552,363,213,932,185,062,29 5,135,977,687,173,263,294,742,533,244,359,449,963, 403,342,920,304,284,011,984,623,904,177,212,138,91 9,638,830,257,642,790,242,637,105,061,926,624,952, 829,931,113,462,857,270,763,317,237,396,988,943,92 2,445,621,451,664,240,254,033,291,864,131,227,428, 294,853,277,524,242,407,573,903,240,321,257,405,57 9,568,660,226,031,904,170,324,062,351,700,858,796, 178,922,222,789,623,703,897,374,720,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

If there are only 946,080,000,000,000,000 seconds in the known timescale according to the "scientific community"... how is it that the above number is not for all intents and purposes "zero."

Dude and it is only a 200 part system.... the odds for building the smallest self-replicating DNA strand would be 1 in 10^10,467. Again, even supercomputers can't deal with that number without crashing.

[Phenomanul]

:lmao its funny cuz you basically say the exact same thing at the end of this paragraph that you mock me for in the beginning.

I guess you have a point.... but don't overlook the point I was making... that there was an internal debate at my school (which is for all intents and purposes one of the leading scientific institutions in the world) and they essentially ended up in a "tie"..... to say that the scientific majority accepts "evolution" without question is a false statement....

Unfortunately 'higher powers' did not want to televise this 4-hr debate after the fact, and broke-off their agreement... stuff like that makes you wonder about their motives. I was like what the hell???? Did they not like how it turned out... it wasn't as one-sided as they thought it would be...??? Anyways... one day we will get that televised debate... and scientists far more qualified than the Dover school board will be taking the stand in favor of ID instead of debasing and misconstruing its arguments.... ala' William Jennings Bryan.

Another unfortunate factor:
because every 6th grader from Joe to Sally is taught evolutionary principles as fact no matter if they become bankers, architects, lawyers, or musicians, etc... "evolution" is what they will embrace... they embrace it with such fervor to argue in its defense without the slightest clue as to what they are saying... I mean they couldn't possibly have been taught wrong??? These people constitute the masses you reference as the overwhelming majority (perception is a big deal) and a big reason as to why your theory is the "accepted theory".... but that doesn't make it full-proof or correct.

Notice that I left out the scientific fields from the above argument... Not only are they a minority (in the pie-graphic of careers), but I have found that many of them at least question evolutionary concepts in their advanced courses... Among these people however, will also be your staunchiest supporters of evolution... and in those you will find your agnostic/athiest variety proponent.




give humanity a few more hundred years
sounds like a 'faith' statement to me... :rolleyes (right back at you :tu )




theres plenty of experiments supporting natural selection, variable inheritence, survival of the fittest, descent with modification, etc, but, i dunno if you would take those as supporting evolution or not.
I've seen such 'experiments' and they really don't qualify as such... more than anything, they are observations.



Let us not forget, you were the one who asked me how "Raptor species living on one continent were same as from another continent after millions of years of seperation"

I asked you to question the evolutionary validity of accepting the separation of raptors over 'millions of years' and not seeing the species achieve significant variation.... which is different. Again, this is an observation used for logical reasoning. Can you conduct an experiment on them other than to use DNA forensics to compare the populations across the continents??? It's funny how when IDer's use DNA analyses to conduct their research, we are labeled as using pseudo-science.... whereas when other people use it, it's called a scientific experiment.... That is precisely the paradigm barrier IDer's want to break.

[jochhejaam]

to recapitulate....

If there are only 946,080,000,000,000,000 seconds in the known timescale according to the "scientific community"... how is it that the above number is not for all intents and purposes "zero."

Dude and it is only a 200 part system.... the odds for building the smallest self-replicating DNA strand would be 1 in 10^10,467. Again, even supercomputers can't deal with that number without crashing.
Those numbers put those that arrogantly, smugly and steadfastly hold fast to their theory of evolution being without an Intelligent Designer in a very bad light. I can't quatify it (too lazy to google) but I know there are evolutionists that don't discount the fact that there is some Intelligent Designer behind the theory they study.

The perspective of some, perhaps many, in the evolution/scientific community is that their is indeed an intelligent Designer behind their theory but not one associated with any particular religion or one to be feared or worshipped.
That sounds more like the type of intelligent opinion one would expect from an expert in the field of science as opposed to the unprovable position that their is no IDer.
Unfortunately because of the arguement that it may not fit into the currently unyielding definition by some of what constitutes scientific study they prefer to dismiss it outright.

Science calls for an open mind and shouldn't rule out a theory that serves to embellish evolution, not dismiss it.

[Phenomanul]

Those numbers put those that arrogantly, smugly and steadfastly hold fast to their theory of evolution being without an Intelligent Designer in a very bad light. I can't quantify it (too lazy to google) but I know there are evolutionists that don't discount the fact that there is some Intelligent Designer behind the theory they study.



Those numbers are the reason why accepting evolution without a designer requires faith.... But because most people aren't versed in statistical probability they don't see it or qualify it as such...

[Extra Stout]

still does not mean its impossible
Ouch. You just got checkmated.

You've ceded that the likelihood of unguided random creation of the universe is highly improbable.

Yet given a choice between one possibility with 99.999999+% likelihood and another with <0.000001% likelihood, you choose the latter. That is not a rational decision.


Dude and it is only a 200 part system.... the odds for building the smallest self-replicating DNA strand would be 1 in 10^10,467. Again, even supercomputers can't deal with that number without crashing.
Those odds may neglect the tendency of the constituents to form a DNA strand based upon their physical properties.

But then one has to ask, why do those constituents have those particular physical properties and not some other?

[boutons_]

'the currently unyielding definition by some of what constitutes scientific study "

The definition of science is not "current" in the sense of "recent".

So typical, IDers/creationists don't have a "scientific" theory, no testable hypothesis, no evidence, so they denigrate the very definition of science, itself widely accepted and internally consistent, and the basis of all scientific and technological progress, because science doesn't accept their hocus-pocus super-natural ideas.

The basic position is "ID is true, therefore, all of science is false".

[Phenomanul]

Ouch. You just got checkmated.

You've ceded that the likelihood of unguided random creation of the universe is highly improbable.

Yet given a choice between one possibility with 99.999999+% likelihood and another with <0.000001% likelihood, you choose the latter. That is not a rational decision.

Well if those were my odds, and CBF had waged money on that match, I'd gladly recieve his 'donation'.

Highly, highly, highly, highly, highly improbable..... The odds of CBF believing in an intelligent Creator are infinitely higher....

It's not like saying you got a chance in a billion... it's like saying if I hid one atom somewhere in this universe... that CBF would find it. Though this universe is many times quoted as being "infinite" it is actually "finite"; immensely large, but finite. Consider the fact that there are only roughly 10^125 atoms in the known universe... not including the multi-verse universe model of course. And the odds of CBF finding said atom are still infinitely higher than having a super-uber-complicated molecule like DNA form on its own... not to mention, 'form and replicate without falling apart'.




Those odds may neglect the tendency of the constituents to form a DNA strand based upon their physical properties.

But then one has to ask, why do those constituents have those particular physical properties and not some other?

To further hurt the odds, all the bases that constitute the building blocks of DNA, and all the amino acids used by living systems are "left" handed. So given a "broth of random chemicals" and in the event that a DNA molecule was being formed by some unguided process, any right handed base attaching itself to the DNA molecule would hinder its ability to form the double-helix structure. NO natural process or mechanism exists to create 'chemical solutions' that are 99+% left-handed

Edit: number of atoms in universe... differring 'best' guesses.

[Phenomanul]

'the currently unyielding definition by some of what constitutes scientific study "

The definition of science is not "current" in the sense of "recent".

So typical, IDers/creationists don't have a "scientific" theory, no testable hypothesis, no evidence, so they denigrate the very definition of science, itself widely accepted and internally consistent, and the basis of all scientific and technological progress, because science doesn't accept their hocus-pocus super-natural ideas.

The basic position is "ID is true, therefore, all of science is false".


Your noted opinionated extremism only serves to aid my argument....

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I've seen such 'experiments' and they really don't qualify as such... more than anything, they are observations.

This single sentence automatically disqualifies any legitimate thing you could possibly say about evolution because you've obviously been reading articles from cnn.com or something.
Observations? Come on..



I asked you to question the evolutionary validity of accepting the separation of raptors over 'millions of years' and not seeing the species achieve significant variation.... which is different.
Actually thats what I just said, and actually its still impossible for a raptor to remain a raptor for millions of years.


Man you have not read enough on the subject of evolution, if you read up you'd probably have some pretty solid posts.

---
Stout, i dont know if you were being sarcastic or not, but people have acknowledged since day ONE the insanely odds of evolution and universe creation. I don't give a fuck if its .0001^9999 power improbability that still leaves a chance and for all we know we ARE the only planet with life, who really knows? The fact is its not impossible, so if you look up the definitions to those words, then the definition to checkmate.....blah blah

What we have so far are still the most "rational" theories on the subject, and sticking a God into science will put us back about a thousand years. If we find more evidence pointing to a God, then cool. But we don't, so we can't. It's the way science works.

[Extra Stout]

To further hurt the odds, all the bases that constitute the building blocks of DNA, and all the amino acids used by living systems are "left" handed. So given a "broth of random chemicals" and in the event that a DNA molecule was being formed by some unguided process, any right handed base attaching itself to the DNA molecule would hinder its ability to form the double-helix structure. NO natural process or mechanism exists to create 'chemical solutions' that are 99+% left-handed
Hmmm... I wonder about that last sentence.

Let's say you've got a bunch of amino acids that tend to want to react with one another and form chains.

So then you've got billions of reactions ongoing. Even if the odds of the formation of a molecule exclusively by left-handed basis are on the order of billions to one, if there are billions of reactions going on, doesn't that make the probability of one DNA molecule forming relatively likely? And once that one molecule can form, it then can self-replicate.

I'm not disputing design here, I just think that the properties of matter itself point more strongly to design than the natural processes that occur as a result of those properties.

[Phenomanul]

This single sentence automatically disqualifies any legitimate thing you could possibly say about evolution because you've obviously been reading articles from cnn.com or something.
Observations? Come on..


Actually thats what I just said, and actually its still impossible for a raptor to remain a raptor for millions of years.

Evolution would have dictated that the North American "raptor family" branch off into another species. The fact that they were essentially indistinct from those in Africa suggests "evolution" is not continually at work... which is a key evolutionary principle.





Man you have not read enough on the subject of evolution, if you read up you'd probably have some pretty solid posts. :lol :lol :lol :lmao :rollin :lmao :rolleyes

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Hmmm... I wonder about that last sentence.

Let's say you've got a bunch of amino acids that tend to want to react with one another and form chains.

So then you've got billions of reactions ongoing. Even if the odds of the formation of a molecule exclusively by left-handed basis are on the order of billions to one, if there are billions of reactions going on, doesn't that make the probability of one DNA molecule forming relatively likely? And once that one molecule can form, it then can self-replicate.

I'm not disputing design here, I just think that the properties of matter itself point more strongly to design than the natural processes that occur as a result of those properties.


We read a paper on this issue a couple years ago in EVO class, but I forgot what it was about. What I would personally say on this issue is that our laboratory experiments involving the creation of DNA are faulty.

Who says our knowledge of organic chemistry is complete?
Just because we can't reproduce left-handed DNA in a lab now doesn't mean we never will.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I'm tired of this discussion already. Just teach the little rug rats Genesis 1:1. You right-wing bastards win this round.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Evolution would have dictated that the North American "raptor family" branch off into another species. The fact that they were essentially indistinct from those in Africa suggests "evolution" is not continually at work... which is a key evolutionary principle.



alright hegamaboa, i asked you twice last time, i ask you one more time here

show me this article
prove yourself for once instead of ranting generalized false shit
If you show me an article, I will show you a non-observational evolutionary study

You're talking out of your ass anyone who knows the basis of evolution can see so, thats why I started talking like a jack ass in that other thread

So instead of proclaiming Albert Einstein a creationist, step up and show me some proof.


(BTW, you are wrong in your supposition that 'evolution would dictate they branch into seperate species' natural selection dictates that--a mistake you made several times in the last thread)

[Phenomanul]

Hmmm... I wonder about that last sentence.

Let's say you've got a bunch of amino acids that tend to want to react with one another and form chains.

So then you've got billions of reactions ongoing. Even if the odds of the formation of a molecule exclusively by left-handed basis are on the order of billions to one, if there are billions of reactions going on, doesn't that make the probability of one DNA molecule forming relatively likely? And once that one molecule can form, it then can self-replicate.

I'm not disputing design here, I just think that the properties of matter itself point more strongly to design than the natural processes that occur as a result of those properties.


Let's put it this way... only proteins can create amino acids that are completely left handed.... But the proteins are made from DNA itself....

As far as the odds go... again we're not talking about 1 in a billion or the like... The smallest self replicating DNA splice is about 500 base pairs long. But it requires a 'matching-codified' strand to close the helical structure. The odds that those two molecules would meet in the middle of the ocean are infintesimally low.

NOW... what unguided natural process was even around to make the DNA bases in the first place... (i.e. the cytosine, guanine, adenine, thymine bases and the deoxyribose, purine and pyrimidine backbone sugars). Those constituents themselves are entropically unstable and dont' exist outside of the natural 'inorganic' world (i.e. they are only made by living organisms). This dilemma leads to a bad case of a 'chicken before the egg' hurdle that no one can answer.

[mookie2001]

dam hegam do you have a biology degree from UT?

[Phenomanul]

alright hegamboa, i asked you twice last time, i ask you one more time here

show me this article
prove yourself for once instead of ranting generalized false shit
If you show me an article, I will show you a non-observational evolutionary study

You're talking out of your ass anyone who knows the basis of evolution can see so, thats why I started talking like a jack ass in that other thread

So instead of proclaiming Albert Einstein a creationist, step up and show me some proof.


(BTW, you are wrong in your supposition that 'evolution would dictate they branch into seperate species' natural selection dictates that--a mistake you made several times in the last thread)

I don't have copies of the 30 or so presentations that were presented at my school's debate, but I remember the name of the professor who presented this finding. I'll try to contact him....

With regards to your other rants... ahemm.... sigh.

Quit trying to dwell on the little points and look at the bigger picture... the "theory of evolution" has way too many critical gaps to be considered full-proof. If you don't like the fact that I can't accept it the way it is presented to everyone... tough.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

NOW... what unguided natural process was even around to make the DNA bases in the first place... (i.e. the cytosine, guanine, adenine, thymine bases and the deoxyribose, purine and pyrimidine backbone sugars). Those constituents themselves are entropically unstable and dont' exist outside of the natural 'inorganic' world (i.e. they are only made by living organisms). This dilemma leads to a bad case of a 'chicken before the egg' hurdle that no one can answer.

I think you are right about all this stuff, but the topic of this thread is ID being science or not, and tacking on "God" as the reason due to unexplainable phenomena is not science its fucking religion.

If we stopped at every "dead end" in our pursuit of knowledge and just said "oh that's God" do you really think we'd have 40 GB handheld portable media player devices, knowledge that the earth was round, sent rockets into space, have models explaining weather patterns, be able to read atmospheric co2 levels from centuries ago,..

It's called progress. And its happening every day. Thats what I meant by give humanity a few more hundred years.


And I never said evolution was fullproof, I know alot of its weaknesses. But notice how it is called a "theory" and not a "law" because among people who are most educated in the matter they seem to have a consensus that this is the best theory around.

[Oh, Gee!!]

This dilemma leads to a bad case of a 'chicken before the egg' hurdle that no one can answer.

except for Id'ers of course.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

No matter how many "gaps" evolution has in it, ID has exactly one MORE "gap" by adding on another supposition we can not test or make predictions from

[Phenomanul]

dam hegam do you have a biology degree from UT?


No... a Bio-Engineering Masters at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Chemical Engineering undergraduate degree at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
A Core Mathematics and Physics degree at Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and a Minor in Music.... at ... you know.

[Oh, Gee!!]

where'd you get the masters of divinities

[Phenomanul]

No matter how many "gaps" evolution has in it, ID has exactly one MORE "gap" by adding on another supposition we can not test or make predictions from


But evolution never concedes that it requires a faith-based origin to begin with.... from a statistical point of view.

So they are on equal grounds when it comes to this point....

But again, most will never acknowledge it.

[Phenomanul]

where'd you get the masters of divinities


From my family.... and from my own personal experiences...

[Extra Stout]

This single sentence automatically disqualifies any legitimate thing you could possibly say about evolution because you've obviously been reading articles from cnn.com or something.
Observations? Come on..
You are aware that hegamboa is a researcher at MIT, right?



Actually thats what I just said, and actually its still impossible for a raptor to remain a raptor for millions of years.
<Cringes> Ouch. That is so, so, so very wrong. The fossil record in fact DOES show species remaining stable over millions of years with minimal variations. We have examples of that today, for example, the alligator.

---

Stout, i dont know if you were being sarcastic or not, but people have acknowledged since day ONE the insanely odds of evolution and universe creation. I don't give a fuck if its .0001^9999 power improbability that still leaves a chance and for all we know we ARE the only planet with life, who really knows? The fact is its not impossible, so if you look up the definitions to those words, then the definition to checkmate.....blah blah
Wait a minute here... let's be clear.
Evolution itself does not have "insanely odds" stacked against it. It is highly probable to be true.
The idea that evolution, and further, the universe, came about by random chance, is what is staring at such long odds, by your words.*

What you then are arguing is that as long as there is something greater than a zero chance that atheistic evolution is true, then we must assume that atheistic evolution is true. A similar argument would be to claim that as long as the Toronto Raptors are not mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, we should regard them as the presumptive 2005-06 NBA champions.

I know about the saying that says once we can exclude the impossible, what is left, no matter how seemingly improbable must be true. But the idea of a Creator has been in no way disproven. Given that by your own admission the probability of an atheistic universe is all but infintesimal, how can you make a rational argument for it?


What we have so far are still the most "rational" theories on the subject, and sticking a God into science will put us back about a thousand years. If we find more evidence pointing to a God, then cool. But we don't, so we can't. It's the way science works.
The "rational" theories don't point toward or away from a God. They are silent on the matter.
The issue is that the existence of God is not falsifiable via the scientific method, and therefore the question cannot be resolved through science, and must then fall onto other fields of study. That in no way means that God does not exist. Rather, the far stronger inference to be made (albeit external to the scientific method) is that he does.

*My understanding is that the mechanisms of these theories are much more robust and determinant than what you seem to give them credit for. How interesting then that I remain theistic while you do not.

[Oh, Gee!!]

CBF got P3Wned

[1369]

No... a Bio-Engineering Masters at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Chemical Engineering undergraduate degree at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
A Core Mathematics and Physics degree at Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and a Minor in Music.... at ... you know.

I'll wager that you were real popular with the kids at your high school for dicking up every grade curve. :spin

Evolution/Intelligent discussion has grown old.

How about string theory?

Clovis first?

[Extra Stout]

But evolution never concedes that it requires a faith-based origin to begin with.... from a statistical point of view.

So they are on equal grounds when it comes to this point....

But again, most will never acknowledge it.
I don't agree that is evolution that stems from the "faith-based" origin so much as it is the exclusively naturalistic interpretation of evolution which depends on that infintessimally improbable theory behind abiogenesis.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

<Cringes> Ouch. That is so, so, so very wrong. The fossil record in fact DOES show species remaining stable over millions of years with minimal variations. We have examples of that today, for example, the alligator.

well this is the fourth time now i've asked for a link...*ouch* indeed
and we are not talking minimal variations we are talking "the same"
*ouch* :depressed




What you then are arguing is that as long as there is something greater than a zero chance that atheistic evolution is true, then we must assume that atheistic evolution is true.
I never said that.
I said that because it is not impossible that we cannot ignore it.



Given that by your own admission the probability of an atheistic universe is all but infintesimal, how can you make a rational argument for it?
Because it's not impossible. Like I said earlier. If I were a raptors fan, and my team was not mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, you better believe I'd think my team can still make it. improbability does not equal impossibility.....


The "rational" theories don't point toward or away from a God. They are silent on the matter.
EXACTLY

thats what I have been saying on this issue since day 1


The issue is that the existence of God is not falsifiable via the scientific method, and therefore the question cannot be resolved through science, and must then fall onto other fields of study.
I just said this, basically


That in no way means that God does not exist. Rather, the far stronger inference to be made (albeit external to the scientific method) is that he does.

If you read into my posts with the same eagerness you have for refuting them you'd realize that I never said God did not exist, I actually do believe God exists, I just was supporting evolution against the arguments used to point out its "gaps"

Basically, what I have been saying was another way of saying what you just said above.

[Phenomanul]

I don't agree that is evolution that stems from the "faith-based" origin so much as it is the exclusively naturalistic interpretation of evolution which depends on that infintessimally improbable theory behind abiogenesis.


What I mean is that their odds are soooooooo low. Evolutionary proponents have placed their faith on this theory and accepted those odds blindly...

[Cant_Be_Faded]

What I mean is that their odds are soooooooo low. Evolutionary proponents have placed their faith on this theory and accepted those odds blindly...


That is not faith. The odds are there. That is a belief, a prediction, i dunno someone whip out a dictionary.

Faith requires believing in something you cannot grasp with the senses .

I can read the true odds on a peice of paper and know them and take my chances.
That is not faith.

[Phenomanul]

And to clarify.... I'm not a researcher at MIT.... I decided to come home to "tree-less" South Texas and work at one of the refineries....

[Extra Stout]

What I mean is that their odds are soooooooo low. Evolutionary proponents have placed their faith on this theory and accepted those odds blindly...
I think we disagree on definitions here. By "evolution," you mean the notion that proposes that all life on earth, its origins, and the changes in its forms over time, have occurred solely by naturalistic mechanisms, implying strongly that there is no Creator God, right?

I have a much narrower definition, which may explain why I don't have a problem with it. Mine would only address the changes in form of species over time, and describe the mechanisms.

This seems to jive with our differences in opinion over the scope of scientific inquiry, mine tending towards the narrow and pragmatic, yours toward the wider and over-arching.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Basically I agree with most of what extra stout just said, I think the theories don't point to or away from a God. That being said, I don't think thats an excuse to say God-caused creation is science. I don't think its an excuse to have our currently accepted theories refused.

I dont think God belongs in our science classes (at least not yet) and I'm all for seperating religion and school.

I personally do believe in a God, but that faith in a God does not make me overeager to stick him onto a dead end in our collective scientific knowledge. That, I believe, is stupid.

[Phenomanul]

That is not faith. The odds are there. That is a belief, a prediction, i dunno someone whip out a dictionary.

Faith requires believing in something you cannot grasp with the senses .

I can read the true odds on a peice of paper and know them and take my chances.
That is not faith.


OK... if there have been 200 billion people in the history of earth (and I'm making a generous concession here) and at least 1000 have seen or heard GOD... (not including the 2 million hebrews that witnessned GOD's supernatural authority over nature at the Red Sea crossing)

And suppossing that the authors of the Judeo-Christian Bible were truthful 0.000000001% of the time about their accounts.

The probability of human kind proving the existence of GOD is still higher than the probability that an unguided chaotic process spurred life on its own.

That means that humans that can prove the existence of GOD are 1 in 2x10^-16 <--- conservative estimate based on measurable senses....

millions more have experienced him on a spiritual level... but I won't include them in this discussion.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

OK... if there have been 200 billion people in the history of earth (and I'm making a generous concession here) and at least 1000 have seen or heard GOD... (not including the 2 million hebrews that witnessned GOD's supernatural authority over nature at the Red Sea crossing)

And suppossing that the authors of the Judeo-Christian Bible were truthful 0.000000001% of the time about their accounts.

The probability of human kind proving the existence of GOD is still higher than the probability that an unguided chaotic process spurred life on its own.

That means that humans that can prove the existence of GOD are 1 in 10^

Okay, but you're using some pretty big suppositions.
We already know the odds for hte universe thing, as you have pointed out.

We don't know if those miracles were true. We don't know what the percentage of true facts are in the bible.

You are coming from a mode of thinking in which miracles are true (faith), and I realize now its impossible to convince you ID isnt science.

I don't place faith in those miracles being true. That is a very big difference from saying "I don't place faith in the odds of random universe creation resulting in a randomly created universe"

There is a difference there.

[Phenomanul]

Okay, but you're using some pretty big suppositions.
We already know the odds for hte universe thing, as you have pointed out.

We don't know if those miracles were true. We don't know what the percentage of true facts are in the bible.

You are coming from a mode of thinking in which miracles are true (faith), and I realize now its impossible to convince you ID isnt science.


Toucheé.... I'm just pointing out your.... "if it's not impossible then its still probable point of view..."

[Cant_Be_Faded]

No thats backwards, I was saying if its improbable its not impossible.

What I truely do not understand, is that if you claim evolution itself (not universe creation) to be so highly improbable and unlikely, don't you still depend on the slim odds of evolution to happen by taking an ID stance?

[Extra Stout]

well this is the fourth time now i've asked for a link...*ouch* indeed
and we are not talking minimal variations we are talking "the same"
*ouch* :depressed
I don't find it valid to talk about "the same" when discussing speciation because the only organisms within a species that do not experience minimal variation from one another are clones.


I never said that.
I said that because it is not impossible that we cannot ignore it.
Just because we cannot ignore not does not mean we need to presume it as true.


Because it's not impossible. Like I said earlier. If I were a raptors fan, and my team was not mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, you better believe I'd think my team can still make it. improbability does not equal impossibility.....
A Raptors fan that believes as such would be depending upon FAITH to the exclusion of all objective evidence.

Yours is not the strongest defense of evolution I have ever read, even if I do agree with many of your conclusions. It's just kind of painful to see you defend evolution in a manner that makes creationism seem more credible. That's hard to do.

[Phenomanul]

I think we disagree on definitions here. By "evolution," you mean the notion that proposes that all life on earth, its origins, and the changes in its forms over time, have occurred solely by naturalistic mechanisms, implying strongly that there is no Creator God, right?

I have a much narrower definition, which may explain why I don't have a problem with it. Mine would only address the changes in form of species over time, and describe the mechanisms.

This seems to jive with our differences in opinion over the scope of scientific inquiry, mine tending towards the narrow and pragmatic, yours toward the wider and over-arching.


Correct for the most part.... "unguided evolution" rejects the notion that life was designed....

What you define as "evolution" is what I call adaptation; and this includes the phenotypic richness contained in the genes that were 'originally' given to a species "after it's own kind".

[Phenomanul]

Lunch break....!!!!

[Oh, Gee!!]

And to clarify.... I'm not a researcher at MIT.... I decided to come home to "tree-less" South Texas and work at one of the refineries....


well TX used to have trees but they were no longer serving their purpose, so they evolved into Longneck beers. And God said beer was good. And on the seventh day, God said everybody must drink at least 6 beers. Hence, Saturday has become the day for beer-drinking.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I don't find it valid to talk about "the same" when discussing speciation because the only organisms within a species that do not experience minimal variation from one another are clones.


See, you're not even reading what i am saying. That is my whole fucking point. Hegamboa said they would be the same. I said they would not be. It's that simple.


Just because we cannot ignore not does not mean we need to presume it as true.
never...said....that....said...itwas...best...theo ry....out...there...ugghhghgh



A Raptors fan that believes as such would be depending upon FAITH to the exclusion of all objective evidence.

Only if he had prayed to god for his team to win.


It's just kind of painful to see you defend evolution in a manner that makes creationism seem more credible. That's hard to do.

It's even more painful to see you take everything i say out of context and then do it some more.

OO i know, lets wait till the next up and coming Extra Stout critique of horribly misinterpreted CBF posts.

[Extra Stout]

OK... if there have been 200 billion people in the history of earth (and I'm making a generous concession here) and at least 1000 have seen or heard GOD... (not including the 2 million hebrews that witnessned GOD's supernatural authority over nature at the Red Sea crossing)

And suppossing that the authors of the Judeo-Christian Bible were truthful 0.000000001% of the time about their accounts.

The probability of human kind proving the existence of GOD is still higher than the probability that an unguided chaotic process spurred life on its own.

That means that humans that can prove the existence of GOD are 1 in 2x10^-16 <--- conservative estimate based on measurable senses....

millions more have experienced him on a spiritual level... but I won't include them in this discussion.
Naturally that all depends upon circular reasoning. One has to accept the authority of the Biblical account in order to follow your logic. And if one accepts Biblical authority, then there would be no dispute about the existence of God.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Oh, wow, who would have thought. I just re-read my posts in this thread and not once did i say evolution was "true". Wow no wonder my argument is so full of holes in the world of Extra Stout, you might as well pretend that I am a bigger dumbass and make it easier on yourself to crush me if you're gonna suppose such crap.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

What you then are arguing is that as long as there is something greater than a zero chance that atheistic evolution is true, then we must assume that atheistic evolution is true.

It's funny because you're arguing against something that you say i am saying. What is the point of having a blog at all if you can read our minds and know full and well what we believe and want to say before we've even said it!
In fact, im pretty sure you already knew I was goign to say this too, huh!

[Extra Stout]

Correct for the most part.... "unguided evolution" rejects the notion that life was designed....

What you define as "evolution" is what I call adaptation; and this includes the phenotypic richness contained in the genes that were 'originally' given to a species "after it's own kind".
The boundaries used to define speciation are arbitrary and man-made. Our taxonomy is flawed in that it attempts to cram the sprawling diversity of life into a handful of levels. It is just a tool.

Some have tried to simplify it into saying that a species is a species if it can reproduce with offspring than can reproduce, but even that is an oversimplification. Take, for example, the widespread hybridization of Texas live oaks.

I think we can declare with some certainty that the biblical model of taxonomy is not meant to be scientifically binding in that it lists the bat as a type of bird.

One then can attribute to God as expansive a number of "kinds" as one likes, depending on one's theology. His "kinds" do not necessarily correspond to our man-made taxonomy.

[Extra Stout]

It's funny because you're arguing against something that you say i am saying. What is the point of having a blog at all if you can read our minds and know full and well what we believe and want to say before we've even said it!
In fact, im pretty sure you already knew I was goign to say this too, huh!
Your inability to articulate is not my problem.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I can't wait for the next exciting conclusion you come up with based on what I didn't say.

[mookie2001]

cbf youre talking to someone who said liberals hated vacations.

[Extra Stout]

cbf youre talking to someone who said liberals hated vacations.
I've realized that liberals do like to go on vacations as long as they can feel guilty about it.

[Mr. Peabody]

well TX used to have trees but they were no longer serving their purpose, so they evolved into Longneck beers. And God said beer was good. And on the seventh day, God said everybody must drink at least 6 beers. Hence, Saturday has become the day for beer-drinking.

What god said that?

[Extra Stout]

Does Victoria strengthen or weaken the arguments for intelligent design?

Con: Would an intelligent God really create a place like that?

Pro: An intelligent, organized God just shoves all the crap over in one place.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

You're funnier when you make pompous statements based on false assumptions.

[Phenomanul]

Naturally that all depends upon circular reasoning. One has to accept the authority of the Biblical account in order to follow your logic. And if one accepts Biblical authority, then there would be no dispute about the existence of God.


Did you see how much 'credibility' I used in the bible for said analysis...
10^-10......

There is enough historical credibility to support 'certain' events in the bible... of course not all of them can be proven.

For example, an archeological dig uncovered two Philistine temples in 1908 (*or 1925 I can't remember the date). Anyway, being the first temples of their kind to be discovered the archeologist immediately noticed a unique architectural feature not seen in other structures; there were two massive columns in the center of the temple that supported the weight of the entire structure.

From the biblical story of Samson we are told that Samson asked a servant to lead him to the the central pillars of the temple during a "party" (his eyes had been gouged out). He then used his strength to buckle the pillars and in doing so, "killed more Philistines in his death, than he had while he was alive."

Of course people will believe what they choose to believe so.... in the end... this analysis was only used to illustrate the magnitude of the number we were dealing with..... (i.e. the probability of "unguided" origin for life)...

[Oh, Gee!!]

What god said that?


Vishnu

[Extra Stout]

What god said that?
Jeebus said, "Verily I say unto thee, yonder tree, that if thou dost not bear fruit, then shall I strike thee dead."

And the tree bore not fruit, and thusly dead was struck. Then Lot looked back from himself upon the tree, and immediately thereof was turned into a pillar of salt. And the tree was turned into a specimen tall brown glass, broad wherein the roots once were, and tapered atop the point from which once limbs with their leaves of shade had branched, which even unto today holdeth ounces numbering twelve.

Then came the terrible swarm of locusts, for God was angry with righteous wrath against South Texas because they had incurred it.

And the bitterness of their travails was forever captured in the bitterness of the hops.

Yet though the trees had not borne fruit, yet had the grasses born grain.

The next day Jeebus partook of a wedding in Beeville, and even as the hosts had been exhausted of sangria. So Jeebus took unto fruit of the grains and the hops, and verily turned water into beer. And he said, "Drink, for this is my beer, brewed for you."

And we drink today in the tall brown glass bottles, in remembrance of tree.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Yes!!!

[Extra Stout]

Did you see how much 'credibility' I used in the bible for said analysis...
10^-10......

There is enough historical credibility to support 'certain' events in the bible... of course not all of them can be proven.

Of course people will believe what they choose to believe so.... in the end... this analysis was only used to illustrate the magnitude of the number we were dealing with..... (i.e. the probability of "unguided" origin for life)...
OK, fair enough.

[Extra Stout]

You're funnier when you make pompous statements based on false assumptions.
Everybody was starting to arrive at a consensus. It's un-American for opposing sides to find common ground, so I had to stir it up by throwing in a nice juicy ad hominem.

[Yonivore]

And how did this creator came to be? Did he come from infinite nothingness?
Hey, one freakin' question at a time! No one demanded Darwin explain how life came into being before adopting his theory of natural selection.

[velik_m]

Hey, one freakin' question at a time! No one demanded Darwin explain how life came into being before adopting his theory of natural selection.

:lol

i just post the question to make you see that intelligent creator is no more (or less for that matter) sensible than creation from nothing... anyway we're moving off topic...

[Yonivore]

:lol

i just post the question to make you see that intelligent creator is no more (or less for that matter) sensible than creation from nothing... anyway we're moving off topic...
I'm increasingly reminded of the early fears over nuclear detonations; that they would start a chain reaction that would consume everything.

Maybe that's what happened several billion years ago. Some putz in a basement laboratory started messing with shit he had no business messing with and BOOM - the Big Bang.

Really, that's the only logical conclusion. ;)

[boutons_]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/bs/2005/bs051230.gif

[Phenomanul]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/bs/2005/bs051230.gif


Really.... ID is not all philosophical or meta-physical... It does have scientific merit whether you choose to accept it or not....

It poses a question which the theory does not have to answer... And the validity of "the question" is supported by mathematical analyses, and observations which conflict with many evolutionary principles.

People want to keep ID out of the classroom simply because an implication to the possible existence of a higher power "should not be discussed." Unfortunately, "an intelligent designer" enters the realm of the unprovable... at least by any physical means. And so much like "evolution," inferences have to be made to explain the complexity of what we observe today. Those who claim "evolution" makes no inferences should study the fossil record... or for that matter read about the countless genetic experiments concerning the genome of fruit flies who despite thousands and thousands of iterative breeding and radiation tinkerings... have remained, to their avail... well... fruit flies.

Does this mean we should not question the subject of origins??? NO, that there would stifle further investigation to this intriguing question.... CBF claims that IDers want to start the Dark Ages again.... but I believe the contrary to be the case. The scientific progress train is moving way too fast for anything or anyone to slow it down. CBF needs to understand that "money" is the lure behind science now a days... not humanitarian concerns, or peace.... much less religious 'bragging rights.' Religion, I will concede, only interferes with science when ethical barriers are being crossed; such as the killing of fetus' to obtain stem cells that can be obtained in less quantity, but obtained nonetheless, from other sources...

But really, if this 'stem-cell' research was being done in the interest of humanitarian aid, wouldn't a national or international task team be set up to gather the most knowledgable minds to conduct the research... At that point, they could use the stem cells that can be retrieved from 'non harmful' methods, and there would be sufficient stem cells to go around....

But no, the research is being done competitively with these 'minds' scattered all over the place and all for the sake of being the first to come up with a new lucrative method to counteract degenerative nervous system diseases, etc... Again, the task is being driven by the lure of 'money' or else the effort itself would not be diluted across the world. Anyways, sometimes critics of "organized religion" fail to see this picture whenever they jump on the "religion is opposed to progress" bandwaggon. And it never ceases to amaze me how much of their charitable work is overlooked... The Southern Baptist Convention for example sent about as much aid and food to the tsunami affected areas last year as the Red Cross organization... yet they didn't seek the publicity or recieve recognition... Instead they are constantly bashed as dogmatic self-indulgers... sigh...

To CBF's credit, the Catholic Church of the middle ages was a bunch of baloney... and I will never dispute their own hinderance of scientific progress during ~A.D 800 to A.D. 1500. Notice however that another religion during this time contributed to the fields of science, medicine and art during their own "golden era".... Islam... as ironic as that may sound. They have since taken another, super conservative stance with regards to scientific progress... Those darned extremist Shi'ites!!!

Anyway...

[Cant_Be_Faded]

What you are failing to realize is that since the dawn of mankind we have always had roadblocks of knowledge and questions with no answer and every step of the way we have always had the option of slapping on the word "god" as the reason, or cause.

If we fucking did what you claim is "science" about 1000 years ago we'd still be barbaric, farming, stone house dwelling savages.

Why do people like you think that our knowledge of existence is at its peak right now? What makes you think the year 2005 is so fucking special? Its fucking idiotic to stick god into science and noone has said anything to merit god being scientific other than very very low odds of random creation.


Intelligent Design will never gain scientific merit because the smartest people of our race realize how fucking stupid it is.

If people like you won over society a long time ago we'd be in the stone age still.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Ban me from spurstalk and I'll get a tattoo of the word "homosexual" across my forehead if Intelligent Design ever gains global scientific merit.


We, as a race, have yet to discover anything, we are still scratching the surface of what is out there.


To be so incredibly pompous as to think we've already advanced as far as possible and that the only logical scientific option left is to say "okay god created it" is STUPID.


It is possible, but that is the extent of its merit. You can't prove a god by disproving random creation. Why do you think that God is the only other option? Think outside of the box. That's what fuckign science is about.
Not being a retard and sayign "drrrr i guess god is responsible duuuhhhh"


Look up "church of the giant spaghetti monster" on wikipedia. It's a mockery of ID, that has just as much scientific merit. Why isn't this theory being taught in school?

The only thing you consider 'scientific' about ID is that it can't be shown as false.
But think about all the things in this world that cannot be shown as false.

BTW, hegamboa, i agree alot of science is motivated by money and not progress of the human race, but there is also some that is motivated by progress too. Quantum Physics, early Space Exploration come to mind.

[Mr. Peabody]

Look up "church of the giant spaghetti monster" on wikipedia. It's a mockery of ID, that has just as much scientific merit. Why isn't this theory being taught in school?



From the Wikipedia article:

All the prayers end in "Ramen" instead of "Amen" :lol

[JoeChalupa]

I send my kids to religious education classes at Church.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

:spin its actually pretty entertaining to read up on it.

In fact, a clean-slate mind might even find it more a convincing argument than ID.

[Mr. Peabody]

What you are failing to realize is that since the dawn of mankind we have always had roadblocks of knowledge and questions with no answer and every step of the way we have always had the option of slapping on the word "god" as the reason, or cause.

If we fucking did what you claim is "science" about 1000 years ago we'd still be barbaric, farming, stone house dwelling savages.

Why do people like you think that our knowledge of existence is at its peak right now? What makes you think the year 2005 is so fucking special? Its fucking idiotic to stick god into science and noone has said anything to merit god being scientific other than very very low odds of random creation.


Intelligent Design will never gain scientific merit because the smartest people of our race realize how fucking stupid it is.

If people like you won over society a long time ago we'd be in the stone age still.

That is the same argument that has been made against miracles. Miracles are events that outside our understanding of the way the world operates. These events would occur and we couldn't explain them, so they would be labeled as "miracles." As we gain understanding of our surroundings, many of the "miracles" are suddenly explained.

I guess there is always a need to resort to the supernatural when phenomena cannot be explained. Probably because we need immediate explanantions and cannot wait for science to develop enough to provide an answer.

[Phenomanul]

[B] Think outside of the box. That's what fuckign science is about.
Not being a retard and sayign "drrrr i guess god is responsible duuuhhhh"

BTW, hegamboa, i agree alot of science is motivated by money and not progress of the human race, but there is also some that is motivated by progress too. Quantum Physics, early Space Exploration come to mind.

How's this for your "outside-the-box" thinking...

Quantum Physics ---> Devoloped for War <--- yeah, really progressive.

Early Space Exploration ---> Developed for "Cold War" Supremacy Bragging Rights <--- in the name of mankind.... right.

Just acknowledge the fact that the "motive" behind 'organized religion' is not about hindering scientific progress. That is where you presumptously, and erroneously claim that this has been the agenda all along.... <--- that thought alone is preposterous....

I've repeatedly stated that scientific endeavors only reveal more about GOD's creation and about his nature. We should never stop studying our world or the universe we live in.

Geeesh and you were the one complaining about having someone "presume to know what you were thinking and saying"... the whole, "Extra Stout is putting words in my mouth" rant a couple of posts back.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

How's this for your "outside-the-box" thinking...

Quantum Physics ---> Devoloped for War <--- yeah, really progressive.

Early Space Exploration ---> Developed for "Cold War" Supremacy Bragging Rights <--- in the name of mankind.... right.

Just acknowledge the fact that the "motive" behind 'organized religion' is not about hindering scientific progress. That is where you presumptously, and erroneously claim that this has been the agenda all along.... <--- that thought alone is preposterous....

I've repeatedly stated that scientific endeavors only reveal more about GOD's creation and about his nature. We should never stop studying our world or the universe we live in.

Geeesh and you were the one complaining about having someone "presume to know what you were thinking and saying"... the whole, "Extra Stout is putting words in my mouth" rant a couple of posts back.

Quantum physics and space exploration was not solely motivated by money. JFK told the american public it was about advancing humankind. Also, I fail to realize how discovering the nature of the smallest particle of reality advances a war effort. Quantum physics is not limited to atomic bombs.

I guess Stephen Hawking is secretly paid off by private interest groups to advance String Theory too?


I never said religion was always trying to hinder progress. Obviously it does many great things. Advocates of ID are not against progress, per se, they're just too stupid to realize if their agenda succeeded that it would impede progress.

What I am saying is that an agenda to tell the children of our nation that God created the universe and that this idea is scientifically is fucking stupid and will hinder progress.

I did see how you said you're all for progress and what not, but all along the way you're carrying your little "god" token with you.


If we say God created the universe and that is scientifically valid, then what point is there in discovering more as you say? In fact, isn't that against the teachings of the common american christian god? By probing deeper and deeper into the origin of the universe after we (hypothetically) accepted ID as scientifically valid, aren't we just doubting him?

Religion does not belong in schools and has no part in science as of today.

[Extra Stout]

Religion does not belong in schools and has no part in science as of today.
Religion, with as significant a role as it has played in the history of civilization, certainly has a place in the schools.

How does one teach American history without explaining why the Pilgrims came? Or who the Quakers were? How does one teach world history without addressing the spread of the great religions? How can one adequately cover social studies without explaining at least cursorily the religious beliefs of the nation, or of the world? How does one teach British literature without covering the King James Bible?

Of course religion belongs in schools. What doesn't belong is proselytizing.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

ack, yeah you're right, as an aid to history, yeah, religion does make sense in schools.

But Proselytizing definitely has no place. And that's what ID is all about, to me.

[Phenomanul]

Your "back pedaling" is alarming and/or you are too stubborn to admit anything...


Quantum physics and space exploration was not solely motivated by money. JFK told the american public it was about advancing humankind.

What else was he supposed to say???? "We will be the first to the Moon to kick the commies ass...."



Also, I fail to realize how discovering the nature of the smallest particle of reality advances a war effort. Quantum physics is not limited to atomic bombs.


While quantum physics became its own field a decade before the war effort... (the axioms defining the field were published in 1936 by Birkhoff and Von Neumann) it sprung into life the minute government grants flowed into their research accounts... Oh BTW they were working for the military... to think that the greatest leaps in this field were not made to ultimately produce the package on the "Enola Gay's" cargo belly would be naive.

The field was further developed during the 'cold war'.



I guess Stephen Hawking is secretly paid off by private interest groups to advance String Theory too?

Are you being thickheaded on purpose??? I'm not opposed to the development of theories that describe our world...




I never said religion was always trying to hinder progress. Obviously it does many great things. Advocates of ID are not against progress, per sé, they're just too stupid to realize if their agenda succeeded that it would impede progress.

YOU are already assuming that this would be the case... and it is strictly your opinion, nothing else.



What I am saying is that an agenda to tell the children of our nation that God created the universe and that this idea is scientific is fucking stupid and will hinder progress.


I've also stated repeatedly that the question will definitely be raised but that the answer does not have to be assumed nor is it 'scientifically' obtainable... the teacher would tell the students that very same phrase and let the students make up their own minds... given the flaws to the unguided origins of "evolution." Instead they are crammed evolution down their throats to the point where they defend it as if it were blasphemous to question it.



I did see how you said you're all for progress and what not, but all along the way you're carrying your little "god" token with you.

What, now I'm the one with the covert agenda??? :lol They are my beliefs... plain and simple. Teaching ID does not impose my religion on anyone else...



If we say God created the universe and that is scientifically valid, then what point is there in discovering more as you say? In fact, isn't that against the teachings of the common american christian god? By probing deeper and deeper into the origin of the universe after we (hypothetically) accepted ID as scientifically valid, aren't we just doubting him?

Religion does not belong in schools and has no part in science as of today.

????? :rolleyes

[Cant_Be_Faded]

It just doesn't make sense to me to say you're all for progress, then advocating ID to young kids.

It's not my fault if you think JFK lied. Actually, I think the space explorations did plenty to advance our race. Don't you? Alot of science is done with other reasons besides money, even if money is a reason. You quickly dismissed string theory but its a good example, which is why i had mentioned it.

I don't think you have a covert agenda. But I'm not debating with you keeping my beliefs about god and his miracles and saints and apostles in little frames next to my computer. I can keep that shit seperate from the field of science. And only because we've still yet to find a compelling scientific study or peice of evidence that supports ID.


I don't know what schools you went to. But I remember first hearing about evolution probably in jr high. I do remember it being called a theory. And I remember learning in about 3rd grade that a theory is not a law.

I don't think it was hard for my class or classes of children today to apply the fact that evoultion is presented as a "theory" and realize its just that. A theory.

But holes within this theory do not give a green light to ID. No matter how bad you want it to. It just doesn't work that way.



----
also, you have said nothing about the fact that we, right here, in this blog alone, can come up with countless other explanations for the origin of hte universe, with just as much credibility as ID. Giant Spaghetti Monster is the most popular.

Why aren't these taught in school too?

[Phenomanul]

It just doesn't make sense to me to say you're all for progress, then advocating ID to young kids.

It's not my fault if you think JFK lied. Actually, I think the space explorations did plenty to advance our race. Don't you? Alot of science is done with other reasons besides money, even if money is a reason. You quickly dismissed string theory but its a good example, which is why i had mentioned it.

I don't think you have a covert agenda. But I'm not debating with you keeping my beliefs about god and his miracles and saints and apostles in little frames next to my computer. I can keep that shit seperate from the field of science. And only because we've still yet to find a compelling scientific study or peice of evidence that supports ID.


I don't know what schools you went to. But I remember first hearing about evolution probably in jr high. I do remember it being called a theory. And I remember learning in about 3rd grade that a theory is not a law.

I don't think it was hard for my class or classes of children today to apply the fact that evoultion is presented as a "theory" and realize its just that. A theory.

But holes within this theory do not give a green light to ID. No matter how bad you want it to. It just doesn't work that way.



----
also, you have said nothing about the fact that we, right here, in this blog alone, can come up with countless other explanations for the origin of hte universe, with just as much credibility as ID. Giant Spaghetti Monster is the most popular.

Why aren't these taught in school too?

^^ minus your last paragraph, that right there was a civilized response. ala' Solid D... no putting words in my mouth or going off on rants calling people stupid... the notions "f***ing retarded"... "I'm going to ban myself and tatoo myself"... etc...

Our world is comprised of many views, the fight against intolerance is one of the liberal calling cards, you might not agree with another viewpoint... but that's just it... it ends there. YOU shouldn't have to insult others views to try and make points.

[Phenomanul]

BTW I'm not suggesting JFK lied... He just simply said what was "politically correct."

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Why dismiss the last paragraph? Do you think the spaghetti monster is stupid?

[Phenomanul]

Why dismiss the last paragraph? Do you think the spaghetti monster is stupid?

It was a hyperbole parody meant to dismiss Intelligent Design... GOD may seem like fiction to you... but I don't expect to run into Frodo Baggins on my way to work.

In ways most don't accept... people do actually experience GOD in their lives. Can it be proven??? That lie detector test developed at MIT suggested that 'religious' people were not lying when referencing GOD. But most would immediately dismiss that as a forged delusional state anyways...

Skeptics will remain skeptics no matter what one says....

[Cant_Be_Faded]

But lie detectors don't really detect lies they detect what the person subjectively believes as fact. Naturally, I bet some people can pass lie detectors who are crazy to us but think they got anal probed by Martians.

If half of the nation suddenly converted to the Church of the Giant Spaghetti Monster, you better beleive there would be a Spaghetti-ite version of you, saying the same things you've said, but all in the name of his faith and his version of how the universe was created.

[mookie2001]

the jam band spaghetti string incendent?

[Guru of Nothing]

... people do actually experience GOD in their lives.



And most of them are not Christians. You do realize this?

Sorry if my question is out of context, mindfulness (in threads like these) is not one of my better qualities.

It's interesting to note that ID has no legs whatsoever without the implicit endorsement of millions of EASILY persuadable people. NONE! ... well, that's my opinion, anyway.

ID, as it is being presented to the masses, is borne out of reaction.

Majoritarianism is weak - and that's what this is all about, whether or not you wish to acknowledge it.

[Phenomanul]

And most of them are not Christians. You do realize this?

Yeah I'd like to see your 'source'... but I doubt your rear end has any credibility whatsoever. No.. seriously ^^ your comment was highly opinionated. I mean what sort of study could even determine whether.... sigh :rolleyes nevermind.


Sorry if my question is out of context, mindfulness (in threads like these) is not one of my better qualities.

It's interesting to note that ID has no legs whatsoever without the implicit endorsement of millions of EASILY persuadable people. NONE! ... well, that's my opinion, anyway.

You could replace "ID" in that sentence with "evolution" and it would have the same validity.... Again, if you believe you descended from apes, that's your perrogative.


ID, as it is being presented to the masses, is borne out of reaction.

Majoritarianism is weak - and that's what this is all about, whether or not you wish to acknowledge it.

You do realize that "evolution" is the "widely accepted" theory ... Don't hurt your own argument there....

[Guru of Nothing]

And most of them are not Christians. You do realize this?


Yeah I'd like to see your 'source'... but I doubt your rear end has any credibility whatsoever. No.. seriously ^^ your comment was highly opinionated. I mean what sort of study could even determine whether.... sigh :rolleyes nevermind.

Just a bad conclusion on my part (I guess), but seriously, do you believe that the majority of believers in God are Christian? Are you excluding the residents of China and India, when defending the "credibility of your rear end?"


You could replace "ID" in that sentence with "evolution" and it would have the same validity.... Again, if you believe you descended from apes, that's your perrogative.

Please pay attention. I have NEVER stated that I believe that I descended from apes - nor have I even remotely implied it. Sadly, I associate your melodramatics with the typical IDer.


You do realize that "evolution" is the "widely accepted" theory ... Don't hurt your own argument there....

Actually, I don't realize that. In the overall scheme of things, It's not important to me to sort out "God's" work during my brief existence here on Earth.

Were I a sincere Christian, engaging in religious/political pissing contests would be the FURTHEST thing from my mind. ... Sincerely ... But that's just me.

[Phenomanul]

Just a bad conclusion on my part (I guess), but seriously, do you believe that the majority of believers in God are Christian? Are you excluding the residents of China and India, when defending the "credibility of your rear end?"



Please pay attention. I have NEVER stated that I believe that I descended from apes - nor have I even remotely implied it. Sadly, I associate your melodramatics with the typical IDer.



Actually, I don't realize that. In the overall scheme of things, It's not important to me to sort out "God's" work during my brief existence here on Earth.

Were I a sincere Christian, engaging in religious/political pissing contests would be the FURTHEST thing from my mind. ... Sincerely ... But that's just me.

Forgive me for my response.... answering CBF and some of the other instigators has made me a bit "jumpy"...

And although I am aware of other religions, only Judaism, Islam and Cristianity believe in 'GOD' as the creator of Life and the Universe. As for the conclusion well -- only GOD knows those who have truly embraced Him. But I certainly don't claim to know 'who' specifically...

Look the only thing I know is that I have studied the subject of evolution extensively from incongruencies in the fossil record to implications in fields such as anthropology, biology, astronomy, geology, physics, and math.

Evolution, as taught, is severely flawed on many levels. People have entered this thread at sporadic junctures and assume that some 'wiseass' comment will 'beyond shadow of a doubt' put the arguments behind ID to death... I only wish they could upload my brain to see evolution in the context of the countless facts and observations I have gathered to paint the 'picture' that I 'see'...

Not to sound condescending, but this 'picture' is larger for me than for most other people... with the exception of a few posters of course. The fact that I happen to reconcile my religious beliefs with my understanding of this world is supported again by my continued study of the issues but irrelevant in my advocacy of having ID taught at school alongside the theory of evolution. At least 3 posters have questioned said stance... and well... I simply don't care if they believe me or not anymore...

As to the whole "religious/political pissing contests" comment... Please... spare me the derrisive tone.... I typically stayed out of religious topics simply becuase the moment I stated my position I became the target of insults from many posters 'who claimed to know what organized religion was about' and therefore felt entitled to judge my views... I've always stated that a relationship with GOD was personal and was reflected in how one conducted their life.... Obviously people will always point to the 'wayward' sheep in order to cast judgement on a religion's beliefs, and so justify their own reluctance to believe.... whatever...

I restrained myself from posting in the political/club forums for a little over a year on such topics but I simply can't take a 'silent' stance anymore... People have bashed and dogged 'religion' like it were a disease... I've always respected the fact that people are entitled to their own opionions... I just couldn't sit there, however and constantly read that all of 'us' [believers] were ignorant, naive, dogmatic, illogical, and stupid... Some of us, are grounded on many more principles than on what people feed us.

Again, whatever. :tu

[Guru of Nothing]

And although I am aware of other religions, only Judaism, Islam and Cristianity believe in 'GOD' as the creator of Life and the Universe.

Yeah whatever; and some Christians think that other Christians are full of shit for their beliefs. The only constant I see in believers in God is argument and fighting.



Evolution, as taught, is severely flawed on many levels. People have entered this thread at sporadic junctures and assume that some 'wiseass' comment will 'beyond shadow of a doubt' put the arguments behind ID to death... I only wish they could upload my brain to see evolution in the context of the countless facts and observations I have gathered to paint the 'picture' that I 'see'...

Pot meet kettle. Sad you wish that everyone else could upload your brain, as opposed to you uploading someone else's.


Not to sound condescending, but this 'picture' is larger for me than for most other people... with the exception of a few posters of course.

lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lolololololololololololololololo
lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololo
lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lolololololololololololololo



I typically stayed out of religious topics simply becuase the moment I stated my position I became the target of insults from many posters 'who claimed to know what organized religion was about' and therefore felt entitled to judge my views...

Actually, at first, you stated your position eloquently. Lately you've been an asshole (much like me, I know)


People have bashed and dogged 'religion' like it were a disease...

Because for many, religion is a disease. Don't shoot the messengers.

That's all I have to say. Please continue butting heads with someone else.

[Phenomanul]

I think you've chosen to ignore the essence of a post in favor of dissecting a stated set of opinions... which will always be just that... opinions. Let me try again.


Yeah whatever; and some Christians think that other Christians are full of shit for their beliefs. The only constant I see in believers in God is argument and fighting.

I agree with you on this one.... it's a rather unfortunate but sad fact.... Again, we humans are too complex...



Pot meet kettle. Sad you wish that everyone else could upload your brain, as opposed to you uploading someone else's.


Pish posh... your selective quote left out the fact that I mentioned I continually study the matter... i.e. other peoples views... that is what learning is about no???



lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lolololololololololololololololo
lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololo
lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lolololololololololololololo


yeah... laugh it up... I was simply stating that some people have come at me with weak arguments as if they were adding any value to the thread, such as, "I can't speak to anyone who thinks humans lived alongside Dinosaurs...", "or people that think this way should die.."

More notoriously, even when certain irreconcilable differences are brought up they choose to ignore them to say something like, "well the majority of the scientific community cannot be wrong." In short, rather than addressing the 'evolutionary' gap... they start bashing again.



Actually, at first, you stated your position eloquently. Lately you've been an asshole (much like me, I know)


NO... actually I took about a year before I openly stated my Christian beliefs... and about eight or nine months passed [from the time I signed up on SpursTalk] before my schoolastic background was known... hey, I don't like being called a liar or for that matter have someone question my 'credibility'..... call it a pet peeve... we all have them.

As for my attitute change.... Yes, again I've been more defensive lately.... But what else am I supposed to do?? Sit there and let others mock my beliefs because they are trying to make points with erroneous and opinionated arguments??? Some of those arguments have been rather inflammatory too... And when they get personal... no offense, but I have to stand up for my self... forum 'battles' aren't exactly subjected to the 'turn the other cheek' concept you know... besides I don't exactly curse them or insult them directly... I may call an argument 'ignorant' or 'weak' without having to explicitly say that the poster was 'stupid' or 'ignorant' themselves.

Also, I have always admitted whenever someone else has pointed out my errors (on a factual basis as opposed to an opionated one).....

If you feel I have wronged you, forgive me and my impatience.... (I think that stems from the fact that short 'brash' comments are easier to write than writing the longer more elaborate responses)



Because for many, religion is a disease. Don't shoot the messengers.

That's all I have to say. Please continue butting heads with someone else.


I'm not exactly trying to butt heads with you... I'm just trying to defend my viewpoint.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lolololololololololololololololo
lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololo
lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lolololololololololololololo


:lmao

The Guru has made this a classic thread.

[jochhejaam]

:lmao

The Guru has made this a classic thread.
You're laughing your ass off because someone posted "lol" 500 times and you consider the dumbing down of Intelligent Design discussion "classic"?

ooooookay

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Like a coin, there are two sides to every encounter, and The Guru's response was to a quote he deemed LOL-able. After taking the 5 seconds to read the posts, I thought so too.

Dumbing down? Maybe. Acceptable response to a funny ass quote? Yes.

[Phenomanul]

Like a coin, there are two sides to every encounter, and The Guru's response was to a quote he deemed LOL-able. After taking the 5 seconds to read the posts, I thought so too.

Dumbing down? Maybe. Acceptable response to a funny ass quote? Yes.


Funny how I consider you as one of the ones who can't see the "bigger picture"

Should I be laughing at you?????

Would it help if I put 100 smilie faces??

For you this one seems more appropriate... :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes

[Cant_Be_Faded]

it was just funny because you said 'not to be condescending'...

i actually lol'ed when i first read that so when i read The Guru it was even funnier

[Phenomanul]

it was just funny because you said 'not to be condescending'...

i actually lol'ed when i first read that so when i read The Guru it was even funnier

And I meant it.... to wish someone see things in one's context does not mean they will adopt the same viewpoint. It just means that I happen to retain more facts than most....

[Cant_Be_Faded]

It just means that I happen to retaim more facts than most....
oh, most assuredly you do, and that is not condesending at all, which is why the Guru did not laugh his ass off when he read that quote

:rolleyes

[Phenomanul]

oh, most assuredly you do, and that is not condesending at all, which is why the Guru did not laugh his ass off when he read that quote

:rolleyes

People are given exams throughout the course of elementary, middle , highschool, and college... it is an educational necessity.... retaining facts was one of the reasons I happened to do well... other people are natural born geniuses that don't have to study as hard... Unfortunately, like most, I did have to study hard....

Stating what I said , therefore, was in no way condescending... Considering I was explaining the basis of the comparison... if you can't accept it... tough.

:rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

[evolution]'s as much science as string theory.

Yes, actually it is.

Both evolution and string theory are based on logical assumptions, testible, verifiable data, and can be used to make predictions that can then be tested to see if the theory works or not.

Intelligent design... doesn't.

[LnGrrrR]

People are given exams throughout the course of elementary, middle , highschool, and college... it is an educational necessity.... retaining facts was one of the reasons I happened to do well... other people are natural born geniuses that don't have to study as hard... Unfortunately, like most, I did have to study hard....


Retaining facts =/= understanding facts =/= understanding underlying mechanisms

And I love the nonchalant way in which Phenomanul tries to downplay his smarts while still making sure to talk about them alot.

"Look guys, I mean, I just happen to be a great lover. It happens! Some people are born with mousecocks; I have a horsecock. I still have to thrust just like the rest of you; it's just I please women much more when I do so."

[Blake]

And I love the nonchalant way in which Phenomanul tries to downplay his smarts while still making sure to talk about them alot.

"Look guys, I mean, I just happen to be a great lover. It happens! Some people are born with mousecocks; I have a horsecock. I still have to thrust just like the rest of you; it's just I please women much more when I do so."

:lol

[boutons_deux]

Phenom is so smart he has no self-reflexion.

All that hard studying, all those facts retained, all that haughtiness, all that self-congratulatory preening, and he still "believes" he can prove Creationism, and maybe even New Earth Creationism, is scientific and The Real Truth, and hard-core Darwinian evolution and the 10s of 1000s of scientists who have worked 100+ years hacking away at it are bullshit.

[RandomGuy]

Really? Neither Darwin or Plato explain the existence of DNA sequencing or of the nanotechnology contained in biological cell structure.

And, if evolution nor philosophy can explain it, maybe science can. But, first, you have to allow the hypothesis to be explored. And, barring it from education is, in effect, stifling that exploration.

The Intelligent Design theory is based on the scientific principles that information is the result of intelligence and that irreducably complex machines can only result from information born of intelligence.

What's wrong with teaching and exploring that theory in schools?

Because "irreducible complexity" has been debunked as an idea by the discoveries of modern genetics.

That is what science does, Yoni.

It looks to see what reality can objectively tell us.

[baseline bum]

ID is creationism based on the book of Genesis. It's the reason teaching of ID was struck down in the supreme court. The textbook that invented the idea of intelligent design was shown to originally be a book of creationism with little more change than crossing out the word "creationism" and replacing it with "intelligent design" everywhere in the text (shown from earlier versions of it). Intelligent design is religion and nothing more.

[DarkReign]

:lmao @ LnGr

mousecock...

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao