Theories: evolution and intelligent design
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by dub2w
Scientists have been trying to emulate the pre-mosaic (or whatever time period that is called) period of Earth, and have done so with virtually no success.
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,312
From: UCIrvine
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
We have evidense that shows evolution takes place. I worked in a lab doing research on these parasites called Trypanosomes. They've been being cultured in labs so long (~150years) and have such short life cycles (~4h hours) that recent papers have shown they differ so much from the wild type of the bug that, according to some clasification schemes, they are a different species now. Perfect example of small mutations (caused by a different environment) adding up over time to cause speciation...in other words, they evolved to fit the environment of the laboratory cultures.
It may not have been intended to be an experiment about evolution, but it gives a hell of a lot of evidence, and ID has no such 'accidental' evidense to support it.
It may not have been intended to be an experiment about evolution, but it gives a hell of a lot of evidence, and ID has no such 'accidental' evidense to support it.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,256
From: Blue-faced in a red state
Car Info: 04 Silver WRX Wagon
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
Scientists have also largely failed to emulate what goes on inside the Sun
Entirely different type of example though. Scientists cant emulate the innards of the sun because of the extreme raw power therein.
Scientists cant emulate the beginning phases of the planet because of the innate complexities of those intitial phases.
Side note: Interesting to see what scientists will find in their search of Europa (?), one of Jupiter's moons that has the potential of revealing certain aspects of the primordial soup.
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,312
From: UCIrvine
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
BTW, do you all know the origens of the Intelligent Design theory? It goes like this. Some early physiologists (before they even had that name) disected a human eye ball. They couldn't figure out all the parts and how it worked. They said something like 'it's 1000x more complex than the most complex watch a human ever made, so some intelligent higher power must have designed it'.
Since then, we've figured out how the eye works. We can even track which embryonic cells grow up into which cells in the adult eye, and we can track which molecules controled that development along the way. So while it is complex, we see that humans can actually design things that are MORE complex than the human eye now.
Nowadays ID has taken on different stances and arguments, because the original idea of ID is very archaic and outdated. People just keep clinging to those two words to explain parts of the living world that we have yet to elucidate.
Since then, we've figured out how the eye works. We can even track which embryonic cells grow up into which cells in the adult eye, and we can track which molecules controled that development along the way. So while it is complex, we see that humans can actually design things that are MORE complex than the human eye now.
Nowadays ID has taken on different stances and arguments, because the original idea of ID is very archaic and outdated. People just keep clinging to those two words to explain parts of the living world that we have yet to elucidate.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by dub2w
The why do we teach evolution in schools? In the case of macro-evolution, facts are lined up to create an artificial conclusion. Under the truest rigors of the scientific method, evolution does not stand up.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,256
From: Blue-faced in a red state
Car Info: 04 Silver WRX Wagon
I concede to that point. Faith is blind, and in some weird sort of way I like it that way! Strange to any rational mind, I know, but just how I feel 
Back to the original article, the author's pompousness really bugged me because of her harshly criticizing one form of belief, all the while standing on the shaky tenants of macro-evolution. She is, in the end, the biggest idiot of all IMO.
Back to the original article, the author's pompousness really bugged me because of her harshly criticizing one form of belief, all the while standing on the shaky tenants of macro-evolution. She is, in the end, the biggest idiot of all IMO.
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,312
From: UCIrvine
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
She is a little b*i*chy about it...but at least she points out the other (more involved person who's a scientists) view that isn't as condemning of religion.
I like this part though:
I like this part though:
Originally Posted by article
Scott does not point out, as some might, that this story of creation is no more or less believable than, say, the Norse creation story about melting ice forming a giant called Ymir and a cow called Audhumia whose incessant licking melted more ice that created more gods whose sons came upon two logs that turned into the first humans.
250,000-mile Club President
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,770
From: Bizerkeley
Car Info: MBP 02 WRX wagon
Then there is yet one more Intelligent design Theory
I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
http://www.venganza.org/
I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
http://www.venganza.org/
Originally Posted by dub2w
I will have to shed my uber-liberal cape for this one.
Here is an article slamming intelligent design:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...AGK2EVDAE1.DTL
This really irks me. Evolution is a theory that arose to explain why we are here. Famous and brilliant minds such as Stephen Hawking and Charles Darwin understood the complexity of evolution, conceding that there must be something else in the mix. Peopl mistakingly attribute Darwin to being the mastermind of popular theory of evolution. Wrong! He instead proved micro-evolution, that is evolution within a species, all the while postulating on macro-evolution (to which there is no absolute proof).
The achilles heal in the theory of macro-evolution is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. We know this. So if that is the case, then I would argue that there is something above what we know that can indeed create.
And back to this article... this author's depracating approach to anything outside of her own field of vision falls into the same category as blowhards like O'Reilly whom I despise.
Peace
:dons liberal cape and puts on flamesuit for extra measures:
Here is an article slamming intelligent design:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...AGK2EVDAE1.DTL
This really irks me. Evolution is a theory that arose to explain why we are here. Famous and brilliant minds such as Stephen Hawking and Charles Darwin understood the complexity of evolution, conceding that there must be something else in the mix. Peopl mistakingly attribute Darwin to being the mastermind of popular theory of evolution. Wrong! He instead proved micro-evolution, that is evolution within a species, all the while postulating on macro-evolution (to which there is no absolute proof).
The achilles heal in the theory of macro-evolution is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. We know this. So if that is the case, then I would argue that there is something above what we know that can indeed create.
And back to this article... this author's depracating approach to anything outside of her own field of vision falls into the same category as blowhards like O'Reilly whom I despise.
Peace
:dons liberal cape and puts on flamesuit for extra measures:
matter can absolutely be destroyed and created....
think antimatter
Originally Posted by Salty
It has nothing to do with believing in what is or isn't tangible or understanding biology to the core. It's accepting the fact that regardless of how much proof there is in the creation of the universe, our oceans and the primordial soup, that there will NEVER be any possible way to completely disprove religion and the possibility of a higher power.
Put it this way... If someone where to firmly place a gun to your temple with the full intention to pull the trigger, do you honestly believe that for one second you would not think or hope for a higher power? Even a measly nanosecond of hope for a meaningful afterlife or any form of afterlife? There's no way unless you have the brain capacity of a robot with titanium *********. This is why Atheism is much like Religious fanaticism is the respect that both have pigheaded ideals.
But yeah, as long as you're a good person I could give a damn.
Put it this way... If someone where to firmly place a gun to your temple with the full intention to pull the trigger, do you honestly believe that for one second you would not think or hope for a higher power? Even a measly nanosecond of hope for a meaningful afterlife or any form of afterlife? There's no way unless you have the brain capacity of a robot with titanium *********. This is why Atheism is much like Religious fanaticism is the respect that both have pigheaded ideals.
But yeah, as long as you're a good person I could give a damn.
never is a very very long time my friend..
NEVER SAY NEVER
simply because our feeble mind do not CURRENTLY possess the ability to compute problems on the level that would be needed to understand the complexities of the universe around us doesnt mean that someday we wont be able to do just that.
think mental supplementation...
kurzweil has a book that talks about it that came out recently..
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by dr3d1zzl3
never is a very very long time my friend..
NEVER SAY NEVER
simply because our feeble mind do not CURRENTLY possess the ability to compute problems on the level that would be needed to understand the complexities of the universe around us doesnt mean that someday we wont be able to do just that.
NEVER SAY NEVER
simply because our feeble mind do not CURRENTLY possess the ability to compute problems on the level that would be needed to understand the complexities of the universe around us doesnt mean that someday we wont be able to do just that.
There will NEVER be any possible way to completely disprove the possibility of a higher-power from an Atheist or any scientific standpoint. It doesn’t matter how deep the scientific evidence goes! This is not an earth is flat-type argument here.
As for religions, the only possible to disprove or confirm one or all religious beliefs is if God personally came to earth to do just that. However, the fact he's there proves the existence of a higher-power. Therefore, the fundamental belief in a higher power will always exist till the end of time.
Last edited by Salty; Sep 30, 2005 at 02:13 PM.
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,312
From: UCIrvine
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Originally Posted by Salty
There will NEVER be any possible way to completely disprove the possibility of a higher-power from an Atheist or any scientific standpoint. It doesn’t matter how deep the scientific evidence goes! This is not an earth is flat-type argument here.
Have you seen flatliners? There is possibly a way to prove that there is no afterlife...hahaha
And what if we find out definitively EXACTLY what started the universe and life...couldn't that prove that a god doesn't exist? I mean...I've never heard of ANY religion that claims that a god showed up sometime after the universe started...
Last edited by MVWRX; Sep 30, 2005 at 02:16 PM.
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by MVWRX
And what if we find out definitively EXACTLY what started the universe and life...couldn't that prove that a god doesn't exist? I mean...I've never heard of ANY religion that claims that a god showed up sometime after the universe started...
Last edited by Salty; Sep 30, 2005 at 02:32 PM.
Originally Posted by Salty
God you're an idiot sometimes. What are you talking about?!
There will NEVER be any possible way to completely disprove the possibility of a higher-power from an Atheist or any scientific standpoint. It doesn’t matter how deep the scientific evidence goes! This is not an earth is flat-type argument here.
As for religions, the only possible to disprove or confirm one or all religious beliefs is if God personally came to earth to do just that. However, the fact he's there proves the existence of a higher-power. Therefore, the fundamental belief in a higher power will always exist till the end of time.
There will NEVER be any possible way to completely disprove the possibility of a higher-power from an Atheist or any scientific standpoint. It doesn’t matter how deep the scientific evidence goes! This is not an earth is flat-type argument here.
As for religions, the only possible to disprove or confirm one or all religious beliefs is if God personally came to earth to do just that. However, the fact he's there proves the existence of a higher-power. Therefore, the fundamental belief in a higher power will always exist till the end of time.
Funny when you **** of an idiot, he tends to desire to make you one of his own..
My friend someday we will be able to proccess information at levels that would dwarf the current computational power of ever single human and machine on this earth at this very moment. And i give it 100 years or less before that is a reality...
With that level of computational ability at the layperson fingertips we cant even BEGIN TO ASSUME the limits or capabilities of such systems.
So to state that something would NEVER be possible is only advertising your limited ability of comprehension.
As i said.. NEVER SAY NEVER
simply because you cant understand something now doesnt mean that you or your children someday wont...