The theory of "intelligent design"

SandWraith · Post by **SandWraith** » 16 Nov 2005 18:32

[can't edit; sorry]

And in regards to the supposed Archaeopteryx, there's a wide body of evidence supporting the claim that it's a fake,
although the issue is still contested. A simple google search will turn up similar findings (such as a search query:Archaeopteryx fake).
I originally heard of it when the Discovery Channel did a special on how it was proven to be a fake, but it seems there's still a wide debate on the matter.
Based on the evidence though, I still feel it is likely a forgery.

Several articles with varying opinions on Archaeopteryx:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Archaeopteryx_is_a_fake
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist09.htm
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/archaeopteryx.htm
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/archy.html

footjoe · Post by **footjoe** » 16 Nov 2005 19:32

for all you non god beleivers just remember

God watches you night and day so dont do anything bad

Larson · Post by **Larson** » 16 Nov 2005 21:05

Evolution is not a religion. It simply explains how somthing happens not why it was ment to happen. I don't understand how so many people can just not believe in somthing with so much evidence. Evolution does not say that any one religion is completly wrong. There are many religious teachings out there that conflict with evolution. There are many religions that conflict with each other. These are because of different peoples beliefs. Evolution is not a belief, it is a fact. This does not mean I don't believe in a higher being.

Darwin rocks my world.

SandWraith · Post by **SandWraith** » 16 Nov 2005 23:03

footjoe wrote:God watches you night and day so dont do anything bad

I thought Santa did that...?
Don't tell me it's GOD that crawls down the chimney Christmas night and puts toys and candy under the Christmas tree

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 17 Nov 2005 06:04

Larson wrote:Evolution is not a belief, it is a fact. This does not mean I don't believe in a higher being.

AGAIN. micro-evolution is proven fact through fossil record and current evidence.
macro-evolution is un-proven theory, with very little supporting evidence.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 17 Nov 2005 06:23

Actually Peter there is no such thing as a proven fact in science. Gravity is not a proven fact - and in fact there is evidence against it (existing in very particular circumstances anyway).

I think of the "facts" like this.

There is absolutely no evidence that God exists outside of human creations or that "God" is in anyway responsible for the world apart from the evidence of human creations. (By "human creations" I mean documents that were produced by humans and the evidence they documented either no longer exists and there is no physical unrelated evidence that suggests the supernatural parts of those documents are true)

There is a lot of evidence outside of human creations to say that evolution on all scales exists.

In regard to the comment that there is very little supporting evidence for macro-evolution - you are wrong. There is more evidence for that then there is for things like men landing on the moon. I have never heard counter arguements to evolution that don't demonstrate that the person makeing the arguement doesn't understand what they're talking about. There evidence for evolution is only ever disputed by people who don't know what they're talking about - it's as factual as the world being almost round.

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 17 Nov 2005 06:57

FlexThis wrote:[No flames]
My point is that as science has evolved with the times, the Bible has remained unchanged.

Either science keeps getting it wrong and religion has always been right.
[/no flames]

Herein lies the problem of the Republican Party today. Stay the course with a stalwart refusal to admit or learn from ones mistakes.

I prefer Damon's other point that science is catching up. The Bible to me is like a language. When it refuses to change, it becomes dead.

footjoe wrote:god created us

why havnt evolution people found fossils that are inbetween evolution like half bird had reptile? becuase there is none just thinkng about it makes me sick. God created everything to his own liking. when the world was created it was one big land mass then he split it and those are our seven continents. Im not trying to start a flame war its just my belief.

HOLY SHIT!!!

footjoe wrote:those are just animals god created

when he brought 2 animals of everykind on the ark he didnt need to bring evety single species just 2 so when the flood wiped out everything else we are left with these animals today.

See, this is where common sense just HAS to kick in. If evolution doesn't exist then that means that all of the land animals and insects that we have today have been around since the very beginning of the world. Noah would have HAD to bring two of every single species which would have added up to MILLIONS of animals and insects requiring an ark the size of Florida. Given that Noah built the thing by himself without a single power tool or lathe or even the help of god (he only got the warning), in the middle of the desert where wood is scarce, I doubt very highly that he could have built a ship large enough to fit all of the land creatures of earth. Not to mention that most animals are indigenous to very specific global regions. He would have had to travel the entire globe to gather them all. Unless you think there were Penguins in the Middle East too!

I'm not saying there is no God, but come on. You can't possibly have a well founded belief if it's never challenged and adapted.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 17 Nov 2005 07:25

*whisper* Penguins can swim... *whisper*

But I agree with Brad. I'd also point out that science is never really wrong - people trying to practice science can be wrong but if you take a real scientific approach to things you will never make statements that can be wrong. Science says "this is the most likely thing to happen for this reason" - it's the most likely solution based on the information at hand. Science also shows that the most likely thing does not always happen. Mathematics (science of numbers) shows that something incredibly statistically unlikely to happen will become incredibly likely to happen give a large enough phase space. Science is always finding new things and changing the best theory because of it. That's one of the things that appeals to me about it - it doesn't have the arrogance to claim "we know how the world works and this is how it does" - in fact science clearly shows that we know very little about the world and there is an enourmas amount of knowledge left to be learnt. Looking at the world and how big and amazing it is - I find it much more likely that we don't know much about it than the idea that we know exactly how it was created and how long that took.

Science is definitely misunderstood - part of that is scientists fault and the fact that they often dumb down their theories to try and explain them to non scientists. This is like explaining gyro barroque to somebody who has never scene or heard of footbag before but without being able to show them (or even demonstrate with your legs but no bag). To relate this back to the topic - one of the funniest theories is that one of the laws of thermodynamics proves that life is impossible. Or all the "theories" that came from quantum physics - like that you can control reality with your mind. It's nice to know that there are people out there who are thinking - but I've always thought it's not a good idea to present your own theories on things without doing some serious research first - unless of course you don't mind if it turns out you're wrong and look stupid. I'm often happy to toss out statements that end up being a load of shit just for the fun of it but I tend to accept the fact that they are a load of shit when somebody who clearly knows better than I do explains them to me.

I would find the idea of "religion vs science" extremely funny were it not fot the fact that people who actually think there is some kind of debate have power and especially in the case of people like George W Bush - can use that power significantly. In my opinion the point of religion is entirely spiritual and it should never be used to try and explain or govern serious physical things.

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 17 Nov 2005 07:56

Yeah, I glossed over Jeremy's post just now, and I think I'm agreeing with him when I say Science isn't meant to disprove Religion, or vice-versa. They are two completely different things. Science seeks to explain new phenomenon. Religion is a symbolic, metaphorical representation of the human soul.

The Universe is as mysterious as it is vast. The funny thing about Science, is every time we think we know what causes gravity, or 3- dimensional perception, a new theory arises new evidence will point us elsewhere. Was the mystery of the Universe meant to be uncovered? And when we finally do sew up every last thread of doubt, what next? I believe that life is never-ending, and ever-changing. There is something else out there, and there probably is a spiritual realm. There's probably a being that could come down right now and tell us all what's up. But what would life be without a little mystery?

dragonhack · Post by **dragonhack** » 17 Nov 2005 09:31

SandWraith wrote:
footjoe wrote:God watches you night and day so dont do anything bad
I thought Santa did that...?
Don't tell me it's GOD that crawls down the chimney Christmas night and puts toys and candy under the Christmas tree

actually that explanation makes alot of sence, well..since santa doesent exist.
and i don't like how most creationists are christian creationists, i would like to see some other religions in the mix!

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 17 Nov 2005 10:11

Jeremy wrote:*whisper* Penguins can swim... *whisper*

Yeah and at that time of year the two Jewish Penguins Simon and Esther decided they finally had enough of the cold weather of Antarctica and decided to make use of their new time-share in New Zealand. On their liesurely swim trek across the mighty ocean, Lo and behold a massive storm picked up. Swept off course by insurrmountable currents and chased every-which-way by sharks, Simon and Esther missed their landmark. Exhausted and nearly out of flipper strength to make the nearest landfall, which, unbeknownst to them had been flooded over by the godly rains, Simon turned to check up on Esther only to then SMACK into the most massive wooden structure he had ever seen; and being from the Antarctic, he had never seen any wood at all so this was a major development. Before Simon had a chance to regain his berings he and Esther were scooped up by a large net and hauled up on the deck of this massive ship. Unable to see very well in the horrible weather, Simon and Esther could only make out vague silhouettes of another bipedal species jumping for joy. Over the roaring wind Simon and Esther heard them say,(as all animals in these stories can understand human language) "We found some more animals...one step closer to the Lord not smiting us for screwing up. If only we can find some white bears and shiny lions of the sea we might yet survive." In light of these crazy bipeds, Simon and Esther tried to jump back over board and take their chances with the raging waters, but were trapped once more in the nets and thrown in the ship below. Thank goodness for humanity!

A story equally as viable as any in the Bible.

dragonhack · Post by **dragonhack** » 17 Nov 2005 12:10

Splint wrote:
A story equally as viable as any in the Bible.

just like the flying spaghetti monster!!!!

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 21 Nov 2005 17:23

I support teaching Intelligent Design in Mathematics (IDM) in the classroom.

As I was observing the known universe, God revealed to me a truth that has frustrated mathematics for years. On a small scale, it would seem to be that any number can be represented as the multiplication of several smaller numbers. This theory was nice, but it wasn't complete. Numbers exist for which we don't know the precursor numbers from which the large number is composed. IDM addresses these holes by stating that some numbers are so large, and so complex, they were created that way, and have always existed in this state.

Mathematicians continue to find smaller numbers that can be used to make large numbers, such as this large number,
310741824049004372135075003588856793003734602284272754 (mod edit: please split up long words and numbers so they don't mess up the alignment of the page for everybody.)
57201619488232064405180815045563468296717232867824
3791627283803341547107310850191954852900733772482278352574238645
4014691736602477652346609, being the product of two smaller 97 digit numbers.

but it is a useless search. There will always be a number that can't be factored, and this is evidence of IDM. We must think of the children and begin teaching IDM today !

NotHisRealName · Post by **NotHisRealName** » 21 Nov 2005 18:01

SandWraith wrote: There are few scientists that I've heard of that believe in creationism (or, on the other hand, refute evolution), but the idea that the superstructure of chemical interactions and molecular bonding can create consciousness-- a proverbial soul-- is the mind-bending thought that has led many scientists to embrace both evolution and a deistic view of god.

Where does the soul reside? Who's to say (lesser) animals don't posess a consciousness? I'm not saying I don't have a soul, I just don't see how it's related to self awareness.

Darwin's theory of evolution is but one of many theorys of evolution. I'm sure there are people out there who believe God created the universe with the Big Bang, and everything after is scientific history. Why can't people believe in a god without the teachings of a few old books?

The fact is, there is alot of evidence (not proof, but definate evidence) pointing toward the reality of evolution. I've seen it, with my own eyes when I last went to the museum. However, I've not seen any evidence of god.
I am looking, though.

Oh, and someone asked what caused the big bang? The answer is... NOTHING!

Newton: Graphic Science. Sept - Oct 2000 Page 56.

Quantum theory gives us many examples of events without causes. Radioactive decay is one. Take two uranium atoms and wait. After a while one will emit an alpha particle (two protons and two neutrons). The other will not. According to our best understanding of the Universe, there is absolutely no way to predict which of the uranium atoms will decay first.

It finishes up saying this...

Uranium atoms decay by chance, with a certain probability, but without a cause. Radioactive decay is an event without a cause.

Finally...

Since we know we need quantum theory to describe the early universe and we know quantum events have no causes, it seems plausible that the creation of the Universe can be best understood as an uncaused quantum event analogous to the quantum-tunnelling of the alpha particle in the decay of a uranium atom. The Universe may not need a cause to come into existence.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 21 Nov 2005 18:20

Yeah nice. I just wanted to add that according to the current theory of the big bang - it's actually pretty much impossible to know what existed before the big bang since there can be no evidence of it. There could have been an entire universe where footbag existed and was a pro sport and then some kid hit swirling nemesis swirl back to back and the head of the one guy who saw it exploded with such force that it created our universe. There's really no way of knowing what caused the big bang simply because it created the universe we have. I think because we are inside the system (the universe) we can't see what caused it - we have no perspective to see the bigger picture. It's like we're the kids that all line up in different colours and make a picture that you can see from the air - if you're part of the picture you can't see what it's of. I guess if it's possible that we can advance our levels of science to a stage where we can come up with rules and laws that we can apply to things in real life and see that in that situation they are correct and then make the assumption that those rules have "always" existed and apply them to the creation of the universe - which is what scientists basically try to do now but we have no where near the knowledge yet.

Jim · Post by **Jim** » 21 Nov 2005 18:30

no one will know until we die. and even then we might not know. we can try to believe things and come up with reasons but it all boils down to nobody really knows

hackeysnacker · Post by **hackeysnacker** » 21 Nov 2005 18:49

type in a search engine "string theory" as well as "11th dimension" you'll find another creation story. It's interesting.. if nothing else.

NotHisRealName · Post by **NotHisRealName** » 22 Nov 2005 03:50

Jeremy wrote:Yeah nice. I just wanted to add that according to the current theory of the big bang - it's actually pretty much impossible to know what existed before the big bang since there can be no evidence of it.

One could also argue that there was no "before the big bang", in that time, as well as space, was created at that instant. Therefore, the concept of before and after is irrevelant, with regards to the big bang, as there was no before.

mahhkohh · Post by **mahhkohh** » 22 Nov 2005 09:56

yeah but if there realy was no before the big bang...were is all that materia in the universe from,if nothing explodes,no matter with how much force,nothing will come out of it!do u get the point?so,what was there?another civilisation sound logic too me,they might have been so much evolved and sienticly gifted that they might caused the universe too collapse and the end of it was a big bang...and now we are here trying to find out what was there...

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 22 Nov 2005 17:23

See, this is where common sense just HAS to kick in. If evolution doesn't exist then that means that all of the land animals and insects that we have today have been around since the very beginning of the world. Noah would have HAD to bring two of every single species which would have added up to MILLIONS of animals and insects requiring an ark the size of Florida. Given that Noah built the thing by himself without a single power tool or lathe or even the help of god (he only got the warning), in the middle of the desert where wood is scarce, I doubt very highly that he could have built a ship large enough to fit all of the land creatures of earth. Not to mention that most animals are indigenous to very specific global regions. He would have had to travel the entire globe to gather them all. Unless you think there were Penguins in the Middle East too!

Come back to this thread when you've taken a Bible as Literature class.