The only debate on Intelligent Design

[KC]

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.

Source (http://www.pkblogs.com/abstractfactory/2005/10/only-debate-on-intelligent-design-that.html)

Hilarious!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Yardstick]

Thats actually REALLY funny :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Ol' Dirty]

Pwnge pts. ^_^

[freakazoid]

LOL.

And now for my critique.

Shouldn't actually be the other way around, the IDer hitting the scientist? Because the scientist is causing it, it didn't happen naturally through evolution. The scientist is making the change, which is what the IDers say God did. IDers say that God had used evolution but forced changes to get things how they are now. The scientist is forcing the breaking of the kneecap. therefore it should be the IDer saying what the scientist says and the scientist is saying what the IDer says.

[Publius]

IDers say that God had used evolution but forced changes to get things how they are now.

Why didn't he just contrive a system of evolution that didn't require micromanagement?

[freakazoid]

IDers mostly believe that God used evolution to get to where we are today. Whether or not it was micromanaged.

[Publius]

IDers mostly believe that God used evolution to get to where we are today.

Not true.

The entire term "ID" was created as a front for the term "creationism". Look at the 'Discovery Institutute' or any of the 'scientists' who push ID (with the notable exception of Behe) because they, are almost without fail, 6,000 year old Christian creationists.

Now it's true that the term 'ID' doesn't necessarily imply this belief system, but the simple fact is that's what the term is used a front for.


Whether or not it was micromanaged.

And now you see why it isn't science.

[freakazoid]

While I am not completely sure, it seems to me that if you believe in a literal translation of the Bible, well at least a literal translation of Genesis actually, then you would be a YEC. If you still believe in evolution but God helped it, then you believe in ID.

[Publius]

While I am not completely sure, it seems to me that if you believe in a literal translation of the Bible, well at least a literal translation of Genesis actually, then you would be a YEC. If you still believe in evolution but God helped it, then you believe in ID.


Then you haven't actually studied what 'ID' really means to most of its proponents because you've been suckered in by their PR.

Almost without fail they are Young Earth Creationists. I think Behe takes the latter view, but aside from him I don't think its at all meaningful to separate the two ideas because that plays into their hands.

Here, read this: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/1...ent_des_11.html (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/intelligent_des_11.html)

Do not be fooled by charlatans who say "Well to believe in ID you don't HAVE to believe in a 6,000 year old earth or in Jesus", because, almost without fail, those people believe in a 6,000 year old earth and in Jesus.

It's impossible to separate the term "Intelligent design" from the movement that spawned it, and that movement is conservative Christian, Biblical literalist, Christian fundamentalist, young earth creationist, and to call yourself an "IDer" is to be associated with those people.

[freakazoid]

or in Jesus", because, almost without fail, those people believe in a 6,000 year old earth and in Jesus.

All Christians believe in Jesus, that is what makes us Christians. Also if you are a Christian you either believe in evolution, i.e. OEC, or you believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, i.e. YEC.

That chart in that site isn't very good. I believe that ID = OEC. Also evolution is compatible with them because they believe that is how God did it, see above paragraph. In fact at the Jesus Radicals site I am pretty much alone in my YEC beliefs.

[RevMARKSman]

That chart in that site isn't very good. I believe that ID = OEC.

OEC = theistic evolution = evolution =/= "intelligent design" (which is taught as an ALTERNATIVE to evolution - therefore it's not evolution).
YEC = creationism = ID =/= evolution.

From these statements, we can easily draw the conclusion that what you "believe" is bullshit. It's quite simple.

Evolution = evolution. People can say it was started by God, abiogenesis, whatever. It's still evolution, even if it started with OEC. Get this through your head - EVOLUTION IS SPECIFIC TO AFTER LIFE EMERGED. EVOLUTION DOES NOT COVER HOW LIFE EMERGED. THEREFORE, PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE "GOD STARTED EVOLUTION" ARE NOT ID'ers. THEY ARE EVOLUTIONISTS.
Creationism = the "alternative" to evolution. Covered by Intelligent Design as a means to stop people from teaching evolution as the only "theory of origins."

[Publius]

All Christians believe in Jesus, that is what makes us Christians.

Didn't some gnostic sects doubt Jesus' divinity in that they were wholly unitarian?

Aren't the Unitarians unitarian, and thus deny the divinity of Jesus?


Also if you are a Christian you either believe in evolution, i.e. OEC, or you believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, i.e. YEC.

If you believe in Intelligent Design you do not believe evolution. Intelligent Design is the negation of evolution, it's antithesis.

If ID were evolution, IDers would have no problem with evolution being taught in school at the exclusion of 'ID', which is the same thing.

That's clearly not the case.



That chart in that site isn't very good.

Why? What error does it make, other than not conforming to your preconceived notion of how ID 'should' be?

It even sources many of its statements.



I believe that ID = OEC.

Then you're wrong.

It's as simple as that.

The Intelligent Design movement was started for one goal: to disprove evolution and prove the literal Bible.

The reason ID got pushed into the public sphere was because a certain school wanted to teach creationism in school and knew that this wouldn't go over, so they asked the Disovery Institute what they could brand it, and they said Intelligent Design. And that's it.

If you knew anything about the movement you'd know that it's just a front Young Earth Creationism.

But of course if you ANYTHING, period, you wouldn't be a YOung Earth Creationist.



Also evolution is compatible with them because they believe that is how God did it, see above paragraph.

You can either believe in evolution OR Intelligent Design. They are mutually exclusive.

Evolution says that Darwin's theory of natural selection is responsible for the divergence of life on the planet. Notice it says nothing about God, either way. You can believe in God in believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, if you want. Now contrast this with Intelligent Design. It says that Darwin's theory of evolution CANNOT explain life on this planet, that is Darwin's theory is WRONG.

Evolution is entirely incompatible with the Intelligent Design movement. Why, you might ask, can't the IDers accept that fact that evolution happened, but that God guided it? Isn't that a form of 'Intelligent Design'?

Ah, yes, it is. But let's see: if they accepted that evolution is the correct theory, but it was merely God's method of creation they would have to admit that, tah duh, the earth is older than 6,000 years.

Now do you see that Intelligent Design is Young Earth Creationism, and that Young Earth Creationism is Intelligent Design?

That's the fact of the matter.


In fact at the Jesus Radicals site I am pretty much alone in my YEC beliefs.

With good reason. Even fools as deluded as those can figure out the earth you see around you wasn't made after the invention of modern agriculture, language, and music.

It really boggles my mind that you can still believe that trash after having been shown your errors time and time again. Why can't just admit you're wrong? The human psyche is really amazing, not at synthesizing information to come up with correct beliefs, but at coming up with reasons preconceived notions. I wish more than anything that I could inhabit the mind of a staunch believer, if only for a day, just so I could know what that delusional sense of certainty feels like. That arrogance, that ability to say to Steven Gould, Jared Diamond, EO Wilson, and all the other scientists in the world "Sorry guys, but you're off by a few orders of magnitude." I wish I were that self-confident. How maddening it is for me to know I'm right and for you to know you're right, and for neither of us to able to convince the other. What makes this all the worse is that you just don't play by the same rules I do. You think your revelation 'special', beyond mortal understanding. I think that it's all part of this illusion of consciousness we're all stricken with. It's objective fact that we aren't control of our minds though we think we are, that how we behave has little to do with how we think we behave, and that most of the decisions we make are made at a subconscious level. And yet these errors of thought persist, because our ego won't allow ourselves to admit that we're fabrications of our selves. How's that for ironic?

[IcarusAngel]

The heart of the argument is the scientists third reply as I see it, where he refutes this nonsense that because we "weren't there" we can't know what happened or who did it. Edmund Gosse's father made that argument around Darwin's time, that perhaps God put all these fossils and so on on earth in order to make it seem the world is really old to test our faith. This argument is not logically refutable, but nor is it logically refutable that the world just sprang up five seconds ago, exactly as it was then, full of acts of remembering that are misleading, perhaps implanted by god. It may seem implausible, but as Russell notes in An Outline of Philosophy the fallibility of the memory is pretty obvious. That's why astronomers and other scientists who have to make a record of their findings do it immediately, but even then there is a time lapse between the event and the record, so no records are completely trustworthy for the simple fact that we can't make the past reoccur. Furthermore, we make many inferences in our daily lives, like when someone talks behind us, we might assume it's a person, but the inference may be invalid - it could be a tape recorder, or something. That we even heard anything really could be in question - crazy people hear voices when there are none, but that could happen to anybody. So there is no such thing as absolutely proof even that someone talks to you or that the ground beneath you really exists.

Anyway, An Outline of Philosophy was published in 1927, and probably people understood this before then. So creationist nonsense has been refuted philosophically for quite some time now, and certainly no scientist would take the idea that God created the earth to "look old but it's really young" very seriously. Of course, they prefer "evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations," etc.

And btw... the point is to refute the creationist nonsense. His kneecap could have been broken by him falling and the core of the argument would still apply - there's no way to prove the pavement or whatever is how he broke it, the kooky logic is the same. Scientists believe that there is an explanation for why everything happens, ID proponents believe that god "just did it" for certain things.

[freakazoid]

How maddening it is for me to know I'm right and for you to know you're right, and for neither of us to able to convince the other.

Frankly it doesn't bother me for someone to believe in evolution or to be an atheist. Being a YEC isn't at the core of what I believe. It seems to be you people who make it into a big deal. For me what is important is to bring about an anarchist revolution. To stop the the MP in there tracks, violently if needed. To start a communist/anarchist militia. And things like that. And yet you people can't seem to get over the fact that I am a Christian, and a YEC at that. That really bothers me, :(.


Ah, yes, it is. But let's see: if they accepted that evolution is the correct theory, but it was merely God's method of creation they would have to admit that, tah duh, the earth is older than 6,000 years.

Only YEC believe in a young Earth. In order to be an IDer you do not need to believe that. Perhaps it would be more accurate for me to say that YEC is a branch within ID, not that they are separate.



If you believe in Intelligent Design you do not believe evolution.

If you believe in ID then you do not believe in a "naturalistic" evolution, but you DO believe in evolution. Otherwise you would be a YEC.


Didn't some gnostic sects doubt Jesus' divinity in that they were wholly unitarian?

Gnosticism is NOT Christianity.


Get this through your head - EVOLUTION IS SPECIFIC TO AFTER LIFE EMERGED. EVOLUTION DOES NOT COVER HOW LIFE EMERGED. THEREFORE, PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE "GOD STARTED EVOLUTION" ARE NOT ID'ers. THEY ARE EVOLUTIONISTS.

Am I saying otherwise?

[Publius]

Frankly it doesn't bother me for someone to believe in evolution or to be an atheist. Being a YEC isn't at the core of what I believe. It seems to be you people who make it into a big deal. For me what is important is to bring about an anarchist revolution. To stop the the MP in there tracks, violently if needed. To start a communist/anarchist militia. And things like that. And yet you people can't seem to get over the fact that I am a Christian, and a YEC at that. That really bothers me, :(.

As a Christian, God must come before anything else in your life.



Only YEC believe in a young Earth. In order to be an IDer you do not need to believe that. Perhaps it would be more accurate for me to say that YEC is a branch within ID, not that they are separate.

Except that it isn't. Most IDers are just YEC who are trying to disguise that fact. It's a shame, a guise, a visage.



If you believe in ID then you do not believe in a "naturalistic" evolution,

Stop saying that it, it isn't true.

The term was INVENTED simply to replace the term 'creationism'. Do this: every time you see the words 'intelligent design' think 'creationism', because that's what it means.

And creationism is OPPOSED to evolution. They are antithetical beliefs.



but you DO believe in evolution. Otherwise you would be a YEC.

They ARE often Young Earth Creationists.

And if they're not, they still don't believe in any kind of 'evolution'. Dembski doesn't even believe in common ancestry! They deny Natural Selection. They deny macoevolution.



Gnosticism is NOT Christianity.

Why not? Because they are Unitarian, not Trinitarian? They believe in Christ (though they think him God), and so they are Christian, by definition.

They think Christ was God incarnate. Now you would be right to say they aren't Trinitarian Christian, but that's beside the point. You might not consider them Christian, but so what? Do you consider the Arians Christian? The Catholics? The Rastafarians? There are so many different sects that figuring out exactly what it is and isn't Christianity is purely arbitrary.

[freakazoid]

Why not?

Because what they believe goes against everything in the Bible?


They ARE often Young Earth Creationists.

And if they're not, they still don't believe in any kind of 'evolution'. Dembski doesn't even believe in common ancestry! They deny Natural Selection. They deny macoevolution.



Except that it isn't. Most IDers are just YEC who are trying to disguise that fact. It's a shame, a guise, a visage.

Often and most are the key words. They are not always YEC. And even then I do not believe that they are the majority.



As a Christian, God must come before anything else in your life.

Hence I am an anarchist and will do all that I can to see it through. Also just because I believe that God comes before everything doesn't mean that I am going to make a mountain out of a mole hill with my YEC beliefs. Why? Because it isn't the main message of the Bible. It doesn't even matter if you believe in YEC or not.

[RevMARKSman]

Often and most are the key words. They are not always YEC. And even then I do not believe that they are the majority.


From the Wikipedia articles on ID and the ID movement, respectively:


Intelligent design is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."


The overall goal of the intelligent design movement is to "overthrow materialism" and atheism. They believe that society has suffered "devastating cultural consequences" from adopting materialism and that science is the cause of this decay into materialism since science seeks only natural explanations. Science is therefore atheistic, they claim. They believe that the theory of evolution implies that humans have no spiritual nature, no moral purpose, and no intrinsic meaning. The movement's proponents seek to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions". [2]

To achieve their goal of defeating a materialistic world view, advocates of intelligent design take a two-pronged approach. Alongside the promotion of intelligent design, proponents also seek to "Teach the Controversy"; discredit evolution by emphasizing "flaws" in the theory of evolution, or "disagreements" within the scientific community and encourage teachers and students to explore non-scientific "alternatives" to evolution, or to "critically analyze" evolution and "the controversy".

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 04:22 pm





Because what they believe goes against everything in the Bible?

:lol:

The Bible was put together AFTER the Gnostic movement began, with the purpose of making certain beliefs 'heretical' according to the standard church line.

Basically one church (the Catholic church) just put together its own version of the Bible and since it had a bigger army ("The Roman Empire never died, it just changed into the Catholic church!") they could enforce this.

The fact that according to the 'the Bible' Gnostics are heretics is no more to the point than that according to the Jefferson Bible Jesus was an ordinary human being.



Often and most are the key words. They are not always YEC. And even then I do not believe that they are the majority.


I doubt that you can name any intelligent designers outside of Behe and Dembski (just because I brought them up), without using Google or Wikipedia, so how would you even KNOW?

But it hardly matters if they're Young or Old Earth creationists (and they are mostly YEC's), because they're both wrong. If you don't accept evolution, you are not in line with the evidence, and so the ID movement as a whole is unscientific and creationist. It admits as much.



Hence I am an anarchist and will do all that I can to see it through. Also just because I believe that God comes before everything doesn't mean that I am going to make a mountain out of a mole hill with my YEC beliefs. Why? Because it isn't the main message of the Bible. It doesn't even matter if you believe in YEC or not.

How rich.

"What I believe is patently stupid and can be proven false but an astute 6th grader, but since it doesn't really matter that I believe in a delusional pack of lies, I'm just going to keep on believing it."

Is it any wonder why none here has any intellectual respect for you?

[freakazoid]

How rich.

"What I believe is patently stupid and can be proven false but an astute 6th grader, but since it doesn't really matter that I believe in a delusional pack of lies, I'm just going to keep on believing it."


What are you trying to say?


I doubt that you can name any intelligent designers outside of Behe and Dembski (just because I brought them up), without using Google or Wikipedia, so how would you even KNOW?

I actually have heard of Behe before you brought him up, but I haven't heard of Dembski. And what does being able to name some have to do with anything?


Is it any wonder why none here has any intellectual respect for you?

I can understand that in the case of my YEC beliefs, but not on my other beliefs.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 09:23 pm




What are you trying to say?

That your credulity is a bigger fault than you think it is.



I actually have heard of Behe before you brought him up, but I haven't heard of Dembski. And what does being able to name some have to do with anything?


I just question your basic knowledge of the ID movement because you continually state things that are untrue (that ID is a form of evolution and that most IDers are not creationists).



I can understand that in the case of my YEC beliefs, but not on my other beliefs.

But if you understand it, why not change those beliefs?

You don't have to believe anything. You're under no obligation.

But it doesn't look good that you believe the world is 6,000 years old. Think about it. I'm reading Collapse by Jared Diamond right now, about the collapse of civilizations. What your belief is is, basically, a fuck-you to scientists like Jared Diamond. You're saying "Yeah, you may have spent your life doing research, you might be one of the smartest most knowledgeable individuals on the planet, you might know more than me about any and every relevant area of science, but you're still wrong, the earth is only 6,000 years old and all your research is false."

You might not see it like that, but that's effectively what you're saying. And it matters.

[freakazoid]

I'm reading Collapse by Jared Diamond right now, about the collapse of civilizations

I'm reading that book too, :D Well, actually I was reading that, I'm about half-way through it, and now it is sitting on my shelf again, :(. It is one of the many books in my to be read section.


But if you understand it, why not change those beliefs?

Because I believe what I believe.... It's kind of hard to explain, not without more time and right now I have to go to work, :( :(


You don't have to believe anything. You're under no obligation.

I know I don't have to believe anything, you don't even need to be a YEC to be a Christian, it isn't essential to the faith.


More later when I have more time, :)

[Publius]

I'm reading that book too, :D Well, actually I was reading that, I'm about half-way through it, and now it is sitting on my shelf again, :(. It is one of the many books in my to be read section.

And you haven't read anything in that book that contradicted your worldview?



Because I believe what I believe....

Well, I was a Christian at one point too, and if I just used the excuse that I believe what I believe, I would never change. I guess I'd still be a Libertarian too.

Don't be afraid of changing your beliefs. Being obstinate when you're factually incorrect is no virtue.


It's kind of hard to explain, not without more time and right now I have to go to work, :( :(

I know I don't have to believe anything, you don't even need to be a YEC to be a Christian, it isn't essential to the faith.

More later when I have more time, :)

Gladly.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:15 pm


Frankly it doesn't bother me for someone to believe in evolution or to be an atheist. Being a YEC isn't at the core of what I believe. It seems to be you people who make it into a big deal. For me what is important is to bring about an anarchist revolution. To stop the the MP in there tracks, violently if needed. To start a communist/anarchist militia. And things like that. And yet you people can't seem to get over the fact that I am a Christian, and a YEC at that. That really bothers me, :(.

As a Christian, God must come before anything else in your life.


Who is to say that anarchist revolution is not the will of his God?

Who is to say that his interpretation of the Bible is wrong? We know the book contradicts itself; that sets us up to acknowledge different interpretations.

We know it has many leftist and liberation messages. If you read Matthew, you will find that about half of the verses can be described as anti-authoritarian, humanistic, communist, or otherwise quite different from the backwards, oppressive Christianity that is tarred and feathered in these forums.

While I find his arguments about creationism stupid, it's hardly reasonable to claim that his religious beliefs are incompatible with his apparent humanism.

[freakazoid]

And you haven't read anything in that book that contradicted your worldview?

The book was about how past societies collapsed for various reasons and how that compares to today. Great read and only strengthens my belief that we are headed to a HUGE economic collapse. Which is why I think that we need to be preparing for this. You can read more on what I believe here, http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61426&hl= , and here, http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59660&hl=


Well, I was a Christian at one point too, and if I just used the excuse that I believe what I believe, I would never change. I guess I'd still be a Libertarian too.

That was a really really bad example, but I was in a huge hurry and didn't put much thought into it.

I understand that what I believe is looked down on as stupid and such, but just because the majority believe something doesn't make it so. From my experiences I have come to the conclusion that this is fact, just like my anarchist beliefs. I used to be a libertarian, I believed in a very limited government but I still believed that a government was needed. Eventually I came to realize that the government isn't even needed, and in fact should be fought against as much as possible.


What your belief is is, basically, a fuck-you to scientists like Jared Diamond. You're saying "Yeah, you may have spent your life doing research, you might be one of the smartest most knowledgeable individuals on the planet, you might know more than me about any and every relevant area of science, but you're still wrong, the earth is only 6,000 years old and all your research is false."

You might not see it like that, but that's effectively what you're saying. And it matters.

That saying could be turned around to something like this, ""Yeah, you may have spent your life doing research, you might be one of the smartest most knowledgeable individuals on the planet, you might know more than me about any and every relevant area of science, but you're still wrong, capitalism is the end all of economics, communism is wrong, and all your research is false."
Also there are many respected scientists who believe that a naturalistic evolution is wrong. I had recently finished reading The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel and I am now reading The Case for a Creator, and it touches on things like this, I suggest that you pick one up sometime. :D

Also, why are you restricted?

edit -
We know the book contradicts itself;

pff, :P

[Mike Rotchtickles]

for me intelligent design makes more sense than evolution. Scientist just say that evolution is the cause for all existence. They do not explain how and why this all started in the first place. i look around at the world and nature and I see evidence of intelligent design. It is more understandable that evolution is a process of intelligent design than intelligent design, rather than saying shit just occured which started with some bullshit big bang. why the fuck did the big bang occur? you'll say it was because of the building up of pressure inside the sphere that contained all time and matter. OK. Tell me what cause this pressure to build up. How did everything that was in the sphere get there in the first place.

Intelligent design is more sane than evolution. Look at where we are with bio-technology. We are starting to manipulate dna. You can see that dna is like a computer program with a whole load of information. A 100 hundred years or more from now will be able to create life.

Imagine hundreds of years from know man is able to write a program(like a computer) that is able to learn and grow and"evolve". Say we place this program in some distant planet, leave it there for more thAN a million years. When we come to see how it has grown I would'nt be suprised to find that it has suddenly deveopled some sort of intelligence. And i also bet you that this program will have some questions about its existence. It will come up with answers, whether it was created or it just evolved

[ComradeR]

for me intelligent design makes more sense than evolution. Scientist just say that evolution is the cause for all existence. They do not explain how and why this all started in the first place. i look around at the world and nature and I see evidence of intelligent design. It is more understandable that evolution is a process of intelligent design than intelligent design, rather than saying shit just occured which started with some bullshit big bang. why the fuck did the big bang occur? you'll say it was because of the building up of pressure inside the sphere that contained all time and matter. OK. Tell me what cause this pressure to build up. How did everything that was in the sphere get there in the first place.
I see, so because we don't have all the answers right now we should just give up, throw up our arms and say "oh well it was all done by god"?
You know this same argument you use can be turned right back around, how did god create all this? where did god come from? And how is it any less plausible that this all just came into being without god?

[Mike Rotchtickles]

it is possible that it was not god that created life on earth. as i said there could be other very intelligent beings who have reached a level of intelligence and technology that would allow them to create life. evolution as it is does explain much. It does not try to understand the cause of the events that occured. evolution still lives us in the dark. It is speculation. For me it is more believable that some form of intelligence was applied to make the universe work the way it does. Human beings like to believe that they are the highest level of intelligence but i think this is false.
The term God does not have to be taken in the bible sense, as in an all powerful moral figure who punishes and rewards.
There is an episode of star trek I watched a couple of years ago which had some theory close to what intelligent design maybe. in the series the romulans, the vulacans and the humans are on a sesarch for something that may tell them the truth about their existence. when they find this thing they learn that all three races are actuall descendants of another form of humanoid race that became extinct. they learn that they were made from the dna of this race and they were sent to their relevant planets to evolve and so on.
Is this not possible. is it as ridicoulous to believe in other intelligent life other than us humans.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:45 pm
it is possible that it was not god that created life on earth. as i said there could be other very intelligent beings who have reached a level of intelligence and technology that would allow them to create life. evolution as it is does explain much. It does not try to understand the cause of the events that occured. evolution still lives us in the dark. It is speculation. For me it is more believable that some form of intelligence was applied to make the universe work the way it does. Human beings like to believe that they are the highest level of intelligence but i think this is false.
The term God does not have to be taken in the bible sense, as in an all powerful moral figure who punishes and rewards.
There is an episode of star trek I watched a couple of years ago which had some theory close to what intelligent design maybe. in the series the romulans, the vulacans and the humans are on a sesarch for something that may tell them the truth about their existence. when they find this thing they learn that all three races are actuall descendants of another form of humanoid race that became extinct. they learn that they were made from the dna of this race and they were sent to their relevant planets to evolve and so on.
Is this not possible. is it as ridicoulous to believe in other intelligent life other than us humans.
But again the same questions arise, where did these intelligent beings come from? How did they come into being? And again is it not just as plausible that life on this planet came into existence on it's own?

[RHIZOMES]

Why not?

Because what they believe goes against everything in the Bible?

Well, as Publius already pointed out, the Bible was created after Gnosticism to call them heretics.

there's a lot of sound evidence from some books I've read that say that the Bible was mistranslated and that son can also mean servant in it's original language too.

+ the Trinity was never mentioned in the Bible, it was a concept invented 300 years later, also after Gnostics.