2 of 3
2
Intelligent Design
Posted: 04 May 2005 06:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2005-03-25

I would like to think that any religion should profer a few bona fides to gain a following and/or give some basis for the “inteligent” in ID.

If a religion is going to have religous ‘olidays,  it should present a calendar that isn’t fooled by the moon..

Speaking of the moon, is it too much to ask your religion for an explanation of the Sun and Stars.. 

Speaking of explanations,, sleep and dreaming go begging.

As do dinosaur bones.

Why should the age of our universe be held secret by any god?  Hathn’t Pangea’s existence been proven empirically?  So,,, goshums,,, if a religion states the age of the earth at anything less than several billions of years, it’s WRONG…

How odd of god to choose the Jews….

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2005 06:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2005-03-25

bear down

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2005 02:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  291
Joined  2005-04-02

[quote author=“tyhts”]Is one side actually trying to say that the holy Bible is irrefutable in every way and somehow teaches everything a person needs in order to understand the world? Is the other side arguing against any type of deistic possibility whatsoever?

Well, one side is actually trying to say that the holy Bible is irrefutable in every way and somehow teaches everything a person needs in order to understand the world (see any post by TC). The other side is primarily saying, maybe not. This is a far cry from “arguing against any type of deistic possibility whatsoever”.

[quote author=“tyhts”]...I see the Bible as a collection of sophisticated but misconstrued fairy tales that has somehow been raised to a position far beyond what it deserves.

This is a pretty good expression of my own perspective of bible.

[quote author=“tyhts”]But how could I possibly claim that I have absolute confidence that no form or god could possibly exist?

I haven’t noted anyone making this claim. Such a claim would be based on faith and therefore have no more credibility than claims about the literal truth of the bible.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2005 03:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  131
Joined  2004-12-23

It may seem on the surface that the introduction of “intelligent design” into the Kansas State school science curriculum may add credence to a “biblical” point of view (i.e., genesis) or that there is a single “god” who constructed DNA and everything in nature

however, the same “intelligent design” concept can include the belief in life on other planets in the universe - perhaps our life was “constructed” by an advanced (alien) civilization elsewhere - this thought process injected into our young impressionable minds could cause new “Raelians” to emerge from our schools, i.e., those who believe in the existence of an alien civilization that comes back to earth to bring followers back to “heaven”

not quite what the nutty Kansas school board may have in mind

Fran Lorin
http://www.patent.0catch.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 May 2005 03:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2005-03-25

back when I lived in Alexandria, VA ,, I’d enjoy nothing more than tripping to the patent office… Yeththir,,,, one time I wath looking up an idear of mine re rotary engines and had to go up to the 3rd or 4th floor(bring a flashlight) and was astonisched to find 4 or 5 patents already given out for flying saucers,, cooool….

Of course,, the mall in DC is museum pig heaven, butta,, Bethesda has a fantastic Doll House museum(doll houses within doll houses within,,,, ),, the Air and Space Museum has it’s 21 warehouses in Swansea? where a 3 hour tour will get you thru 4 of them….  As everyone goes to the mall the Navy and Marine museum go wanting for visitors, wow.  And Baltimore’s Railroad museum is only minutes North.  Fort Washington and Fort McHenry for eye candy…..

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2005 03:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  131
Joined  2004-12-23

Yep, Lu cannon - lotl of historic sites and landmarks around this area

at least you were not a participant in one of the USPTO bible study classes - yeah, they had and still have those there

it would seem (and IS) contradictory to have bible thumpers at the uspto, a bastion of applied science, but they’re there alright - as nutty as the Kansas School Board

take care
Fran Lorin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2005 11:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1377
Joined  2004-12-21

Interesting article.

 

 Signature 

http://powerlessnolonger.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2005 02:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  754
Joined  2005-01-03

Good article Pete. 

Too bad people like the Chump either won’t read it or, if they do, will not understand it….....or, if they read and understand, they will simply reject it as being inconsistent with their divinely inspired and infallible “instruction manual”.

 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful…..Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman (3 BC - 65 AD)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2005 09:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  131
Joined  2004-12-23

Pete, that is a very well written article - the “Discovery Institute” seems to have well-titled members who have chosen to give up learning their scientific disciplines to new extents, in favor of their lame ID arguments


the greatest problem with the concept of ID is that the “intelligence” that supposedly did the early creatin’ is not defined - this leaves room for all the bible-interpreteres to apply their own human attributes to the “intelligence”, such as emotions (e.g., desires), retribution, “justice”, etc. - which brings us right back to the problem with “faith” that we started to address in the first place!

Fran Lorin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2005 09:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

The bottom line here is that our planet, its system, its creatures that live on it, it is all to complex to happen by change, to happen on its on, to evolve somehow. I think it is foolish to believe so.

Nope, something or someone designed and created the planet, make it function, designed and created the human race, make them function within the systems on this planet, etc.

It is way way WAAAAAY out of line to say it just evolved on its own. I might be swayed that possibly one “part” of this picture somehow by some huge miracle evolving somehow (you’d have better odds winning an intra state lotto)....but to have the following all happen at the same time????

- A planet in a perfectly balanced orbit around a star
- The planet to have a balanced supply of oxygen and water
- A human race that needs oxygen and water to survive, not to mention sun ray and minerals and vitamins and protein
- An abundance supply of animals, plants, vegetable and fruit types, etc that man needs to survive.

You’re telling me this all happened on its own? I say, no way. It was God’s work and every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. That is what it is about…..

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2005 10:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

[quote author=“TheChampion”]The bottom line here is that our planet, its system, its creatures that live on it, it is all to complex to happen by change, to happen on its on, to evolve somehow. I think it is foolish to believe so.

I assume he means chance.  This is the crux of misunderstanding in these ID arguments. Complexity and probability. None of the ID proponents, including Behe seem to have understood the work of the last ten years on emergence, edge-of-chaos systems, etc.  They have probably never heard of the computer programs that demonstrate the emergence of significant complexity and organization from deterministic systems on the edge of chaos.  They think about the idea of random mutations as being the basis of evolution. Never consider that the mutation is on a genetic sequence that already exists and that it represents a generally minor change that could lead to greater organization (complexity).  They have no idea what the bootstrap principle is. 

In other words they cling to their ignorance dearly and never actually look at the scientific evidence.  This individual is, unfortunately representative of a growing number of people who actively want to reject science when there is even a hint of that science repudiating their cherished beliefs. 

The argument from “irriducible complexity” is a complete red herring.  Behe, who ought to know better, has simply forgotten the tremendous amount of redundancy found in biological systems.  It just isn’t the case that removing a single element will necessarily cause complete dysfunction.  Function might be degraded in some cases, but the living system simply repairs the defect and goes on living.  Or there is almost always a backup system to pick up the function. Hasn’t he ever heard of autopoiesis?


[quote author=“TheChampion”]It is way way WAAAAAY out of line to say it just evolved on its own.

Another fallacious argument.  What does it mean to evolve on its own? Nothing.  That presuposes an intent on the part of the system to change itself.  What complete nonsense.

But this is the kind of rhetoric we are up against.  Words that sound good to the ignorant - things they can repeat and convince themselves they are using rational arguments.

Seriously, I can’t help but be ashamed to be a human being if this idiot is at all representative of the currently evolved species.  If god were responsible for this mess, he sure did f**k up big time on mankind.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2005 10:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  131
Joined  2004-12-23

thanks, “guest” for the rebuttal - always helpful to have a sensible argument to the “bible-interpreters’” warped logic

nevertheless, the “bible-interepreters” first argue how complex everything is, and that only a cosmic intelligence can be responsible for all of its creation- yet the very same “bible-interpreters” continue to apply “HUMAN CHARACTERISTICS” to the “cosmic creator” that they “believe” they can “understand” by simply “reading the bible”!  - that’s the problem!  - the ignorant over-simplification of a cosmic creator of an all-too-complex world who has the easily-understood attributes of a human!  - isn’t that arrogance to the extreme!?


and yet the same “bible-interpreters” still want to convince their ilk how easy it is to understand this cosmic creator by reading the bible!  - if these “bible-interpreters” will get off their duffs and actually learn science, maybe they could make a positive contribution to this planet instead of the incessant end-of-this-world crazy human-attribute interpretation of a cosmic creator? - but I doubt it, because learning real math and science is too difficult for them

Fran Lorin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2005 11:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2005-01-22

TChamp. In attempting to understand the theory of evolution and how it works the person must be able to ENVISION the planet as it existed in previous eons and work forward to the present.  You first of all must be able to envision this planet at a stage of development before any life as we know it existed and from there envision the most rudimentary forms of life-like, self-replicating protein chains as the only “inhabitation” on the planet. From there the chance genetic mutations and natural selection by environmental factors would lead progressively to cell-like life, then algae, etc., up to the most complex forms of life (plants and animals) that we now can see everywhere.

To start at the present (like you do) and work backwards into the past can only get you in trouble and into nutty ideas like Intelligent Design.  You seem to argue that the earth orbiting the sun at a regular velocity and the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere are the perfect conditions for human life, so someone must have known that these conditions were necessary for human life, how could this happen by chance? That is how Intelligent Design purports to work, but evolution is completely the opposite and a lot more explanatory.  Plants are a carbon and carbon-dioxide based life forms and they expel oxygen - making the atmosphere condusive to the development of other types of carbon-based life (animals that use oxygen).  So according to evolution, life changes according to the conditions that persist rather than “someone” changing the conditions so that a certain kind of life could exist. If plants hadn’t appeared and spewed free oxygen into the atmosphere, then animals might never have developed; or they would have developed with a different chemical base (say, nitrogen).

It is you own misunderstanding of how evolution works that even makes I.D. theory “plausible” to you, but to those who understand how evolution works, the idea of I.D. is as absurd as your version of evolution.  You take a complex being like the human body and try to construct conditions that would lead to organs like eyes and brains, but that plan of action is ridiculous and will only lead to I.D. ideas.  Even clams have light sensitive organs, but they do not have eyes - according to evolution theory eyes developed from light sensitive organs in creatures that came before the eye bearing creatures.  There’s nothing magic or mysterious about it; the facts of evolution are simple and comprehsive to account for all the living systems and creatures that currently inhabit this planet.

I guess I’m just beating my head against a stubborn wall here and I think it’s starting to hurt.

Bob

 Signature 

It’s definitely a moon! . . . and now it’s become a sunflower!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2005 12:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  88
Joined  2005-03-11

Guest, you said:

But this is the kind of rhetoric we are up against. Words that sound good to the ignorant - things they can repeat and convince themselves they are using rational arguments.

You made a good point here.  Unfortunately, you would consider the vast majority of average people ignorant.  That majority does follow authoritarian command and simple concepts which they can grasp in their minds.  Concepts that are difficult to understand tend to overwhelm them and they fall back on the dogma of authority.  Isn’t this the result of training the average person receives from basic schooling, religious institutions, and government directives?  Our average authority figures supply most of the grist for the mill of the average mind (not to mention the less-than-average and really ignorant authority figures).  Simply follow directives, don’t question and don’t think for yourself.  The trouble is, they are taught to believe authority figures, and therefore actually consider themselves knowledgeable when they repeat the dogma.

With the ‘rules’ of religious writings available and scores of religious figures and pseudo-scientists always at hand to interpret those rules in simple, authoritarian terms with no feedback required and obedience demanded, what should you expect? 

The average person in this country is really not educated (regardless of extent of schooling).  Scientists and intellectual thinkers such as you unintentionally contribute to their ignorance.  You use extensive vocabularies that the average person cannot comprehend, ideas and concepts that he has never been exposed to, and you reference sources that he would be unable to comprehend even if he were inclined to explore them.  So you have a choice… continue intellectual dialogue with your peers, or attempt to educate the mass of average people using language they can understand and possibly learn from.  Not a very good option, is it?  Just don’t expect too much of people who have not been exposed to tools of thinking, much less the very concept of actually thinking for themselves.

And do you really think they have the desire to read the vast arrays of knowledgable material that you do?  They aren’t necessarily intellectually lazy… just already overwhelmed with simply supporting a family and trying to maintain a grasp on all the necessary mundane chores of life.  Ignorance can not only be blissful; it can be a reality of life.

Maggie

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2005 12:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  88
Joined  2005-03-11

TChamp, you said:

- A planet in a perfectly balanced orbit around a star
- The planet to have a balanced supply of oxygen and water
- A human race that needs oxygen and water to survive, not to mention sun ray and minerals and vitamins and protein
- An abundance supply of animals, plants, vegetable and fruit types, etc that man needs to survive.
You’re telling me this all happened on its own? I say, no way.

First of all, our planet is one of trillions of planets around trillions of other stars.  Who knows what lifeforms may have evolved on other planets with other elements creating lifeforms different to our own?  Isn’t evolution efficient, to have evolved organisms to exist with the materials available on this planet?  If our atmosphere was composed primarily of methane, would you credit god with creating a human race that existed so efficiently on methane?  Or would he have created that methane atmosphere to accommodate humans?

I do believe Darwin demonstrated how animals evolved different characteristics based on the available food supply.  His finches’ beaks had adapted to eat either nuts, insects, or blood, depending on what was available in their ecosystem.  Man has succeeded the same way, by eating what was available, and evolving in direct relation to those food options.  Perhaps in a future scenario, food will no longer be available, and we will have to evolve to survive on man-made chemicals?  Or solyent green?

Here is something really interesting I heard this afternoon on NPR: 
Arsenic Eating Microbe Discovered
by Richard Harris
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4668418
All Things Considered, May 26, 2005 ยท There’s a lake in California that’s so chemically nasty that seemingly nothing could live there, except something that loves arsenic. Researchers have discovered a microbe there that feasts on the toxic stuff.

Isn’t evolution great!!!

Maggie

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed
newrelic.loglevel = "verbosedebug" newrelic.daemon.loglevel = "verbosedebug"