One in the eye for intelligent design

Discussion in 'SHH Community Forum' started by sithgoblin, Dec 14, 2007.

  1. Jerry! Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,728
    Likes Received:
    0
    I always liked that part in the movie. But really, it does come down to that. People want to make more of mankind's existence, as if there was a deeper meaning that life started, that there was a reason beyond our comprehension of why we are existing on Earth. I guess thats understandable, albeit a bit arrogant. Fills people with hope, makes them more content in their life. That works for some people, for some people, that is important, and thats fine, I have no problem with them believing that. But when they start trying to push the issue in school, trying to get it included in class, thats where the bull**** starts.

    Because Slim, and I can say this untill Doomsday and you will still probably ignore it, since there is no proof of Intelligent Design and the whole point of it is not having to rely on logical reasoning to support it but instead on faith, it is not science. It does not belong in school. Do you understand that?
     
  2. Gilpesh Registered

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    26,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. Intelligent Design = Creationism with new title.

    Creationism is basically the story of Genesis taken as fact and as science. It's not a fact, not a science, and should never be material for a SCIENCE class.
     
  3. Abaddon Watching

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    38,929
    Likes Received:
    0
    It just states that the complexity of existence points to an intelligent creator, not that things suddenly poofed into existence as they are now.:huh:
     
  4. Gilpesh Registered

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    26,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Creationism by any other name is still ******ed to teach to children.
     
  5. Abaddon Watching

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    38,929
    Likes Received:
    0
    they already have that **** in Sunday school, it doesn't need to be taught anywhere else.:o
     
  6. sithgoblin King of the Castle

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,236
    Likes Received:
    1
    But by teaching it in the science class, it gives it more credibility, so more people will supposedly become religious.
     
  7. Jerry! Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,728
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then they would keep in Sunday school. I went to that CCD **** for almost 10 years every Sunday or Saturday when I was a kid. Communion, confession, confirmation, all that. But not everybody goes through it that way. The point of Intelligent Design, its function, is to eliminate evolution from being taught. That is its ultimate purpose. That isn't just speculation or rumors, there are documents, memos, stating exactly that.
     
  8. Lighthouse Fairness, Equality, Bacon

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Messages:
    14,809
    Likes Received:
    2,037
    I just don't get intelligent design because you can't test it. Could a designer have made the universe? Heck I think its possible, but there is no way to test it. You can test evolution. There is absolutely no way to confirm or deny the existence of a designer, so in the realm of science its useless.
     
  9. Bill Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,624
    Likes Received:
    0
    And how many times have we explained that man didn't come from apes, species don't suddenly "pop" into one another and that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion, but an expansion?

    No wonder you have so many problems accepting science. You have yet to actually learn any. Sadly enough, you're not alone.
     
  10. Danalys Sol Invictus

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    Messages:
    12,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    how come every one who floats this admittedly fair view treats it like it's some profoundly new thing?
     
  11. Danalys Sol Invictus

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    Messages:
    12,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    i'm of the impression that if everything were simple people would say that ponits to an intelligent creator aswell.
     
  12. demento Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    9,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Funny you should mention it, because I'm convinced that many people are the result of Dumbass Design.
     
  13. hippie_hunter The King is Back!

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2003
    Messages:
    53,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Really it all comes down to a person's personal beleifs. It's up to all of us on a personal level to beleive or not to beleive in an intelligent Creator. Some people do and some people don't.

    I beleive in evolution, I beleive that life on Earth was created by mere chance and pure luck. I don't beleive in a Creator. But is there really any harm in that? Is there any harm in a person beleiving in a Creator who created life and is actively taking part in all creation. Absolutely not.
     
  14. Danalys Sol Invictus

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    Messages:
    12,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    well the coccyx would seem to be bad design for one.
     
  15. Abaddon Watching

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    38,929
    Likes Received:
    0
    no problem with my coccyx
     
  16. primemover Registered

    Joined:
    May 4, 2003
    Messages:
    4,016
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then you don't believe in evolution, because that is not evolution.
     
  17. hippie_hunter The King is Back!

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2003
    Messages:
    53,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    I beleive in evolution in terms that life started as simple celled organisms and evolved over billions of into more complex organisms to what we see today.

    However, the fact that Earth managed to form into a solar system capable of supporting life in the habitable zone for it and the planet itself met the conditions to form life was pure coincidence. No creator. Just luck of the draw. That is what I meant by the pure luck and mere chance.
     
  18. chaseter Esteemed Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    45,868
    Likes Received:
    51
    Evolution is pure luck through beneficial mutations:huh:
     
  19. primemover Registered

    Joined:
    May 4, 2003
    Messages:
    4,016
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nothing 'luck' about it, 'random' mutations of genes cause phenotypic changes that result in some gene vehicles being able to survive better than others, causing the mutated genes to flourish while the others fade away.

    If you want to make a case for 'luck', there might be a fraction of a percent of more successful mutations residing in vehicles that get squished by a falling tree or zapped by lightning while on it's way to making more copies of itself.
     
  20. primemover Registered

    Joined:
    May 4, 2003
    Messages:
    4,016
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nah, just probability. You have to understand there are billions of billions of stars, so even if a planet viable to organic life were so rare as to be a billion to one, there are plenty of chances, especially when you add billions of years into the equation.
     
  21. Danalys Sol Invictus

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    Messages:
    12,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    it has a habit of getting broke. and doesn't really serve any usefull purpose.
     
  22. CorpusBlack Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    4,555
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just because it has no use for science doesn't mean there isn't a possibility that it exists. I agree with Einstein's statement within the parameters of the statement but science itself is limited and unopened to ideas unless they have been somewhat proven or follow a theoretical pattern. I think a lot scientists put themselves in a box because of this and the scientific community needs to be more open to looking at possibilities without fear of scrutiny from their peers. Many of which, come off just as radical as a lot of religious nuts.
     
  23. CorpusBlack Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    4,555
    Likes Received:
    0
    *touche.:pal:
     
  24. Gilpesh Registered

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    26,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    The box they put themselves in is called the scientific method, which is the best way to prove/disprove something in the realm of science. If you want them to disregard that and go all stupid f**kin hippie new age crap, then go round up your crystals and head out to a vortex in the desert.
     
  25. SuBe Voluntaryist

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    11,897
    Likes Received:
    3
    I was being somewhat sarcastic. But, you can not argue that "Science" has all the answers.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"