One in the eye for intelligent design

[chaseter]

I like how atheists are out to prove God, Allah, Buddha, etc...don't exist when it's not even possible. It's just as sickening to see thread titles like this to me as when someone starts a God is good thread. Evolution is real, this only backs up evolution, but it still doesn't prove there isn't intelligent design behind it all.

 

[Carcharodon]

I like how atheists are out to prove God, Allah, Buddha, etc...don't exist when it's not even possible. It's just as sickening to see thread titles like this to me as when someone starts a God is good thread. Evolution is real, this only backs up evolution, but it still doesn't prove there isn't intelligent design behind it all.

...do you even know the origins of the, "Intelligent Design," line of thought? They were put in place to directly contradict the theory of evolution. It states that everything was put here as it exists today by an, "intelligent agent."

The two can't both be right. Period. Does that mean that a confirmation of evolutionary theory would prove that God doesn't exist? Not at all. It would show that I.D. is crap, though.

 

[Sandman138]

What, beginning as altricial and not undergoing change? I'm not sure neoteny can apply without a larval stage.

I'd be interested to hear more, though...I've always heard that neoteny played a huge role in the development of modern chordates (i.e., going from cessile sea-squirts to a permanent, sexually mature larval form).

It would be akin to domestic dogs being neotenous wolves.

 

[Jerry!]

Intelligent Design is still stuck being based on faith. The people that believe in it are trying to convince others that is a scientific theory, but when a theory cannot go or the advocates of it are unwillingly to let it go into the phase of it being able to be proved or disproved, then thats where it stops being a scientific theory. The burden of proof is on THEM to prove it. And it can't be.

 

[chaseter]

...do you even know the origins of the, "Intelligent Design," line of thought? They were put in place to directly contradict the theory of evolution. It states that everything was put here as it exists today by an, "intelligent agent."

The two can't both be right. Period. Does that mean that a confirmation of evolutionary theory would prove that God doesn't exist? Not at all. It would show that I.D. is crap, though.

It's people like you that further divide the great chasm between science and religion. Intelligent design and evolution can co-exist and do. Intelligent design states that a higher being engineered our universe and our planet. But how do you know his plan wasn't through evolution? It's assanine to say evolution doesn't exist and it's dumb to argue that God doesn't exist.

 

[sithgoblin]

It's people like you that further divide the great chasm between science and religion. Intelligent design and evolution can co-exist and do. Intelligent design states that a higher being engineered our universe and our planet. But how do you know his plan wasn't through evolution? It's assanine to say evolution doesn't exist and it's dumb to argue that God doesn't exist.

Sigh. There is a SPECIFIC theory called Intelligent Design that denies Evolution and says everything was placed, as it currently is, on Earth by an Intelligent Designer.

Yes, it is possible to believe that an Intelligent Designer created the evolutionary process. But that is NOT part of the specific theory called Intelligent Design.

 

[Jerry!]

I don't get the argument that Intelligent Design supports or can work with evolution. The main institution behind the pushing of Intelligent Design, the Discovery Institute, believes the designer to be god. Their primary motive is to more or less get rid of the theory of evolution.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I'm always a little confused by "god" arguments. Our reality is very complex, and many people believe this infers the existence of a divine creator. But a source that is powerful and intelligent enough to create our universe would be infinitely more complex than anything we have knowledge of, and so I don't understand why people are so willing to accept the arbitrary existence of a cosmic entity but can't accept the existence of this world. It begs the question who created the creator? Also, almost all conceptions of an intelligent designer are somewhat personified and obviously biased by our culture and egocentric personalities. In fact, the limit to our imaginations is apparent by the fact that we have such a hard time grappling with the beginning of existence, when we have no reason to believe there was a point of birth for our reality. It could have always been here, and will always be, in some shape or form. I honestly don't believe we can overcome the constructs of our brain to advance such answers, and so it's much more reasonable to accept what we can prove and not jump to any specious, implausible conclusions.

Good post, could've have said it better myself.

Have you ever seen Dumb and Dumber, where Jim Carrey is asking the girl if he has a chance with her. Sometimes I think the whole need for a God debate is something like that discussion. I believe in some form of divine providence and moral code that exists beyond us, I'm not so willing to personify it as the Bible does, even though that may be more for illustrating a point more than anything else.

I didn't want to get dragged into a theological debate. So I just had to say that Religion and Science are apples and oranges. That's why people hate intelligent design. It is a blatant offense of the rules of science and therefore should not be taught in a classroom for 'equal coverage' in a science class.

I was more referring to how the jock died from a seizure, yet they continued to have class anyways as if somebody dying didn't matter to them. I thought that was funny.

 

[chaseter]

Sigh. There is a SPECIFIC theory called Intelligent Design that denies Evolution and says everything was placed, as it currently is, on Earth by an Intelligent Designer.

Yes, it is possible to believe that an Intelligent Designer created the evolutionary process. But that is NOT part of the specific theory called Intelligent Design.

I guess I either believe in a diluted version of it or yours is an extremist view It's ridiculous for people to believe chihuahuas roamed the earth with dinosaurs, Aristotle, and Jesus I think the people that y'all describe are old religious yahoos, but a new generation of thinkers are taking over. I simply view intelligent design as a higher being creating the universe.

 

[Carcharodon]

It's people like you that further divide the great chasm between science and religion. Intelligent design and evolution can co-exist and do. Intelligent design states that a higher being engineered our universe and our planet. But how do you know his plan wasn't through evolution? It's assanine to say evolution doesn't exist and it's dumb to argue that God doesn't exist.

I'm an agnostic. I don't know how many times I have to tell you that. People like me...please. Either your reading comprehension sucks, or you have a short/selective memory. I never argued against the existence of God. It's not my fault you're clueless when it comes to I.D. Which brings me to my response below...

Sigh. There is a SPECIFIC theory called Intelligent Design that denies Evolution and says everything was placed, as it currently is, on Earth by an Intelligent Designer.

Yes, it is possible to believe that an Intelligent Designer created the evolutionary process. But that is NOT part of the specific theory called Intelligent Design.

Couldn't have said it better. Apparently, Chaseter needs to brush up on the whole Intelligent Design concept.

I guess I either believe in a diluted version of it or yours is an extremist view It's ridiculous for people to believe chihuahuas roamed the earth with dinosaurs, Aristotle, and Jesus I think the people that y'all describe are old religious yahoos, but a new generation of thinkers are taking over. I simply view intelligent design as a higher being creating the universe.

Extremist view? Dude. Look up the definition. Go read a book or something. It's directly at odds with the theory of evolution by definition.

People like me...lol.

 

[The Chairman]

The form of evolution I believe in is the one scientists say took place. But I believe that God masterminded it all. The theory that the Intelligent Design supporters put forth I agree doesn't work.

 

[Carcharodon]

It would be akin to domestic dogs being neotenous wolves.

Okay, you're going to have to define, "neotenous," to me in this context. I'd always learned that neoteny was the characteristic of becoming sexually mature in the larval form or lifestage and never actually making a transition to the final, "mature," physiological stage of life (like salamanders of the genus Dicamptodon).

In the definition I'd learned, neoteny only applies when there are two distinct life stages: larval and adult. So I'm at a loss.

 

[Carcharodon]

It would be akin to domestic dogs being neotenous wolves.

Okay, you're going to have to define, "neotenous," to me in this context. I'd always learned that neoteny was the characteristic of becoming sexually mature in the larval form or lifestage and never actually making a transition to the final, "mature," physiological stage of life (like salamanders of the genus Dicamptodon).

In the definition I'd learned, neoteny only applies when there are two distinct life stages: larval and adult. So I'm at a loss.

Okay, after some brief research of the definition:

"The retention of juvenile characteristics in the adults of a species. Humans, for example, are sometimes said to demonstrate neoteny by retaining through adulthood the relatively large head and hairlessness characteristic of very young primates. The body proportions of flightless birds, which resemble those of fetal flying birds, are also considered to be evidence of neoteny."

I wouldn't really subscribe to that idea in evolutionary terms...but I can see how the definition could be used to support that argument.

 

[lazur]

When something is 'on fire' it is actually going through a process known as combustion where the oxygen atoms in something react with a fuel and combine with carbon or hydrogen. This chemical reaction is such a significant one that loads of energy is produced, and with energy comes lots of motion of particles and what-not and temperature is just the slowing down or speeding up of particles so that it lets off or takes in heat. Guess which is which.

The reaction speeds up particles and thus, HEAT is created instead of cold.

Random mutations in DNA that eventually prove either useful or not. When it is useful, the organism slowly becomes more and more prominent in nature until it takes over and the older less adapted organism dies out.

Said it earlier. When particles move faster = heat. When they move slower = cold.

Look that one up yourself. But I do remember something about how everything has a draw to another but when the mass difference gets great enough, you actually feel it and get gravity.

But really. God and Science do not mix. Especially because with science there is the scientific method where you start with a question and slowly test until you come across the answer and with religion, the answer is God and you slowly twist until the answer is God. Now you could say God created science to then create the universe (because they can both co-exist) but there is no way that anyone will or should take you serious when you start saying God for reasons that things happen in science. That's just wrong.

Gil, I appreciate your explanations, but I think you missed my point.

I can keep asking why over and over again after every explanation until we finally get to the point where you say "I don't know" or that there's some explanation that "science hasn't figured out ... yet."

You say speed causes things to heat up faster. I ask why. You say because of friction. I ask why. You say because when two particles rub together at a rapid pace, it creates energy, which creates heat. I ask why. And eventually it'll get to the point where you, just like scientists, can't explain why.

I'm not debating that evolution exists. I believe it does in *some* form. What I'm saying is that everything did NOT come from nothing. Someone had to create it, and someone had to lay down the ground rules for not just how physics would work, but for how physics would work in such a way as to sustain life as we know it. Just as science dictates that friction creates heat, whomever created friction desired that outcome. Otherwise, it would be something else and our science would lend just as much credibility to that.

 

[Poetic Chaos]

An attractive co-worker of mine said she doesn't believe in evolution. For some reason I think it's incredibly hot when hot women don't believe in it.

 

[Carcharodon]

An attractive co-worker of mine said she doesn't believe in evolution. For some reason I think it's incredibly hot when hot women don't believe in it.

As my uncle Clifford used to say, "Nothin' better than a woman that's full o' the Lord!" Of course, he was referring to Catholic schoolgirls, but meh.

 

[chaseter]

Okay, after some brief research of the definition:

"The retention of juvenile characteristics in the adults of a species. Humans, for example, are sometimes said to demonstrate neoteny by retaining through adulthood the relatively large head and hairlessness characteristic of very young primates. The body proportions of flightless birds, which resemble those of fetal flying birds, are also considered to be evidence of neoteny."

I wouldn't really subscribe to that idea in evolutionary terms...but I can see how the definition could be used to support that argument.

I guess we all have different viewpoints on a single subject or term

 

[Carcharodon]

I guess we all have different viewpoints on a single subject or term

This isn't a relative term. It's a scientific term. They're two ways of saying the exact same thing: it's the retention of juvenile characteristics despite undergoing sexual maturation. The definition I posted ignores the element of sexual maturation (it's implied via the term, "adult").

Again, I disagree with it in evolutionary terms (I think the evolutionary separation between ape and man is greater than some neotenic characteristics), but at face value it makes some sense.

 

[Gilpesh]

Gil, I appreciate your explanations, but I think you missed my point.

I can keep asking why over and over again after every explanation until we finally get to the point where you say "I don't know" or that there's some explanation that "science hasn't figured out ... yet."

You say speed causes things to heat up faster. I ask why. You say because of friction. I ask why. You say because when two particles rub together at a rapid pace, it creates energy, which creates heat. I ask why. And eventually it'll get to the point where you, just like scientists, can't explain why.

I'm not debating that evolution exists. I believe it does in *some* form. What I'm saying is that everything did NOT come from nothing. Someone had to create it, and someone had to lay down the ground rules for not just how physics would work, but for how physics would work in such a way as to sustain life as we know it. Just as science dictates that friction creates heat, whomever created friction desired that outcome. Otherwise, it would be something else and our science would lend just as much credibility to that.

No. I got your point. You disregard science because you don't like the answers.

And you missed my point. Religion and science are apples and oranges. They co-exist because they are completely different things. Understand?

Also I wasn't belittling religion in my response but yet you belittle science like some five year old came up with it. I could do the same to Religion and have done so in the past, yet I decided to be nice and refute your whole "Science is stupid, why isn't fire cold?" rant without saying "God sucks and you are a loser for believing in him."

 

[Hollow Wood Director]

Unless the Big Bang/Big Crunch Cycle theory turns out to be true, and there was another universe before ours.

Yes this could be the case since quantum " theory " now suggests the possibility of multiple dimensions.

However, I still think the term "before" is obsolete in this instance since a singularity is basically void of time and space. We got our perceptions of time and space from the birth of this universe and maybe the unit to measure or quantify time and space is just particular to this one we exist in.

If the multiple universe theory is right then maybe they all existed at the same time and no differentiation can be made to a "before"

 

[Sandman138]

No. I got your point. You disregard science because you don't like the answers.

No, he's just operating under a philosophical discourse. Of course, in the end "it's turtles all the way down" with his approach, whether you apply it to the scientific method or to God.

 

[Carcharodon]

No, he's just operating under a philosophical discourse. Of course, in the end "it's turtles all the way down" with his approach, whether you apply it to the scientific method or to God.

I love that story.

 

[The Lizard]

Of course, in the end "it's turtles all the way down" with his approach

 

[bored]

I guess I either believe in a diluted version of it or yours is an extremist view It's ridiculous for people to believe chihuahuas roamed the earth with dinosaurs, Aristotle, and Jesus I think the people that y'all describe are old religious yahoos, but a new generation of thinkers are taking over. I simply view intelligent design as a higher being creating the universe.

Yet some of the biggest national proponents of intelligent design would have you believe that "ridiculous" notion.

 

[Memphis Slim]

And you're pretty much baiting it, so knock it off.


Its pretty much impossible to deny evolution at this point. If you do, with all the evidence and all the proof you are essentially an idiot or a zealot. However, I do not see why evolution has to contradict with religion. I believe in both. The bible does not have to be taken as literal.

Spoken like a truly "objective" moderator.