[DragonClaw]

Why are you guys even arguing; everyone seems to agree on the issue. And anyone who decides to try and argue gets flamed. Got to love it. Plus you people seem the think ID and evolution are mutually exclusive. ID is simply the idea of a 3rd party entity outside our universe having a hand in the way our universe developed, whether starting an evolutionary process or directly creating the earth thousands of years ago. You can't flame someone for supporting an idea like that; you have no way of disproving it.

Here's my argument: Why the f**k does the origin of the universe even matter? It makes no difference in any applicable ways. We should just stop teachin the subject matter completely because there's no way to be 100% that either idea is true. We should start preparing for a shivan invasion!

[TrashMan]

If GOd did create the universe, the physical laws and the biliological ones, then in a way we are talking about Inteligent Desing..

Thing is - it can't be proven or disproven so why even detabe it?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by DragonClaw
Why are you guys even arguing; everyone seems to agree on the issue. And anyone who decides to try and argue gets flamed.  

Who's flaming? I'm challenging proponents of ID to give me an honest answer as to what it actually is. So far no one has been brave enough to say anything more than the equivalent of "Evolution is wrong so ID must be right". Not one person so far is willing to actually say what ID actually is!

As I said before if you can't say what it is how can anyone claim we should teach it to our kids.

Originally posted by DragonClaw
Plus you people seem the think ID and evolution are mutually exclusive.

There are a whole bunch of ID supporters who say that ID and evolution are mutually exclusive. So which is it?
The reason why you can't tell me is that as I say there is no such thing as a Theory of Intelligent Design.

Originally posted by DragonClaw
ID is simply the idea of a 3rd party entity outside our universe having a hand in the way our universe developed, whether starting an evolutionary process or directly creating the earth thousands of years ago. You can't flame someone for supporting an idea like that; you have no way of disproving it.

If you can't actually pick which one of the two it is in the first place why the f**k do you think we should pay any attention to the theory. If you're trying to gain support which amounts to nothing more than saying "God did something somewhere but I don't know where" then you've got a pretty crappy theory.
 In fact with a hole like that you have little more than an assertion.

Originally posted by DragonClaw
Here's my argument: Why the f**k does the origin of the universe even matter? It makes no difference in any applicable ways. We should just stop teachin the subject matter completely because there's no way to be 100% that either idea is true. We should start preparing for a shivan invasion!

The desire to know where he comes from is one of mankinds oldest questions. Since the dawn of time people have asked where am I from. Just cause you don't care about the answer doesn't mean that most people don't.

Also since we can never be 100% certain God exists shall we pull down all the churches and stop teaching kids about religion? Or is it just scientific explainations for the origin of the universe that you think should be censored?

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by DragonClaw
You can't flame someone for supporting an idea like that; you have no way of disproving it.

oh the irony.
ok, the fact that it is set up specificly so that it is imposable to prove wrong, that you can't test it, is the reason why we laugh at you, and the reason why we get pissed when you call it a theory.

if it was a theory, it would make predictions and it would be testable and experiments would have been conducted testing the predictions.

if it was a hypothisis, it would make predictions that could be testable

currently it's in the speculation stage, it's some nebulus undefined, indeffinite bullshit.

keep in mind the argument is not about weather you are right or wrong at this point, you haven't earned that, this isn't science, and as a result it isn't worthy of even being mentioned in a scientific context.

You don't teach German in a French class.

[karajorma]

A theory needs to stand on its own two legs and explain all the relevent evidence.

Lets forget the not teaching science in a science class stuff because although completely true it's still not the biggest flaw in ID.

The biggest flaw in ID is that although it's supposed to be something we can teach children in school not one person has actually been able to explain what we're supposed to be teaching the kids.

[Galemp]

It seems to me that ID would bring a screeching halt to all scientific development everywhere. Anything unknown, anything that doesn't fit our current model, anything interesting can be simply given the explanation 'God did it' and left at that.

This is what has been going on for thousands of years, up to the Age of Enlightenment. Remember Galileo? The great scientists of the Renaissance and beyond were always searching for the root causes behind everything, and it's because of that that we have quantum mechanics, string theory, and genome mapping. If Einstein and Feynman, Crick and Watson, Greene and Hawking had simply given up and said 'This is so complicated, only God could have done it' we would be living in a much poorer world.

ID is born out of ignorance, and aims to bring the rest of the world down to the same level as those who don't understand understand or can't accept science. Douglas Adams said, "God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining." The burden of proof rests on the ID fanatics to tell us why we should abandon hundreds of years of scientific advancement to a medieval mythology.

[Stealth]

hmk.

As best we know, the universe came out of the Big Bang.

And no one here has stopped to think "Hey wait a minute, maybe the 'big bang' of the universe suddenly coming into existence was when God created it"?

Ah, the old dodgy 'if a tornado hit a junkyard, would it assemble a working 747' type arguement. We have our directing creative process, though; it's called 'natural selection'. In fact, it's very similar to the ways in which computers ... were developed over time - the only difference is that instead of random mutation favoured by environment (to simplify), we have ideas which are favoured by success in practice. If fact, thinking about it, the computer can be a good analogy to evolution when you consider that ideas implemented in it are dropped when they don't work right, same as harmful mutations.

it's dodgy because there's no true answer that voids it.  it's always there.  give me a reasonable explanation, and the "dodgy" argument will disappear.

also, we're not talking about how computers 'developed' over time.  if i buy a PI with 64 MB of RAM, five years ago, will it now be a P4 3.2 GHZ with 4 GB DDR?  No it won't.  that's the point.  it didn't evolve on its own, and (more importantly.  the whole point of me bringing it out): it was created.  

I've enlarged the part of YOUR argument which, in essence, actually contradicts itself.  NOTE that you didn't say "in the same way computers have evolved over time"... they were developed.  you said it yourself in your own argument.  just as something developed life, so something (or someone in this case) develops computers.  end of story.

I'm challenging proponents of ID to give me an honest answer as to what it actually is

... ok..... a theory or view that some parts of nature/life show to have been designed (at least in part) by some higher entity, pre-existing intelligence, etc. as opposed to other theories.

[Galemp]

Stealth: Computers aren't alive. A lump of silicon isn't going to 'evolve' into a microchip on its own, because it's inanimate. We're talking about living creatures responding to outside stimuli and mutating over millions of years.

As for where life came from, and how the universe began, these are questions we have to pursue with scientific methods. We might not see results in our lifetime but we have to keep on trying in order to understand. There's no sense in just giving up and leaving it all on God's doorstep.

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by Galemp
As for where life came from, and how the universe began, these are questions we have to pursue with scientific methods. We might not see results in our lifetime but we have to keep on trying in order to understand. There's no sense in just giving up and leaving it all on God's doorstep.

Yep, since the Big Bang would break the laws of Physics.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Bobboau


oh the irony.
ok, the fact that it is set up specificly so that it is imposable to prove wrong, that you can't test it, is the reason why we laugh at you, and the reason why we get pissed when you call it a theory.

if it was a theory, it would make predictions and it would be testable and experiments would have been conducted testing the predictions.

if it was a hypothisis, it would make predictions that could be testable

currently it's in the speculation stage, it's some nebulus undefined, indeffinite bullshit.

keep in mind the argument is not about weather you are right or wrong at this point, you haven't earned that, this isn't science, and as a result it isn't worthy of even being mentioned in a scientific context.

You don't teach German in a French class.

Not quite...The theory of Relativty is a sound scientific theroy, in fact the most famous one. Yet there is no way to prove everything is relative - we can only prove it in some instances. that does not desqulify it at all...

[Singh]

Originally posted by karajorma


Cause that would contradict the bible Singh and that's what's at the heart of this whole ID rubbish anyway.

So, in a sense, it is simply meant as a means of propoganda to support and promote the bible?

America is very odd indeed. I thought it gave up propaganda after the soviet union, since there was no need for it? Looks like I was wrong.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Galemp
It seems to me that ID would bring a screeching halt to all scientific development everywhere. Anything unknown, anything that doesn't fit our current model, anything interesting can be simply given the explanation 'God did it' and left at that.

This is what has been going on for thousands of years, up to the Age of Enlightenment. Remember Galileo? The great scientists of the Renaissance and beyond were always searching for the root causes behind everything, and it's because of that that we have quantum mechanics, string theory, and genome mapping. If Einstein and Feynman, Crick and Watson, Greene and Hawking had simply given up and said 'This is so complicated, only God could have done it' we would be living in a much poorer world.

ID is born out of ignorance, and aims to bring the rest of the world down to the same level as those who don't understand understand or can't accept science. Douglas Adams said, "God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining." The burden of proof rests on the ID fanatics to tell us why we should abandon hundreds of years of scientific advancement to a medieval mythology.

I don't concur.

ID tells more of the ORIGIN of things, not exactly how things happened. If God started some proces, that doesn't mean that the process itself can't be scientificly explained (at least the later stages) or that it shouldn't be explained.

People on both sides of the fence are way overacting....

[Singh]

Originally posted by Galemp
Stealth: Computers aren't alive. A lump of silicon isn't going to 'evolve' into a microchip on its own, because it's inanimate. We're talking about living creatures responding to outside stimuli and mutating over millions of years.

Already possible, actually. Technicians have created robots that can react and change according to there outside environment. I'm not sure of the experiment, but there was one conducted where two types of robot were created - Predator and Prey, and each changed behaviours and patterns in order to either repel the predators, or get to the prey.

In addition to this, although computers are not alive yet one has to take note that the basis for life or setience that is present in our brains is also present in a computer. I'm mostly referring to nuerons and diodes. When it comes down to the very basic structure, nuerons flash electrical signals from one to another. This is the same for computers, with exceptions of one diode to another. Although computers are not complex or powerfull enough to simulate the complex interactions of even a single nueron, the truth of the matter is that they are not powerful enough yet. Once computers become powerfull and complex enough, their is a very, very high possibility that it will initially develop at the very least, an animal-like primitive behaviour. The only difference here is that like us, there has to be some precedent or need for setience for it to evolve. For humanity setience probably came about as a need for survival - it would be unknown as to why setience would come out for computers, but to simply dismiss it off-hand is a very bad mistake.

[Singh]

Originally posted by Stealth

also, we're not talking about how computers 'developed' over time.  if i buy a PI with 64 MB of RAM, five years ago, will it now be a P4 3.2 GHZ with 4 GB DDR?  No it won't.  that's the point.  it didn't evolve on its own, and (more importantly.  the whole point of me bringing it out): it was created.  

Again, in essence, you are right, yet partially wrong.

Computers ARE creating computers today, especially in factories and labs. A significant percentage of the production process has now become automated and under the control of other computers. Although it does require human intervention, how long will such a situation last? How long will be it before the entire production line would be automated? In such a case, would not a computer be said that it was reproducing itself (albiet, only via a third party)? Its similar to certain flowers, which are capable of reproducing, but only with the help of bees and other insects that land on it to transfer pollen. It definately is a living thing, but it depends on others for it's reproduction.

[Bobboau]

ok, computers aren't alive, they lack the critical ability to reproduce themselves needed for evolution, a compatison can be made if you think of humans as being part of there roproductive system, but it's more of a metaphore than serius reality.

relitivity has conditions that must be met in order for it to be valid, as long as you stay within the conditions relitivity it's predictions have never failed to be acurate.

now you all say that "what started life" or "who made the big bang" or some other such questions, I ask you;
what makes you think it was God?

[Singh]

Originally posted by Bobboau
ok, computers aren't alive, they lack the critical ability to reproduce themselves needed for evolution, a compatison can be made if you think of humans as being part of there roproductive system, but it's more of a metaphore than serius reality.

You are completely right on this.

However, I still think this is the reality for now. In the future, it may not be the same situation or as easy to define.

[leaves thread, realizing he's not contributing much to the topic]

[Ford Prefect]

now you all say that "what started life" or "who made the big bang" or some other such questions, I ask you;
what makes you think it was God?

Or, more specifically, on what grounds can one argue that this idea should be taught in public schools? Unless there is a reason that scientists should factor the idea of "intelligent design" into their studies of the origin of life, it is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one. I'm sure that most religious people here would argue that a god who could be scientifically studied would cease to be god.

[Ace]

Originally posted by TrashMan
ID tells more of the ORIGIN of things, not exactly how things happened.

Funny thing is, I think you hit the head on the nail of what you shrubs are actually saying:

"Hallowed are the Orii, let Origin show the way!"

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma
Aldo you're falling into the trap of arguing for evolution. I could point out errors in the logic too but for once I don't want to debate evolution. We spend too much time defending evolution. We don't need to. Evolution is scientifically accepted. Those who don't accept it have renounced science anyway so giving them scientific arguments makes no sense.  

You're exactly right, of course.   I'm just a glutton for punishment; in the other sense, of course, any debate over arguing 'for' evolution will inevitably lead to the same conclusion; there is no evidence supporting ID.

Originally posted by Stealth
And no one here has stopped to think "Hey wait a minute, maybe the 'big bang' of the universe suddenly coming into existence was when God created it"?

Of course they have.  But the inevitable conclusion would be that settling upon that answer would be ignoring the question.  There is no proof or even evidence of (a) God.  That applies to Zeus, Thor, or Quetzalcoatl as well as the modern day religions.  The basis for God creating the universe is the same as it being knitted by the holy spaghetti monster.

People can assume that if they want, but it's completely implausible as a serious scientific theory.  There can be no unknowables in science if we wish to actually understand this universe; only things we have still to learn.

Originally posted by Stealth

it's dodgy because there's no true answer that voids it.  it's always there.  give me a reasonable explanation, and the "dodgy" argument will disappear.

It's an arguement chosen to have no voidable answer.  There's no evidence that disproves the Loch Ness monster either.  Nor is there any way to disprove that I am in fact God Almighty.  Now worship me.

Originally posted by Stealth

also, we're not talking about how computers 'developed' over time.  if i buy a PI with 64 MB of RAM, five years ago, will it now be a P4 3.2 GHZ with 4 GB DDR?  No it won't.  that's the point.  it didn't evolve on its own, and (more importantly.  the whole point of me bringing it out): it was created.

I've enlarged the part of YOUR argument which, in essence, actually contradicts itself.  NOTE that you didn't say "in the same way computers have evolved over time"... they were developed.  you said it yourself in your own argument.  just as something developed life, so something (or someone in this case) develops computers.  end of story.

You've completely missed the point.  The point is the analogy of technological development to biological development; the difference between the two is that one is known to be human driven, and the other is known (the evidence is essentially conclusive) to be driven by mutation.  In both cases, we have selection processes; human evaluation for technology, environmental processes (natural selection) for evolution.

What you failed to understand, is that computer technology is not a single machine.  A single machine is assembled by a human as in your PC example.  An animal is assembled, by the action of reproduction, by it's parents.

Likewise, computer technology is modified by human experimentation.  Animal or plant characteristics are modified by mutation and selection.

In both cases we have sufficient evidence to point at the cause of these modifications.  Human intervention, and mutation.  Note that word; evidence.

I'll remind you what it means;
# facts that indicate whether or not something is true; proof.

Known facts supporting the theory of ID; 0
Known facts that not only support but help further develop the theory of evolution; thousands (if not millions)

Ability of ID to interpret factual contradiction/new facts; none (not scientific theory, faith based)
Ability of evolution to incorporate factual contradiction/new facts; scientific theory; constantly re-assessed to incorporate new information

Originally posted by Stealth

... ok..... a theory or view that some parts of nature/life show to have been designed (at least in part) by some higher entity, pre-existing intelligence, etc. as opposed to other theories.

How did that pre-existing intelligence emerge?  
Where and when did it originate?  
What defines which parts are modified by that entity?  
What evidence is there that such an entity exists?  
How does that entity manipulate natural design/life?  
Is this entity omnipotent?  
If so, how does that explain design defects (such as the human intestine or whale thumbs, etc)?  
If not, how can it affect all life?
Does that entity have role affecting mutations?  
Are all mutations down to that entity?  
Which parts of life have been modified, and which not?  
Why do mass (or otherwise) extinctions occur?
How can this theory be tested?
How are modifications created/caused?
what observable evidence is there to validate the proposal of such a theory as science?
(etc)

Belief, not scientific theory.  Keep it out the science class; put it in RE if that bit of the bible (or Koran, Guru Granth Sahib, etc) isn't already covered there.

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by Bobboau
now you all say that "what started life" or "who made the big bang" or some other such questions, I ask you;
what makes you think it was God?

Hmm, tough question,

It was ether Science that broke it's own laws,

A Warlock who split the boundries of space and time using magic.

A Robot who using a time machine came back with some kind of uber mass creating bomb.

Or a All powerful, Omni present God who created everything with his hands and set everything in order.

But, I'm not gonna go i depth why I really Know, since you allready probley know that part.