PDA

View Full Version : Let's talk Intelligent Design


OldHubcap
09-30-2005, 05:47 AM
Let’s talk about Intelligent Design. Not about whether or not it’s a valid scientific theory or whether or not it should be taught in public schools, but the way it has traditionally been discussed for decades, in informal discussions by scientists and students of science powered by alcohol or caffeine.

What are your favorite versions of Intelligent Design and why?

Some of the more prominent ideas are;

Intelligent designer as almighty and powerful god as described the Bible. 6 days to create everything, Wham, Bam, Thankya Ma’am and its done.

Intelligent designer as an almighty and powerful god who with plenty of time on his or her hands hurls a single miniscule spark into the void and watches it create everything we know and see today over an immense stretch of time.

Intelligent designer who is very very powerful and smart but not all knowing, i.e., universe as gigantic experiment to find the answer to some question.

Intelligent designer as programmer, i.e. we are all participants in the ultimate video game.

Intelligent designer who is merely the builder of life in the universe but not the creator of the universe itself, in other words a local god who is simply responsible for our neck of the woods. He or she may have to answer to somebody else.

Intelligent designer who is not the creator but simply a far more advanced being that likes to screw with us (see “Q” from Star Trek, TNG)

Intelligent designer as local god, according to some interpretations of quantum theory, the universe could simply be a random quantum fluctuation. This means there could be many universes with differing physical constants and laws so there could be a god per universe.

If you have a pet one, toss in. and let’s have some fun.


:thankyou

Genie
09-30-2005, 05:49 AM
"Intelligent designer as an almighty and powerful God who with plenty of time on his or her hands hurls a single miniscule spark into the void and watches it create everything we know and see today over an immense stretch of time."

I think this is closer to the truth.

BunnyBun
09-30-2005, 05:54 AM
Let's see if anyone else actually knows any of these theories, and hasn't been just throwing the term around to get points in the creation-in-schools debate.

I HOPE it's not Q running everything. Man, is he annoying.

i.e., universe as gigantic experiment to find the answer to some question.

Otherwise known as the mice in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

:thumbsup

The most fascinating one is the quantum theory one, to me. That we could be the result of a randomized set of circumstances and that there could be many universes. I think we get tripped up by the term "universe" just because it's supposed to mean everything out there. So the limitations of the word imply that there couldn't be any other universe but this one. But I think there are many.

Oops, my phone is ringing. Back to this universe for now.

sear
09-30-2005, 06:01 AM
"the way it has traditionally been discussed for decades" OH
I'm familiar with it exclusively as a religious concept.
In my opinion the ideas presented as I.D. are thinly disguised religion; presented as science by proselytizing religionists; mainly Christians.

In fact, I don't recall hearing the term "Intelligent Design" until after SCOTUS ruled against conspicuous group prayer in Public Schools.

Lyn Is Snide
09-30-2005, 06:03 AM
Ermmmm....I personally think the "alien intervention" theory is more valid than any other. :clap

:ohwell ......Well, it would explain the missing link thing, wouldn't it?!! :hmph

BunnyBun
09-30-2005, 06:04 AM
Physicists, philsophers, caffeine-wired college students in cafes, drunken folk, writers, have been discussing the origins of the universe probably since humans started walking upright and talking in more than grunts.

The term itself might be newer but the concept is not. Of late the term has been taken mostly in a religious context, I would agree, in the debate about Christianity in schools. But it's hardly a new concept.

Alter the question if it works better for you. How did the universe form?

Lyn Is Snide
09-30-2005, 06:47 AM
How did the universe form?

I don't wanna' talk about that, dammit! :tantrum I wanna' talk about aliens. :rahrah

OldHubcap
09-30-2005, 07:20 AM
For Lyn,
The Eric Von Daniken theory of Intelligent Design, that life was brought here by alien intervention.

:clap

BunnyBun
09-30-2005, 07:22 AM
Hey, why not. It's no more provable than any of the other intelligent design theories.

:thumbsup

Lyn Is Snide
09-30-2005, 07:41 AM
The Eric Von Daniken theory of Intelligent Design
:clap :rahrah :thumbsup :amen

:thankyou

BunnyBun
09-30-2005, 08:51 AM
It's interesting that for all the term Intelligent Design got tossed around in the Creation-in-schools discussion, no one seems to be able to have a discussion of the theory itself! What's that all about I wonder. Don't want to talk about it, or don't know what you're talking about?

:file

Buckeye1sid
09-30-2005, 09:57 AM
You guys just don't know me at all. ID

StrayStar
09-30-2005, 09:58 AM
For Lyn,
The Eric Von Daniken theory of Intelligent Design, that life was brought here by alien intervention.

:clap


Ahhh... yes, the "aliens as Johnny Appleseed" theory but then, what/who/Who "created" the aliens?

TwiggyAZ
09-30-2005, 10:14 AM
A hundred years ago when I was studying theology I bought this book entitled "The Origin Of Conciousness In The Breakdown Of The Bicamiral Mind", which attempted to explain when the brain came to conciousness and people decided there were gods. I don't remember the lot of the book, but I remember ever since reading that book that I was for evolution and leaned toward the scientific world much more than the faithful world.

I think Intelligent Design's meaning depends on who you are talking to. The religious community(ie God), or the scientific community(ie evolution). They both could argue their Intelligent Design.

I personally believe there are other's in the universe with a conscience and that one way or another we will all be given the answer in our own way.

WOW - that's the deepest I've gotten in a long long time!!!

I like the alien theory, but not the illegal ones! :D

OldHubcap
09-30-2005, 10:21 AM
Ahhh... yes, the "aliens as Johnny Appleseed" theory but then, what/who/Who "created" the aliens?

StrayStar, your question brings up an interesting point about Intelligent Design scenarios. Is has been pointed out that if one attributes the universe to a god, where did that god come from and under what conditions does he/she/it exist? A good curiosity would not stop at god.

Nice statement Twiggy! :thumbsup

Poodles
09-30-2005, 10:50 AM
Q&A: intelligent design

Anna Seward looks at the theories behind the ongoing test case in a US court over the right to teach intelligent design alongside evolution

Friday September 30, 2005


What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design is a movement that says that life is so complex that it must have been designed by a higher intelligent being, and not via the Darwinian theory of natural selection - widely accepted by scientists. Followers argue that the scientific community is not as convinced by evolution as we are led to believe, and urge that we are more critical in our consideration of evolution.
So why is the theory at the centre of a court case?
Proponents want intelligent design to be included in science lessons alongside evolution. They claim that schoolchildren are led to accept evolution as fact, and that evolution should be introduced as only one of several theories alongside intelligent design.

Intelligent design was recently made part of the science curriculum in Dover County, Pennsylvania. Teachers are required to read out a statement before teaching evolution that tells students that evolution is not factual, but a problematic theory. The statement alerts students to gaps in evolution theory, and suggests intelligent design as a viable alternative.

The policy is being challenged by a group of parents on the grounds that it is a religious dogma, not science. The supreme court ruled in 1987 that creationism could not be taught alongside evolution. The parents are arguing that intelligent design is a version of creationism, and that the Dover Area School District is therefore violating the constitutional separation between church and state by including it in science lessons.

Why is this trial such a big deal?
The trial is the first major legal assault on evolution in 18 years, and the first legal test of intelligent design. The decision will be very important for American education as it could decide how evolution is taught in their state schools for years to come. Scientists are hoping that the notion of intelligent design as a scientific discipline will be permanently destroyed as a result of this trial, but if the ruling goes in favour of the intelligent design advocates, it will act as a green light for other school districts to introduce the teaching of theories such as intelligent design.

Surely intelligent design is another name for creationism?
Intelligent design does share a number of similarities with creationism, and the phrase appears in several examples of creationist literature. They both argue that evolution is unable to account for the vast array of species, and both promote the concept of a designer.

But there are fundamental differences. First, intelligent design accepts that the earth is millions of years old, not adhering to the creationist, biblically derived argument that the earth was created some 6,000 years ago.

Second, intelligent design accepts that species do undergo small amounts of change, whereas creationists believe that all forms of life were created in their current form at the time of the earth's creation. However intelligent design claims that these changes are the result of a guiding hand, not the result of random genetic mutations and natural selection.

Intelligent design also differs from creationism by not specifically naming the creator as God. Proponents use this as justification that their argument is not religious. However despite avoiding making a public association, almost all statements directed at supporters of intelligent design declare openly that the designer is believed to be God.

What evidence is there to support intelligent design?
A number of academics support the intelligent design argument, maintaining that it is soundly supported by scientific disciplines. They argue that intelligent design provides empirical proof for the existence of a super-intelligent being, and that this proof is freely detectable in nature itself.

However it is very difficult to find definitive evidence in support of the concept, since it has no theoretical background, and the movement is fuelled more by belief than by experimentally derived proof.

What are the arguments against intelligent design?
Critics argue that intelligent design cannot be classed as science. It cannot be tested, and is therefore merely a philosophical concept. It lacks the necessary theoretical basis from which hypotheses can be tested and is therefore unable to provide any basis for new directions of research. As a result, it has made no contribution to agriculture, forestry, pathology, or any of the other areas of biology that evolutionary theory has provided insight into.

Intelligent design is frequently accused of following a sociopolitical agenda rather than being interested in scientific issues. Critics argue that it is merely a poor attempt to disguise a creationist agenda, and to sneak religion into science lessons.

Intelligent design simply aims to fill in existing gaps in evolutionary theories, such as gaps in the fossil record, with speculative beliefs. As critics point out, just because our current understanding of evolution hasn't given us the answers to everything so far, that doesn't mean that we should turn to intelligent design instead.

Many of the arguments used to defend intelligent design are directly related to creationist arguments that have previously been refuted. Evolution theory, on the other hand, has repeatedly generated predictions that have proven to be true and that have never been disproved by other scientific theories. Rather than attempt to discredit the scientific evidence that contradicts their concept, followers of intelligent design simply choose to ignore it.

What does flying spaghetti have to do with any of this?
A recent development has been the growth of so-called Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, a satirical 'religion' created by Bobby Henderson, a physics graduate of Oregon State University. He wrote to the Kansas Board of Education in June 2005, alerting them to the many people who believe that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, and demanding that science lessons be split three-way: "One third time for intelligent design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."

Henderson's point is that the concept of a Flying Spaghetti Monster is every bit as rational a concept as intelligent design. He has received sympathetic reponses from members of the board who also oppose intelligent design, as well as attracting overwhelming support from 'followers' all over the world.





Related articles
27.09.2005: Parents challenge US 'intelligent design' teaching
26.09.2005: US school's evolution teaching goes on trial

Background
26.09.2005: Creation debate that aimed to eradicate classroom bigotry

StrayStar
09-30-2005, 11:00 AM
StrayStar, your question brings up an interesting point about Intelligent Design scenarios. Is has been pointed out that if one attributes the universe to a god, where did that god come from and under what conditions does he/she/it exist? A good curiosity would not stop at god.



A long, long time ago someone I was discussing this with said - and I don't know what the offical theroy name for it is - that "maybe we and our "universe" is just part of the molecular structure of some other being's frying pan in their universe. And perhaps that being and it's "universe" is just part of the molecular structure of... "

It is something I've thought on for years, and it's as good a theroy, and as proveable, as any others.

But, it always comes down to where does it end? Where's the #1 "frying pan" , and who/Who/what created it?

What was "nothing" contained in before there was "something" and where did the #1 being get his/her/it's start?


But this is straying a bit from the topic at hand...

OldHubcap
09-30-2005, 11:53 AM
I don't think you are straying from the topic at all.

But, it always comes down to where does it end? Where's the #1 "frying pan" , and who/Who/what created it?

Maybe it has no ending. What if there is infinite number of frying pans? In other words there is no first frying pan, no matter how far and how long you look there is always another frying pan.

Sometime ago, Discover magazine had an article about how the String Theory could lead one to postulate multiple universes connected to each other by the higher dimensions that we couldn’t perceive. Each "universe" would be called a brane and whole idea is referred to as brane theory. There would be an infinite number of these branes spreading at never ending distance throughout reality. Occasionally two branes would touch and thus end the universes of those branes but upon separating, the universes would begin anew and that this has been going on infinitely in the past and will continue infinitely into the future.

Maybe this is a relative to the frying pan theory.

:)

BunnyBun
09-30-2005, 12:22 PM
One of my favorite passages in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is the one about how a fleet of aliens (from somewhere or other, but not the Vogons) had big plans to conquer the universe and/or Earth and they rallied all their ships and flew to Earth whereupon they were accidentally swallowed by a small dog.

There is also a Simpsons episode where Lisa accidentally creates a whole world in a petri dish, and is viewed as God by the people who live in there.

It's funny, but it is a good illustration of scale and the idea that what might seem vast to one group is infinitely small to another. How do we know that our universe is really so big? It could be teensy, unimportant, a growth of mold in a petri dish, small enough to be swallowed by a small dog, because we can't perceive of size after a certain point. What we call the universe might be nothing at all. We might trample whole universes just walking across the yard. We might create universes by not rinsing out a juice bottle enough, so it grows mold. Who knows?

TwiggyAZ
09-30-2005, 01:48 PM
The earth could be the cell of a body, everything on earth the components of the cell...it's mind boggling. It's just no wonder I smoked!! :D

InfoNut
09-30-2005, 06:47 PM
If we're truly talking about intelligent design though, the theory isn't that HE/SHE/IT threw the spark that started the big bang, or ailiens seeded the earth with microbes.

They posit that organisms are much to complex to have evolved randomly or naturally, and therefore life forms must have been created more or less as we see them now.
Unlike Intelligent Design (*cough*creationism*cough*), the Theory of Evolution (through Specification) simply explains how life evolves from common ancestors. It doesn't attempt to explain the beginning of life or existance.

InfoNut

Peregrina
09-30-2005, 07:20 PM
Ever studied one of those Escher paintings of mazes and such? no matter how hard you look,there is no end and no beginning. About the time you think you've finally seen every aspect of the maze, there's another hidden inside. When I was a kid my uncle brought me this carved ball from Kuwait. beautiful thing, smelled of desert insense. there was another ball inside the first ball and you could see a third and fourth ball through the carvings. and when I moved it, I could hear at least two more balls inside those. Hakim said that no one knows how many balls are in the carving, not even the carvers. :happy

InfoNut
09-30-2005, 07:35 PM
I like the fact that there are still mysteries to be solved.
The universe has a great many secrets still.
That's what makes it fun.

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science." - A. Einstein

IN

Bleep
09-30-2005, 07:53 PM
I agree with Pergrina sort of- its the old Phoenix from the flames, Ourubrous- the snake that eats its own tail.
Or maybe its the pulsating universe, big bang, then big collapse- like some cosmic stock market

but I loved this quote
"One third time for intelligent design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."

InfoNut
09-30-2005, 08:21 PM
Personally?
I'm going FSM

Bard
09-30-2005, 09:32 PM
Intelligent designer as almighty and powerful god as described the Bible. 6 days to create everything, Wham, Bam, Thankya Ma’am and its done.

I subscribe to this truth.

Because I believe the Bible is true, as well as I believe their is a true real God that exists.

For the record, the Bible states " A day is as a thousand unto the Lord"

If that makes it anymore feasable for any to grasp, yet, My God could have spun it into existance in a second as well.

I would stake my very life upon that.

I would not even attempt to try to convince others of what I believe, for it is only spiritually discerned.



Thanks.

Bleep
10-01-2005, 09:10 AM
For the record, the Bible states " A day is as a thousand unto the Lord"
Thanks for that Bard, because I didn't recall it from my bible study days but thought it must be in there somewhere.

You can't know the mind of God, the Book says so. And time is not the same to God as it is to us.

I find absolutely no contradiction between evolution and creation as told in the old testament. I can take the bible literally, given that we simply cannot ever know the underlying assumptions from the mind of God, and so have little idea of how the story should be interpreted.

A day to God may be a billion years to us. The guys who wrote down the bible may not have included everything they heard from God- and maybe, in creating Man from the dust, God went through a few million steps first. We are all stardust, science and the bible support that. We are the top of the heap, science and the bible support that. For me, the evolutionary step from sub human to human may very well represent the exit from Eden, the emergence of true consciousness, the awareness of "right and wrong" that goes along with higher brain function.

The story is just being told from different POV's by scientists and believers. If we fight about it, this goes against the teachings in the bible, doesn't it?

InfoNut
10-01-2005, 02:39 PM
That strikes me as a bit intellectually dishonest. The bible doesn't say that god created proto-ancestors of man and allowed them to evolve. It doesn't say that he ceated all the fish in the sea, which became the lizards on land, which became the birds in the sky.
The entire arguement behind Intelligent Design is that life as we know it today is to complex to have evolved on it's own.

You could argue, I suppose, that they didn't evolve on their own, that God oversaw the evolution, and tweaked everything.

I think the Bard hit it right in the nuts when he stated

I subscribe to this truth. Because I believe the Bible is true,

Intelligent Design is a faith based theory.
It is not science.

Info :amen Nut

Bard
10-01-2005, 02:58 PM
The story is just being told from different POV's by scientists and believers. If we fight about it, this goes against the teachings in the bible, doesn't it?


?

Sorry, Im not understanding this Lori??

Peregrina
10-01-2005, 09:47 PM
read this somewheres. "when an agnostic dies, do they go to the great what-if?"

sounds good to me. what if is pretty big territory, should be lots of fun to explore. :rahrah

Bleep
10-02-2005, 09:54 AM
The bible doesn't specifically exclude these things from having happened either.

When an agnostic dies, presumably the answer to THE ULTIMATE QUESTION is revealed or not. If not, the agnostic will never know and it won't have mattered for anyone and they will have lived life the exact way they felt was right, evaluating the events of life from a deep internal place and achieving great personal satisfaction and passion from the process. If there is a God, and the agnostic has lived a benevolent life, they will be forgiven and welcomed into heaven with the rest of God's creature, as other famous questioners have been. :flowers

Bleep
10-02-2005, 09:55 AM
so, uh, I wonder , is this thread getting pithy enough for those who complained initially?

Buckeye1sid
10-02-2005, 09:58 AM
Well, that was the jist of what SHE told me when last I spoke with Her. I know She's a Her because everyone was a her for the first two weeks after conception, that's why guys have nipples.

Peregrina
10-02-2005, 09:25 PM
The bible doesn't specifically exclude these things from having happened either.

When an agnostic dies, presumably the answer to THE ULTIMATE QUESTION is revealed or not. If not, the agnostic will never know and it won't have mattered for anyone and they will have lived life the exact way they felt was right, evaluating the events of life from a deep internal place and achieving great personal satisfaction and passion from the process. If there is a God, and the agnostic has lived a benevolent life, they will be forgiven and welcomed into heaven with the rest of God's creature, as other famous questioners have been. :flowers


oh, doc, sigh, I like the way you post.
actually, the last part of your post, about if there is a god, the non-believer will be forgiven, is almosts verbatim what I told my mom when she said she was afraid I was going to Hell.

Buckeye1sid
10-02-2005, 09:26 PM
I'm afraid there isn't much hope if you are a matriculating thespian.

Peregrina
10-02-2005, 09:50 PM
I'm afraid there isn't much hope if you are a matriculating thespian.

well, there went my last hope for salvation. do you think they will give me time off for bad acting? the devil made me do it? it wasn't my idea?

Buckeye1sid
10-02-2005, 09:52 PM
Nope!

TwiggyAZ
10-03-2005, 09:35 AM
that's why guys have nipples.

A good point actually, and possibly an arguement for evolution. Why would men have these if they were never going to need them for any reason?

We see in many other species via evolution how they have remnants of what they were into what they are adapting to at the day and age.

Bard
10-04-2005, 10:56 AM
Updated: 12:37 PM EDT
Cardinal Backs Evolution and 'Intelligent Design'

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051004120809990010

By Tom Heneghan, Reuters

PARIS (Oct. 4) - A senior Roman Catholic cardinal seen as a champion of "intelligent design" against Darwin's explanation of life has described the theory of evolution as "one of the very great works of intellectual history."

Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn said he could believe both in divine creation and in evolution because one was a question of religion and the other of science, two realms that complimented rather than contradicted each other.

Schoenborn's view, presented in a lecture published by his office on Tuesday, tempered earlier statements that seemed to ally the Church with United States conservatives campaigning against the teaching of evolution in public schools.

A court in Pennsylvania is now hearing a suit brought by parents against a school district that teaches intelligent design -- the view that life is so complex some higher being must have designed it -- alongside evolution in biology class.

"Without a doubt, Darwin pulled off quite a feat with his main work and it remains one of the very great works of intellectual history," Schoenborn declared in a lecture in St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna on Sunday.

"I see no problem combining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, under one condition -- that the limits of a scientific theory are respected," he said.

Science studies what is observable and scientists overstep the boundaries of their discipline when they conclude evolution proves there was no creator, said the cardinal, 60, a top Church doctrinal expert and close associate of Pope Benedict.

"It is fully reasonable to assume some sense or design even if the scientific method demands restrictions that shut out this question," said the cardinal.

Just a Misunderstanding?

Schoenborn, who ranked among the papal hopefuls last April, caused an uproar in the United States last July with a New York Times article that seemed to say the Church no longer accepted evolution and backed intelligent design.

Proponents of intelligent design argue that Darwin's natural selection theory is flawed and alternatives should be taught.

Scientists reject this as a disguised form of Creationism, the literal belief in Creation as described in the Bible and barred by the U.S. Supreme Court from being taught in public schools.

Even Catholic scientists, including chief Vatican astronomer Rev. George Coyne S.J., contested Schoenborn's view.

In his lecture, Schoenborn said his article had led to misunderstandings and sometimes polemics. "Maybe one did not express oneself clearly enough or thoughts were not clear enough," he said. "Such misunderstandings can be cleared up."

Schoenborn said he believed God created "the things of the world" but did not explain how a divine will to bring about mankind would have influenced its actual evolution.

"They were so to speak let free into their own existence," he said.


10/04/05 12:06 ET

OldHubcap
10-04-2005, 11:08 AM
Schoenborn's recent statement is reasonable and is consistent with what the Catholic Church traditionally views. Remember the Catholic Church also accepts the Bing Bang theory in Cosmology which also rubs certain fundamentalist Christians the wrong way.

InfoNut
10-04-2005, 11:29 AM
Science studies what is observable and scientists overstep the boundaries of their discipline when they conclude evolution proves there was no creator, said the cardinal, 60, a top Church doctrinal expert and close associate of Pope Benedict.




AAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah :banghead

Say it with me:
Scientists are not trying to prove that God (creator) does not exist.

Evolutional theory does not try to prove that God (creator) does not exist.

I know of no peer reviewed scientific papers or studies that claim to have proved there was no creator.

Scientists are not out to "get" Christians.

:thud


Info(disheartened)Nut

OldHubcap
10-04-2005, 11:39 AM
So true InfoNut, scientists are not out to get Christians or any other religion.

As matter of fact, no self-respecting scientist would even think of trying to prove or disprove the existence of god. That has to do with science being limited to the observable universe and god being transcendental, i.e. beyond the universe.

Some religious fundamentalist seem convinced that science is some sort of anti-religion conspiracy. Which is sad and thus giving rise to all these court actions we see today. Within the discipline of science there is no controversy about evolution and to try to teach intelligent design due to controversy within science to high school kids in science class is to teach them a lie.

Intelligent Design is a philosophical belief, and if done properly lots of fun to talk about. :)

skenzer01
10-04-2005, 11:57 AM
we were endowed with great powers of logic, intuition, and intelligence. and we created a god (or gods) in our image to satisfy our own superiority. why does our god have to have intelligence, like us? we NEED a god to satisfy our great powers. so we create gods of the greatest intelligence.

the hippo and the elephant were endowed with great girth, and less intelligence and logic than us. they don't need a god to satisfy their logic and intuition, because they were burdened only with girth, not curiosity. their god should only be of massive omniscient girth, should they ever need one. but a gift of girth does not intrinsically search or need to fill a curiosity of god. unlike intelligence and logic, which has a need to fill.

religion is mental masturbation. all of it. you have an urge and a need to calm your superior intelligence and inquizitiveness. you logic things out one way, and another culture satisfies thier gift of intelligence and curiosity in another way. not to say mental masturbation is all bad, but it is fruitless.

you are no more going to heaven or hell, because you have conceived of it in your mind, than the hippo, elephant, or ant. you are just another being on the planet burdened not with girth, but with something more sinister: thought.

Bard
10-04-2005, 12:10 PM
:file

OldHubcap
10-04-2005, 12:16 PM
Another great theory for Intelligent Design is Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, Intelligent Designer as an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster. All evidence pointing towards evolution was intentionally planted by this being.

:)

skenzer01
10-04-2005, 12:19 PM
my sister in law sent me the link for the fsm. and i'm wondering where the church is? i'm dying to join.

Buckeye1sid
10-04-2005, 12:29 PM
Hubcap, you WERE right, but I saw the danger and promptly ate him! Ummmmm, spaghetti.

thesunnyone
10-04-2005, 12:40 PM
I hope I can draw a sensible comparison here: If we teach children about the KKK, must we give equal time to their view, as if it has credibility? Pretending there is another 'side' to the evolution question makes as much sense as pretending there is a good side to the Klan. It is all false equavalence. Would a scientist plead for equal time in the pulpit? Why are some people of faith desperate for approval from a discipline they reject? Leonard Pitts says he saw a sign at a church in Maine: 'Reason is the enemy of faith.' That's pathetic.

skenzer01
10-04-2005, 12:41 PM
we are so fucking small minded and yet superior! god is indeed molded in our image! because man "creates" a toaster oven, certainly god must have "created" us the same way!!

idiocy.

InfoNut
10-04-2005, 01:43 PM
<snip>
Leonard Pitts says he saw a sign at a church in Maine: 'Reason is the enemy of faith.' That's pathetic.
I'm not sure I'd go with pathetic, but it is true. I know several scientists and skeptics that believe in some sort of Diety or another. Many of them will freely admit that they suspend logic and reason in that one area, and they seem okay with that.

IN

skenzer01
10-04-2005, 03:14 PM
if you search deeply enough, you'll find that faith is cyclical. you will find yourself back at the hippo. you will realize that the only difference between your own salvation and the salvation of the hippo is that you were doomed to worry about it and the hippo wasn't.

Buckeye1sid
10-04-2005, 04:09 PM
I knew the hippo, the Hippo was a friend of mine, and you, sir, are no Hippo!

genuinebandit
10-04-2005, 05:31 PM
I have concluded after a few minutes of considering this subject that the best intelligent design must be the one of the animal with the least brain capability, since it is obvious that no unintelligent surviver like myself would be willing to tolerate the incredible amount of bulshit that goes into anything normally intelligent.

C A

InfoNut
10-04-2005, 05:40 PM
I have concluded after a few minutes of considering this subject that the best intelligent design must be the one of the animal with the least brain capability, since it is obvious that no unintelligent surviver like myself would be willing to tolerate the incredible amount of bulshit that goes into anything normally intelligent.

C A
Scary part is... I almost understood part of that.
Maybe
A little
On second thought... Nah, I'm lost.

Buckeye1sid
10-04-2005, 06:03 PM
I'm proud to say that I understood absolutely nothing of it, therefore, logic dictates that I disagree!

Peregrina
10-04-2005, 08:58 PM
have to agree with Skenzer about - well, mental masturbation just sounds disgusting, sorry, but the thought is right on. revamp the whole chicken and egg idea - which came first: a god who created his chosen people in his image, or the people, who created a god in their image?

genuinebandit
10-05-2005, 10:04 AM
^have to agree with Skenzer about - well, mental masturbation just sounds disgusting, sorry, but the thought is right on. revamp the whole chicken and egg idea - which came first: a god who created his chosen people in his image, or the people, who created a god in their image?^

There is evidence that first came the people. Among them came the peabrains. Then came the peabrains, once more, fully claded as peabrains, and they saw the world and said it was bad without some major conceptual screwup. So in more than one way, first came the people and then came the people and the people knew diddly shit about anything else. And curiously, the are still coming. LOL

C A

Jannilu
10-05-2005, 02:41 PM
if you search deeply enough, you'll find that faith is cyclical. you will find yourself back at the hippo. you will realize that the only difference between your own salvation and the salvation of the hippo is that you were doomed to worry about it and the hippo wasn't.

:amen
I wanna be a hippo!

genuinebandit
10-05-2005, 07:32 PM
Although there can be no general intelligences except those implied in true theories of science, is it so hard to get that any design whatsoever must possess lawfulness and that it is in that connection always intelligent, whereby I would conclude that the idea of calling anything intelligent design is a stupidity springing from failure to cognize (no re, fuck re, once is enough, LOL) that most bad designs are nontheless absolutely intelligent. A piece of shit bursting into neurons as a result of constipation without laxative resources causes this idea that there are designs that by being intelligent (which they all must be) are better? Those who donīt get it should do some true acting. LOL

Look at beauty, for example. It is only in the eye of the beholder when the beholder is ugly, dorks.

C A

InfoNut
10-05-2005, 07:55 PM
Although there can be no general intelligences except those implied in true theories of science, is it so hard to get that any design whatsoever must possess lawfulness and that it is in that connection always intelligent, whereby I would conclude that the idea of calling anything intelligent design is a stupidity springing from failure to cognize (no re, fuck re, once is enough, LOL) that most bad designs are nontheless absolutely intelligent. A piece of shit bursting into neurons as a result of constipation without laxative resources causes this idea that there are designs that by being intelligent (which they all must be) are better? Those who donīt get it should do some true acting. LOL

Look at beauty, for example. It is only in the eye of the beholder when the beholder is ugly, dorks.

C A

I'll donate a dollar to anyone who can explan to me what this gentlebeing just said.

Info(Low IQ)Nut

skenzer01
10-05-2005, 08:03 PM
the gentlebeing said nothing at all.

you can send the dollar to my paypal account.

InfoNut
10-05-2005, 08:14 PM
Deal!
I thought maybe I was suffering a stroke, and momentarily lost command of written english.
It's like a random word generator was used to create a post...

IN

skenzer01
10-05-2005, 08:19 PM
it's called "speaking in tongues"

or,

"being too stoned"

Bard
10-05-2005, 08:28 PM
Deal!
I thought maybe I was suffering a stroke, and momentarily lost command of written english.
It's like a random word generator was used to create a post...

IN
:lolup

Speaking in tongues

:lolup

Trying to figure out cafolini :laugh

genuinebandit
10-06-2005, 12:46 PM
I'll donate a dollar to anyone who can explan to me what this gentlebeing just said.

Info(Low IQ)Nut

You are correct about having to be gentle to grasp that. As with all good fiction, truth, there is no explanation. Explanations are an obsolete human vestige. La philosophie est morte. Seek knowledge and imagination. The explanations of the wise are past tense. If you donīt grasp that, you are at least sincere in what you said. LOL. Donīt know what that has to do with grasping, though. Not here to be understood. Understanding is impossible to avoid.

C A

skenzer01
10-06-2005, 12:49 PM
i understand you completely, folini. does that blow your mind?

skenzer01
10-06-2005, 12:50 PM
by the way, wapner's on at six.

wapner at six.

yeah.

genuinebandit
10-06-2005, 05:24 PM
i understand you completely, folini. does that blow your mind?

Not at all. Did you hear what I said...impossible to avoid. Grasping is a different matter. If you said that you grasp it, it will not blow my mind, but it will make me feel good. Thanks.

C A

Jannilu
10-06-2005, 05:56 PM
by the way, wapner's on at six.

wapner at six.

yeah.

"I'm definitely not wearing my underwear"

http://clark.colgate.edu/doslander/rainman/rm50.wav

.....gotta love Raymond.

Bleep
10-07-2005, 07:07 AM
awww, I knew as soon as the Bandit showed up, the whole thread would degenerate
But welcome back CAF, you bring a certain air with you. :tiphat