"More and more scientists are starting to believe in intelligent design."

[PowerEngineer]

Define the existence of evolution or prove any kind of existence for evolution.

Shouldn't have a thread about "intelligent design" without this:


http://video.pbs.org/video/980040807/


()

 

[Fritzo]

When has there ever been "nothing"?

Actually, you can get something from nothing.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/

 

[John Connor]

Those that are so bold as to say there isn't intelligent design basing it on what we scientifically know now and say it doesn't pass the muster of the scientific method are forgetting the most important science of them all. Biblical archaeology. Jesus most certainly existed and the Romans DID crucify people on a cross. Whether Jesus was the son of god we can't prove. The one's that say God doesn't exist are no better than the ones saying he does. You have no prof and this debate will go on and on and on and on like the fucking Energizer bunny.

There should be a poll for all those that say intelligent design must pass the scientific method: Have you ever been to church? Have both sides of knowledge and then make a hypothesis on whether intelligent design is real or not. I made my decision and that is my belief and I am in tilted to that belief.

"Is there a plan, purpose or reason to our existence? Or will we pass as those before us in the sixth extinction?"

 

[Red Squirrel]

It makes sense to me. As scientists continue to dive deeper into the complexity of life and the universe it becomes quite apparent it was not just a random set of processes that caused it. Things can be triggered by other things but as you go up that chain the question always remains, what started that process?

 

[IronWing]

Those that are so bold as to say there isn't intelligent design basing it on what we scientifically know now and say it doesn't pass the muster of the scientific method are forgetting the most important science of them all. Biblical archaeology. Jesus most certainly existed and the Romans DID crucify people on a cross. Whether Jesus was the son of god we can't prove. The one's that say God doesn't exist are no better than the ones saying he does. You have no prof and this debate will go on and on and on and on like the fucking Energizer bunny.

There should be a poll for all those that say intelligent design must pass the scientific method: Have you ever been to church? Have both sides of knowledge and then make a hypothesis on whether intelligent design is real or not. I made my decision and that is my belief and I am in tilted to that belief.

"Is there a plan, purpose or reason to our existence? Or will we pass as those before us in the sixth extinction?"

JFK was assassinated via bullet to the head. Napoleon's troops fired bullets. Whether Napoleon assassinated JFK we can't prove but I have my belief and am tilted toward that belief.

 

[positivedoppler]

more and more something is starting to something something of somethign...

 

[PlanetJosh]

So far no "The Force" created the universe jokes yet as a compromise between ID and evolution/big bang. Someone usually brings it up in threads like this. (it's the 'May The Force Be With You' thing from the movies.)

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Actually, you can get something from nothing.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/

I realize I'm quibbling, but it's my interpretation that such phenomena really only serve to illustrate the fact that it is impossible for there to be "nothing." In other words, it isn't so much "something from nothing" as it is "it doesn't seem like 'nothing' is possible."

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It makes sense to me. As scientists continue to dive deeper into the complexity of life and the universe it becomes quite apparent it was not just a random set of processes that caused it. Things can be triggered by other things but as you go up that chain the question always remains, what started that process?

Where is the start?

 

[Ruptga]

JFK was assassinated via bullet to the head. Napoleon's troops fired bullets. Whether Napoleon assassinated JFK we can't prove but I have my belief and am tilted toward that belief.

LOL

:awe:

Thanks to whoever linked this comic site(Ruptga?). I've been reading it off and on all day.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2230#comic

Yeah that was probably me. Zach Weiner is both my muse and who I go to when I want to illustrate a point but don't feel like pounding out a short essay, and lately every other thread I've been in reminds me of one or two of his works. Of course, I use the word "works" somewhat loosely.

Ohh, this one's relevant too.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2223#comic

 

[Iron Woode]

I have been waiting for speeddemon to expound upon Irreducible Complexity.

The difference between the scientific method and religious nonsense is that science will alter and change the way things are taught as new evidence comes along that either supports or debunks it. Religion, on the other hand, refuses to accept reality and instead thrusts its lower lip out and stamps its feet whining that no one is paying attention to it. Go ahead religion, hold your breath while demanding your own way. So cute.

 

[Paratus]

Those that are so bold as to say there isn't intelligent design basing it on what we scientifically know now and say it doesn't pass the muster of the scientific method are forgetting the most important science of them all. Biblical archaeology. Jesus most certainly existed and the Romans DID crucify people on a cross. Whether Jesus was the son of god we can't prove. The one's that say God doesn't exist are no better than the ones saying he does. You have no prof and this debate will go on and on and on and on like the fucking Energizer bunny.

There should be a poll for all those that say intelligent design must pass the scientific method: Have you ever been to church? Have both sides of knowledge and then make a hypothesis on whether intelligent design is real or not. I made my decision and that is my belief and I am in tilted to that belief.

"Is there a plan, purpose or reason to our existence? Or will we pass as those before us in the sixth extinction?"

Got it. So you know it fails but you'll trust in your belief instead.

Which ones you:

Also make sure you follow your belief please:

 

[uclaLabrat]

I'm drunk, I'll say it, since it's like wearing a scarlet letter:
I have a Ph. D. in chemistry, I've been a research scientist for years, and I believe in evolution. But I think Origin of the Species is the biggest pile of shit since Ancient Aliens.

What's more? It doesn't fucking matter, come up with all the explanations you want, it isn't a testable hypothesis until you can go back in time and test it, and as such, wasting time arguing about it is as much mental masturbation as science.

My biggest regret from this post is that Dr. Pizza might think less of me.

But not really, because it's intellectually honest.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Those that are so bold as to say there isn't intelligent design basing it on what we scientifically know now and say it doesn't pass the muster of the scientific method are forgetting the most important science of them all. Biblical archaeology. Jesus most certainly existed and the Romans DID crucify people on a cross. Whether Jesus was the son of god we can't prove. The one's that say God doesn't exist are no better than the ones saying he does. You have no prof and this debate will go on and on and on and on like the fucking Energizer bunny.

There should be a poll for all those that say intelligent design must pass the scientific method: Have you ever been to church? Have both sides of knowledge and then make a hypothesis on whether intelligent design is real or not. I made my decision and that is my belief and I am in tilted to that belief.

"Is there a plan, purpose or reason to our existence? Or will we pass as those before us in the sixth extinction?"

Most important science of them all? Jesus Christ...even he'd laugh his ass off at that. He'd also feel bad that people think that's the most important science since he himself would not agree at all (do you even actually know what he taught?).

You are pretending that those are equivalent arguments when they're literally not.

I don't even know WTF you're saying with the rest, but then, considering the average quality of your posts I'm not at all surprised. Not sure why there needs to be a poll, why it needs to be about ID and going to Church, but whatever. Both sides of knowledge. Um, that's kinda the crux of the argument, one side has only belief, and the other has knowledge (and has been providing, and changing said knowledge as they study it further and obtain more information). Then the believers try and pick and choose parts of the knowledge solely to discredit it, while generally exposing their lack of understanding of said knowledge and their ulterior motives. They present no knowledge of their own (although in their own minds it is, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, which is the entire point of science and why their argument has no basis in or reason to be taught alongside it).

No one is saying you don't. That's not the problem. The problem is people that are as ignorant as you (possibly even more so) then trying to force those beliefs on other people. But because, they don't even understand just how ignorant they really are, but instead of them going, wow, I really don't know, they go, I don't know, therefore no one can know. And then of course they fill in the blanks with the only thing (in their minds) it could possibly be: a god! Of course, then it runs into the problem, which god? In their minds there is only one god. But then people of the same faith can't even agree on who/what god is exactly.

It makes sense to me. As scientists continue to dive deeper into the complexity of life and the universe it becomes quite apparent it was not just a random set of processes that caused it. Things can be triggered by other things but as you go up that chain the question always remains, what started that process?

I think you're projecting your own beliefs. But then you're also grossly simplifying things so I'm not surprised that you get the conclusion you do.

 

[John Connor]

The Nazis went after religious artifacts. They too believed in a God. Now if a low life Nazi believes in a God what does that make an atheist? The lowest form of SCUM on the planet!

 

[uclaLabrat]

The Nazis went after religious artifacts. They too believed in a God. Now if a low life Nazi believes in a God what does that make an atheist? The lowest form of SCUM on the planet!

I don't know what argument you think you're making, but it's less coherent than Kesha.

Seriously, you're not helping your cause with this shit and you really should probably stop.

 

[zerocool84]

The Nazis went after religious artifacts. They too believed in a God. Now if a low life Nazi believes in a God what does that make an atheist? The lowest form of SCUM on the planet!

Yup a guy that murders millions is a better person than an atheist that does nothing wrong but just doesn't believe in a higher being. Makes total sense!!!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The Nazis went after religious artifacts. They too believed in a God. Now if a low life Nazi believes in a God what does that make an atheist? The lowest form of SCUM on the planet!

This is what Christians actually believe.

 

[uclaLabrat]

This is what Christians actually believe.

Fuck off, this is what idiotic morons believe.

Now, to be fair, the two overlap more often than I'd like to believe, but still.

 

[GasX]

John Connor, I am talking to you ironically
http://theweek.com/article/index/265653/why-you-should-stop-believing-in-evolution

 

[darkswordsman17]

I'm drunk, I'll say it, since it's like wearing a scarlet letter:
I have a Ph. D. in chemistry, I've been a research scientist for years, and I believe in evolution. But I think Origin of the Species is the biggest pile of shit since Ancient Aliens.

What's more? It doesn't fucking matter, come up with all the explanations you want, it isn't a testable hypothesis until you can go back in time and test it, and as such, wasting time arguing about it is as much mental masturbation as science.

My biggest regret from this post is that Dr. Pizza might think less of me.

But not really, because it's intellectually honest.

What? So macroevolution is no longer possible? Oh, wait, no you're just talking about the origins of life.

You say that, but actually there are aspects that can be tested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

I'd say that's a misrepresentation of the actual situation.

Scientists are just looking at the most likely explanation for life, based on what we've studied. Even assuming an otherworldly creature (aliens), how did they come into being? What it boils down to is that, regardless of life on Earth, scientifically speaking, Abiogenesis is the most likely explanation for the start of life that we are aware of.

 

[darkswordsman17]

The Nazis went after religious artifacts. They too believed in a God. Now if a low life Nazi believes in a God what does that make an atheist? The lowest form of SCUM on the planet!

Logic, you don't have it. :biggrin:

Fuck off, this is what idiotic morons believe.

Now, to be fair, the two overlap more often than I'd like to believe, but still.

You need to go sleep it off.

 

[uclaLabrat]

What? So macroevolution is no longer possible? Oh, wait, no you're just talking about the origins of life.

You say that, but actually there are aspects that can be tested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

I'd say that's a misrepresentation of the actual situation.

Scientists are just looking at the most likely explanation for life, based on what we've studied. Even assuming an otherworldly creature (aliens), how did they come into being? What it boils down to is that, regardless of life on Earth, scientifically speaking, Abiogenesis is the most likely explanation for the start of life that we are aware of.

Except it doesn't, because if it did, you'd think it would've been documented at some point, but it hasn't. So really, abiogenesis is really no better than intelligent design. There's no fucking evidence it can actually happen, and thus it is no more scientific than intelligent design.

Which is my whole problem. Religion says "It was designed!"

Science says "Meh, it just kinda happened, here's a couple ways it might have happened"

Except science hasn't ever demonstrated it actually could have happened, and based on what we know, it seems much more likely to be "designed" than "happened".

And again, it's all mental masturbation unless you can go back and DEMONSTRATE a causal relationship.

Until then, it's a nice story. Kinda like the bible.

Edit: Regarding the Urey Experiment: If you believe that prcolaims the origins of life any better than intelligent design, you're a bigger moron that John Connor.

It's equivalent to saying "I've found round rocks, therefore a lamborghini just kinda happened!"

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Scientists are just looking at the most likely explanation for life, based on what we've studied. Even assuming an otherworldly creature (aliens), how did they come into being? What it boils down to is that, regardless of life on Earth, scientifically speaking, Abiogenesis is the most likely explanation for the start of life that we are aware of.

My vote goes to panspermia. I'm all for abiogenesis research, though, because I think it's productive.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

My vote goes to panspermia. I'm all for abiogenesis research, though, because I think it's productive.

Doesn't panspermia still require some form of abiogenesis somewhere in the universe?