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

[disappoint]

But why do we argue about any of this crap?

Are you seriously asking that question? Just in case you are I'll give you a serious answer.

Because everyone thinks they are right and want to impose their thoughts on others.

Just like it sounds as if you don't want to discuss this any more, and want others to stop because of it. You're welcome to leave the discussion whenever you like, and return as well.

 

[sandorski]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Not a baseless assertion, but a definition.

If you can't test it, it's not science. End of story. Until you can go BACK IN TIME, and establish a CAUSAL LINK, it's not science.

No baseless assertion found.

By your own admission, it has been tested.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

More and more creationists are sending their kids to christian colleges to get unaccredited science degrees,

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Who said it began at the big bang?

Who said it began at all?

It has been demonstrated that a handful of simple compounds are capable of creating amino acids, nucleic acids, etc under conceivable conditions for a developing Earth. How do you demonstrate panspermia and eternally extant life?

 

[02ranger]

Holy S#!%!! I did NOT expect this thread to go quite this far. I knew I'd get some strong reactions, but 179 responses in ~15 hours is more than I ever thought. I figured I'd get some real responses, some sarcastic responses, and some calling me an idiot/troll, but wow. I haven't had a chance to read everything yet, but I'm at work now so I should have some free time to catch up. lol

Edit: OK, just caught up. There's a lot of really interesting stuff in this thread that I'm sure I never would have found on my own. I'm learning quite a bit. Thanks guys!!

 

[02ranger]

Ahh this is an acquaintance, someone you know, thought you heard about it on TV or on the web.

Well I have a friend who believes the world is 6000 years old (we never talk about it anymore) but we share an interest in aviation. So that what we talk about.

Best to do your own research

I agree, and I try to do my own research when I'm unsure of something. I just wasn't really sure how to research this particular topic, since there are so many competing views already......

 

[02ranger]

What church were you in where you heard that?

I started to disclaimer that in the OP, but I wanted to see how long before it came up. lol It's only logical, I posted at 11AM Sunday morning, but no, it was not in church. I haven't been going to church for a while now. I still answer that I'm Christian by reflex when people ask, but really I think I'm more agnostic now. Christianity and science don't mesh all that well, and only one has any evidence besides "feelings"........

 

[02ranger]

Hey... if we can be derived from God - it is totally possible alternative that we were derived from Aliens in some round about way...

Humans have been trying to explain origins for thousands of years - always changing the story... in a thousand years - who knows - maybe Aliens will be the new thing.

I kinda like the Star Trek:TNG episode where they find the genetic map in a bunch different species, follow it to some planet, and find out that all the humanoid species in the alpha quadrant were actually seeded by some generic looking humanoid race millenia before. It also explained how life that evolved in such vastly different climates looked so similar. It was a pretty neat plot.

 

[02ranger]

Yet another wacko post that should be in P&N being posted here instead. I get the feeling that they NEED to troll with there nonsense and will do so anywhere they can.

I swear, the nut jobs that post this stuff, that troll this stuff, must be part psycho and that posting this nonsense satisfies some sick need to piss people off. We all have to fart from time to time and most of us look for someplace to release it without effecting others, but these guys want to effect others. They will hold it in until they can get into a crowded elevator and then, when the door is closed, let lose.


Brian

 

[witeken]

I dont believe that macro-evolution happened. i dont see how all differences in all life can be exclusively from accumulation of micro-evolution.

Do you believe in quantum mechanics? Or do you see indeed that it's possible for particles to tunnel through walls, which is much more non-intuitive than the fact that small changes can lead to big changes over time, like how some primates evolved into humans.

The universe doesn't care what you believe, understand or find intuitive.

 

[witeken]

Evolution doesn't really even operate at the molecular level. We have a thorough understanding of things like genetics, but that's only part of evolution. You can't explain things like selective pressure and reproductive isolation of a population in molecular terms. You might as well call plate tectonics "bunk" because nobody can explain it in molecular terms.

Evolution does work at the molecular level. Evolution is all about the survival of the best genes. Life is just a byproduct; genes that cooperate with other genes to create a 'survival machine' aka animal, have a much better chance of survival, humans are a great example of this.

 

[witeken]

Why should it originate?

Because if it didn't, life wouldn't exist.

 

[witeken]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Not a baseless assertion, but a definition.

If you can't test it, it's not science. End of story. Until you can go BACK IN TIME, and establish a CAUSAL LINK, it's not science.

No baseless assertion found.

If you go back in time 5 billion years ago, the the solar system did not exist. Fast forward a few years, and you have a solar system with multiple planets, and 1 with life.

Unless there was some supernatural intervention, life did arise from matter by natural processes. This is simple logic.

 

[Retro Rob]

Evolution does work at the molecular level. Evolution is all about the survival of the best genes. Life is just a byproduct; genes that cooperate with other genes to create a 'survival machine' aka animal, have a much better chance of survival, humans are a great example of this.

You've been nothing more than a Dawkins and Hitches parrot -- why not learn the wonders of thinking for yourself...I think you'd might like it.

 

[Jeff7]

- Humanity discovered cells a few hundred years ago.
- DNA was discovered (very) roughly 100 years ago.
- Best estimates on the age of life on Earth are in the range of a few billion years, with it appearing perhaps 1.5 billion years after Earth started forming.
- We haven't created life yet in this incredibly short timespan.
- Therefore aliens/god/ID must have done it, always ignoring the notion that this complex designer would have had to come from somewhere. For some reason, this highly-advanced designer is permitted the luxury of being able to simply pop into existence or to develop naturally through its own process of abiogenesis, and that explanation is seen as being more likely than abiogenesis occurring right here on Earth.

Evolution does work at the molecular level. Evolution is all about the survival of the best genes. Life is just a byproduct; genes that cooperate with other genes to create a 'survival machine' aka animal, have a much better chance of survival, humans are a great example of this.

We're like the composite-robot battle droids in Power Rangers or other such shows: We're conglomerations of cells that are all built up to fight for survival against the environment.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Yep, and just a couple posts up your salivating over having 179 posts in under 15 hours.

You make my point for me!


Brian

 

[Puppies04]

You've been nothing more than a Dawkins and Hitches parrot -- why not learn the wonders of thinking for yourself...I think you'd might like it.

Exactly! Why don't you forget all that Dawkins nonsense and go to church so they can tell you what to think for yourself.

 

[Retro Rob]

Exactly! Why don't you forget all that Dawkins nonsense and go to church so they can tell you what to think for yourself.

Ah, so you are ok with not thinking for yourself as long as the right people are doing the thinking for you.

That'a boy...

 

[mnewsham]

That'a boy...

Attaboy not "that'a boy"

Also, i'd rather let someone else think for me who is actively trying to prove/disprove what they believe over someone who has been preaching the same old shit for 2000 years without any proof.

 

[Retro Rob]

Attaboy not "that'a boy"

Also, i'd rather let someone else think for me who is actively trying to prove/disprove what they believe over someone who has been preaching the same old shit for 2000 years without any proof.

Ok, I actually applaud your honesty.

 

[witeken]

You've been nothing more than a Dawkins and Hitches parrot -- why not learn the wonders of thinking for yourself...I think you'd might like it.

I think more than enough, but there's nothing wrong with using knowledge that originated from other people instead of inventing your own "knowledge", which is the problem with creationists and theists' view of the world.

 

[Puppies04]

Ah, so you are ok with not thinking for yourself as long as the right people are doing the thinking for you.

That'a boy...

If you can't see the difference between a guy in a robe telling me to believe in a sky fairy and to give him money because he is the sky fairies favourite and a scientist who has to work within the scientific principals of "theory" and "proof" then I feel very sorry for you.

 

[Puppies04]

I think more than enough, but there's nothing wrong with using knowledge that originated from other people instead of inventing your own "knowledge", which is the problem with creationists and theists' view of the world.

Back before people could read or went to school it was very hard to gain knowledge from anyone other than your close family. This suited religions just fine because unless some kind of genius was born who could work out evolution is plausible in about 30 years of adult life then somehow pass it on to other people then everybody just had to listen to the "man in the sky" stories and take them at face value.

 

[Gibsons]

Who said it began at the big bang?

Who said it began at all?

Our best understanding is that at t=0, there were no molecules, not even atoms. Thus, there was no life form that life as we know it (carbon based, molecule based, whatever), at least, could have descended from. So, it must have originated at some point after that.

I'll respond a little bit for you if you don't mind: "Life as we know it" is rather myopic, given the size and age of the universe. Life doesn't necessarily have to be based on carbon, or even molecules, it's just what we know of. I'm sure you've got more.

 

[Retro Rob]

If you can't see the difference between a guy in a robe telling me to believe in a sky fairy and to give him money because he is the sky fairies favourite and a scientist who has to work within the scientific principals of "theory" and "proof" then I feel very sorry for you.

There is no difference in simply parroting information no matter the source. This is why I question public understanding of science, not acceptance.

There is a difference in simply repeating "we're survival machines" and explaining why you accept that. If you cannot articulate your beliefs in your own words, that means you probably don't understand what you believe.

In that sense, you're no better than your religious counterparts.