Intelligent Design Theories.

[MagicPrincessSCHALA]

I am aware that there have been topics in the past which raise this issue, but do not feel the Intelligent Design theories have been given the credit they deserve in the past.

I would like to start by saying that, despite there being much to loosely suggest the Darwinian theories of evolution, there is still no concrete evidence to prove that they are true. The ID theories, on the other hand, are supported by documentation of thousands of years in age. I will not be so biased as to use my personal Christian beliefs as weight in this debate, but may I suggest that the beliefs held by generations upon generations of people the world over, beliefs which can fit around the ID theories, hold more weight than a theory barely over a century old.

I hereby feel that it is perfectly fair and reasonable that, both the ID theories (both the more conventional beliefs, and the up-and-coming FSM theory) and the Darwinian views, can be given equal amounts of time and attention in the American educational system.

[SmilingAssasin]

flying spaghetti monster.............................. you people are so fucking stupid

[lAkiyoshil]

Does this make spaghetti a sacred food?

[MagicPrincessSCHALA]

At 9/3/05 12:41 PM, SmilingAssasin wrote: flying spaghetti monster.............................. you people are so fucking stupid

Technically speaking, the FSM theory has yet to be sufficiently disproven, but I am not wrong in thinking that your beliefs are based in at least one of the ID theories?

[SmilingAssasin]

i firmly believe in evolution and adaptation, i certainly dont believe we were "designed" by some being.

[cory-royal]

At 9/3/05 01:09 PM, SmilingAssasin wrote: i firmly believe in evolution and adaptation, i certainly dont believe we were "designed" by some being.

i will tell you why evolution doesnt make as much sence as people would like to belive say you want to make a wooden chair do you put the wood and nail on top of each other and hope for the best? no you put it together. thus something can not come out of nothing it has to be made that is were intelligent design comes from.

[Solamnus]

At 9/3/05 12:10 PM, MagicPrincessSCHALA wrote:

I would like to start by saying that, despite there being much to loosely suggest the Darwinian theories of evolution, there is still no concrete evidence to prove that they are true. :

I weep for the future. You simply repeat the same old tired arguments. "Evolution has not been absolutley proven." "There is no concrete evidence."

It's all bullshit that stems from your lack of understanding. You are gunning for absolutes and Science does not deal with absolutes so your argument is moot. There are plenty of places on the Internet (TalkOrigins is one) and plenty of books by QUALIFIED scientists in the library. Richard Dawkins comes to mind.

The ID theories, on the other hand, are supported by documentation of thousands of years in age. I will not be so biased as to use my personal Christian beliefs as weight in this debate, but may I suggest that the beliefs held by generations upon generations of people the world over, beliefs which can fit around the ID theories, hold more weight than a theory barely over a century old. :

Ah, I see what you are saying. "Thousands of years of religious texts shows that there is more evidence for creation via a divine being than a 100 years of rigorous scientific inquiry based on empirical evidence, logic, theory falsification, demonstratable predictions, and rational reasoning."

Oh I don't know...appeal to tradition perhaps?

Again, if a person wants to believe that God created man from dust so be it. Be stupid and teach this horse crap in the proper places; i.e., home and Church. NOT in a science class.

I hereby feel that it is perfectly fair and reasonable that, both the ID theories (both the more conventional beliefs, and the up-and-coming FSM theory) and the Darwinian views, can be given equal amounts of time and attention in the American educational system. :

[MagicPrincessSCHALA]

At 9/3/05 01:35 PM, Solamnus and the other guys wrote:

Some revealling and well balanced counter-commentary of my original arguement.

Oh, er, alright then.

I've been completely turned around on this. I see now that it's probably that two conflicting theories are not taught to next one another in schools. A science class should be a place for fact proven through the proper methods, not dogmatic ideas desperate to adhere to rough documentation, no matter how old or followed.

In closing I would like to encourage everyone to do everything in their power to discourage this system of forced belief and false education that has leaked into the schools of America. Also, although it perhaps has no place in the classroom, the FSM theory is not entirely conflicting with Darwinian theory, and should not be cast aside just yet: you really should buy the T-shirts.

[Solamnus]

Nice sarcasm.

[RedScorpion]

At 9/3/05 12:41 PM, SmilingAssasin wrote: flying spaghetti monster.............................. you people are so fucking stupid

LOL, flying spaghetti monster... yes, all hail the FSM!!!!...
Comon, I hope people don't actually believe that/are not that fucking stupid... but I'm gonna read the article anyway*snicker*

[RedScorpion]

At 9/3/05 12:54 PM, MagicPrincessSCHALA wrote:

At 9/3/05 12:41 PM, SmilingAssasin wrote: flying spaghetti monster.............................. you people are so fucking stupid

Technically speaking, the FSM theory has yet to be sufficiently disproven, but I am not wrong in thinking that your beliefs are based in at least one of the ID theories?

Ok, I admit, the FSM is a most definent plausible theory in which everyone can appreciate its complexity. The diversity and instilling inspirations provided by this theory can only lead to higher enlightenment and fulfillment. One of the most compelling argruments I found is provided as follows:

"MMMMMmmmmm, spaghetti"
--H. Neville, Ph.D.

Also spaghetti is my favorite food already, so no problems there (lol)

[ThemonkeyonNG]

At 9/3/05 01:28 PM, cory_royal wrote:
i will tell you why evolution doesnt make as much sence as people would like to belive say you want to make a wooden chair do you put the wood and nail on top of each other and hope for the best? no you put it together. thus something can not come out of nothing it has to be made that is were intelligent design comes from.

So...if i put a chain link fence almost flat up next to a young tree, and the tree begins to grow. Eventually the tree will grow over the fence.

AHAHAHAH

It's true, I've seen it.

[ThemonkeyonNG]

yeah to follow up my post before...

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v17
8/monkieman/fence-in-tree.jpg" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com">

[cory-royal]

At 9/3/05 05:24 PM, ThemonkeyonNG wrote:

At 9/3/05 01:28 PM, cory_royal wrote:
i will tell you why evolution doesnt make as much sence as people would like to belive say you want to make a wooden chair do you put the wood and nail on top of each other and hope for the best? no you put it together. thus something can not come out of nothing it has to be made that is were intelligent design comes from.

So...if i put a chain link fence almost flat up next to a young tree, and the tree begins to grow. Eventually the tree will grow over the fence.

AHAHAHAH

It's true, I've seen it.

you do know that creates nothing right? all that happens is the tree grows over an object it doesnt really make anything.

[cory-royal]

At 9/3/05 05:26 PM, ThemonkeyonNG wrote: yeah to follow up my post before...

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v17
8/monkieman/fence-in-tree.jpg" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com">

can you post that again with the link i wanna see it :)

[Elfer]

At 9/3/05 12:10 PM, MagicPrincessSCHALA wrote: I hereby feel that it is perfectly fair and reasonable that, both the ID theories (both the more conventional beliefs, and the up-and-coming FSM theory) and the Darwinian views, can be given equal amounts of time and attention in the American educational system.

Sure, just not in a science class. In the Kansas School Board, they actually had to change the very defenition of science in order to make intelligent design a scientific theory that could be taught in a science class.

The problem is, it's not a scientific theory of any kind, because it's based on faith, not evidence. When reduced to the logical conclusions, intelligent design either implies that an object with irreducible complexity could be created by chance, thereby contradicting itself, or it requires belief in a religious deity.

If a theory is not falsifiable, then it ceases to be a scientific theory. Once you start teaching unfalsifiable theories in public schools, and you claim that they're legitimate, there's an infinite number of theories that you must logically teach as well.

Evolution is the best scientific theory we have right now to explain the existence of humans. And what is it exactly that makes you think the piles of evidence for evolution are so flimsy, anyway? Go talk to a biologist, and tell them that evolution is based on a flimsy premise. They'll straighten you out pretty good.

[ThemonkeyonNG]

At 9/3/05 05:35 PM, cory_royal wrote:

At 9/3/05 05:26 PM, ThemonkeyonNG wrote: yeah to follow up my post before...

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v17
8/monkieman/fence-in-tree.jpg" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com">

can you post that again with the link i wanna see it :)

Ok, here is the link

And the picture

[Redbob86]

Intellegent design is neither scientific nor religious, it's a failed experiment of trying to combine them. It doesn't offer any real science, nor does it imply any religious teachings, it has nothing to offer.

If you believe in evolution, fine, if you belive in creationism, fine, but if you belive in intellegent design, you're a moron.

[Dash-Underscore-Dash]

ZOMG! I'm stuck in a time loop!

[Taschentiger]

I do believe in evolution and there have been prooves for evolution. We can see this by analising fossils, etc.
I mean look at the dude they found frozen in a glazier.
There may be a higher power, but I doubt it very much that it designed us!!!

[Redbob86]

At 9/3/05 07:40 PM, Taschentiger wrote: I do believe in evolution and there have been prooves for evolution. We can see this by analising fossils, etc.
I mean look at the dude they found frozen in a glazier.
There may be a higher power, but I doubt it very much that it designed us!!!

I believe in evolution as well, and I also believe that God created the universe. The only thing I don't believe about evolution was that it all started from one single cell. Maybe it started from cells, but I doubt there was only one that came from seemingly nowhere and was responsible for every single creature on this planet. I actually think it began with a large variety of low-leveled creatures from each kingdom. Like a few fish, bugs, and rats from the animal kingdom; some moss, grass, and small trees from the plant kingdom, and so on.

Evolution may be a theory, but adaptation is not. And that's basically what evolution is, millions of little adaptations that build up to become a completely new species. You make a little adjustment here, tweak a little big there, and if you make enough little changes, eventually you're going to end up with one really big change and a whole new creature.

And if God created the universe, then surely he would allow his creatures to be able to adapt to survive in their environments.

[Fedges]

Ok if We were all designed by an intelligent designer then what is the purpose of the male nipple? or how about the appendix cuz that one seems pretty useless. or why do we only use a small fraction of our brains, did god really need to put all that extra stuff up there? What about vestigial organs on non-human animals I mean what are those babies for if the designer is so intelligent.

[TheMartyr18]

At 9/3/05 01:28 PM, cory_royal wrote:

At 9/3/05 01:09 PM, SmilingAssasin wrote: i firmly believe in evolution and adaptation, i certainly dont believe we were "designed" by some being.

i will tell you why evolution doesnt make as much sence as people would like to belive say you want to make a wooden chair do you put the wood and nail on top of each other and hope for the best? no you put it together. thus something can not come out of nothing it has to be made that is were intelligent design comes from.

And yet you believe that the craftsman who built that chair has always been and always will be.. is tat more reasonable?

[Lhotun]

Intelligent Design isn't taught in a science class not because it isn't scientifically valid, but because it isn't even the same damn subject.
It is like saying, in a Physics class, that gravity is God's will keeping us held to the planet. I can't disprove that. You can't disprove that. Who is to say otherwise? So why isn't it taught in schools? Because it doesn't have anything to do with science.

Intelligent Design is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one. As someone already mentioned, you couldn't ever even prove or disprove it. It isn't science, the entire intelligent design argument is different from evolutionary theory on a fundamental level.

[Thespus]

At 9/5/05 04:35 PM, Lhotun wrote: Intelligent Design isn't taught in a science class not because it isn't scientifically valid, but because it isn't even the same damn subject.
It is like saying, in a Physics class, that gravity is God's will keeping us held to the planet. I can't disprove that. You can't disprove that. Who is to say otherwise? So why isn't it taught in schools? Because it doesn't have anything to do with science.

Intelligent Design is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one. As someone already mentioned, you couldn't ever even prove or disprove it. It isn't science, the entire intelligent design argument is different from evolutionary theory on a fundamental level.

I wouldn't mind if they put a religion class in schools to teach those who want to learn about the religions of the world in an environment that facilitates it, but teaching Intelligent Design to Science students isn't right.

[Elfer]

At 9/5/05 08:48 PM, Dulnar wrote: I wouldn't mind if they put a religion class in schools to teach those who want to learn about the religions of the world in an environment that facilitates it,

Lucky for us, they've already got that sort of class widely available for those who wish to take it.

[MonkeyHood]

D's say the eye is too complex to just have come about randomly and therefore want teachers to tell kids this. That's one reason I've heard for not teaching ID in science class, because some teacher feel it's a backdoor way to undermine evolution.

Personally I think they're right.

[night-watch-man18]

At 9/3/05 04:34 PM, Solamnus wrote: Nice sarcasm.

Yeah, just ignore her. She's the one that started the "Veal" issue that is still going on to this day, and pretty much wrote the same resonse that she gave you word-for-word, only to me.

On top of it all, her profile stated that she was 13 when she made the veal thread. Now her age magically jumped to 23.

Meh, some people get their kicks in different ways.

[Ted-Easton]

Let's move this debate away from monkey trees.

Alright. Before a debate can be had on this, you need to lay out what an acceptable source of documentation is.

Is the Bible acceptable to support ID?
Intelligent Design is a much more reputeable idea when it is not directly attributed to the Christian God. It gains a much wider appeal, and becomes less of a niche idea, and more of one that may appeal to all Americans. It allows any religion to place their own God as it's central "being", giving the idea of ID an appeal similar to that of Evolution, which allows for any religion to take science as a seperate idea.
Therefore, the bible is not a source of information regarding Intelligent Design, unless you wish to make this a debate on the validity and likelihood of the Christian God being the One True God.

Thoughts?

[Elfer]

At 9/5/05 09:29 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Thoughts?

Yes. I have a thought. One of the basica elements of a scientific theory is that it must make predictions for the future that could potentially later be used to disprove it.

Since intelligent design implies some sort of omniscient, omnipresent deity, which can do absolutely anything at will, it doesn't qualify as a scientific theory, it qualifies as religion.