Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/8/08 07:29 PM, SHIT-TANK wrote: For example lets say evolution is taking place 30 million years ago. And humans are developing Bipedolism but there is no big toe. The " intellgent being" watching over us all puts the big toe on our feet viola intelligent design.

Humans are only about 5-10 million years (roughtly) but it depends on what you class as 'human'

Actually the big toe is a product from our primate days about 10+ million years ago when we used our feet as a second pair of hands. But when we started walking on the ground an gradually became more and more up right to what we are now our feet adapted.

If the intelligent designer wants to be intelligent about it he shouldn't of given up the other 4 toes because they're useless. Why do we even have nails on our toes? They don't do anything. If they were originally hands that would make sense but nails on the toes is pointless and I should know I've only got 6 of them left (2 were removed and 2 more fell off)

The human body is full of errors because Evolution doesn't just scrap parts of the body and starts fresh it modifies what is there and sometimes adds new information.

Creationists tend to say that the eye is too complex to have evolved. Regardless of the fact that the eye started simplistically and became complex over time. There are also has errors an intelligent designer could've corrected. (personally my Astigmatism is losing it's appeal) Also in the human eye the retina is pointed backwards. There are also arteries in the way which prevents the maximum amount of light through (like in this picture) There's also a hole in the back of the eye where the arteries escape which gives us a blind spot.

I wouldn't mind losing the 95% of the junk DNA we have while the intelligent designer is correcting mistakes.

Typical Scientific Responses to specific situations:

A Castle/Palace-like building on a planet discovered (hell, make it a system of caves discovered)...

Typical Scientific Response: "Who built this?"

The Univerise...

Typical Scientific Response: "We have no proof of a 'God/Deity/Force/Who, so therefore we cannot say 'it' exists."

lol

At 7/9/08 12:13 PM, Memorize wrote: Typical Scientific Responses to specific situations:

A Castle/Palace-like building on a planet discovered (hell, make it a system of caves discovered)...

Typical Scientific Response: "Who built this?"

The Univerise...

Typical Scientific Response: "We have no proof of a 'God/Deity/Force/Who, so therefore we cannot say 'it' exists."

lol

How does that even make a logical jump?

Even if a system of caves was discovered, scientists wouldn't assume it had been built unless there's clear evidence that it had been. If anything, the immediate hypothesis would be if water had ever existed on the planet, not some knee-jerk assumption that any space creature had to have created it

When we look at evidence of water on Mars, scientists don't immediately think "Maybe we can't find it because the Martians drank it all."

I'll even bite on the far-fetched scenario. Structures, as we know them, necessitate a builder. Seeing as how we don't have a frame of reference for how universes form, we can't exactly say "well, this is how they usually come about." And yet, even still, scientists would examine the structures for observable evidence that they had, in fact, been built and were not a process of some natural phenomena exclusive to that planet. You can bet some scientists would claim alien construction, but, without any basis for their claims, they would be dismissed by the scientific community until they were able to verify their claim. That's how science works.

Applying an irrelevant analogy to one of the great mysteries of the universe and trying to pass it off as some kind of explanation just strikes me as insane.

If it turns out there was a creator and we find evidence as such, the scientific thing to do would be to follow up on it and accept it as the current theory of the origin of the universe.

You may feel free to provide your evidence to the scientific community. I'm sure that you telling them your assumption on how they form theories is going to sway them.

At 7/9/08 02:17 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

How does that even make a logical jump?

Well, considering they're still spending billions in hopes of finding even the most underdeveloped lifeform on other planets, then they're already making an illogical jump, aren't they?

Haha, I mean, since they still have no evidence that lifeforms would even exist, right?

Even if a system of caves was discovered, scientists wouldn't assume it had been built unless there's clear evidence that it had been. If anything, the immediate hypothesis would be if water had ever existed on the planet, not some knee-jerk assumption that any space creature had to have created it

Key Word: "System"

Perhaps I should've included "complex" as well.

When we look at evidence of water on Mars, scientists don't immediately think "Maybe we can't find it because the Martians drank it all."

I'm sorry, what?

I'll even bite on the far-fetched scenario. Structures, as we know them, necessitate a builder. Seeing as how we don't have a frame of reference for how universes form, we can't exactly say "well, this is how they usually come about." And yet, even still, scientists would examine the structures for observable evidence that they had, in fact, been built and were not a process of some natural phenomena exclusive to that planet. You can bet some scientists would claim alien construction, but, without any basis for their claims, they would be dismissed by the scientific community until they were able to verify their claim. That's how science works.

No, they wouldn't.

It would be major news. A complex structure of buildings on a foreign planet where no life exists. They wouldn't dismiss anything. They would leave all options open. And even if they didn't find anything to substantiate their claims, they would still include "It was mostly likely..."

Which is why i'm drawing this parallel. We find that particular structure on a foreign planet and we logically come to the conclusion "Who built this?"

We look at the Universe which is vastly more complex and for some reason they conclude "We find no evidence of God/Deity/Alien/Force, therefore we can not say it exists"

Honestly. What kind of double standard is that?

Applying an irrelevant analogy to one of the great mysteries of the universe and trying to pass it off as some kind of explanation just strikes me as insane.

Please. You know exactly how these scenarios would play out.

If it turns out there was a creator and we find evidence as such, the scientific thing to do would be to follow up on it and accept it as the current theory of the origin of the universe.

Which refers to the entire point of my post.

You may feel free to provide your evidence to the scientific community. I'm sure that you telling them your assumption on how they form theories is going to sway them.

Not my problem. Just pointing out their blatant inconsistancies.

At 7/9/08 12:13 PM, Memorize wrote: Typical Scientific Responses to specific situations:

A Castle/Palace-like building on a planet discovered (hell, make it a system of caves discovered)...

Typical Scientific Response: "Who built this?"

The Univerise...

Typical Scientific Response: "We have no proof of a 'God/Deity/Force/Who, so therefore we cannot say 'it' exists."

lol

In order to make a case for ID, you'd need some sort of qualification for the word "built" or "designed". Things can be very advanced and complex without being designed, just look at ice crystals, or magnets with metal powder. You can get the most amazing patterns without any designer behind it. It's impossible to tell aside random design and purposeful design.

If we look at the problem form another angle. If you walk into a room and find 10 dice lying on the ground, all with their six side upwards. There are two scenarios. The dice was either placed that way, with all the sixes upwards, or simply placed there, and they happened to get sixes by random chance.

Although we would logically think that it's more likely the dice patter is designed because it's so unlikely that 10 dice all got six, there are several problems. But the biggest issue that even if we can calculate how unlikely it is to get 10 sixes, we cannot calculate how likely it is for there to be somebody who as placed those dices in a patter. Thus, even if we have one likelyhood, we don't have the other likelyhood to compare to.

It's exacltly like this for the design of life. Life coming into existence by itself? Very unlikely. The likelyhood of God designing life? You have no idea. Thus it impossible to complare. You cannot say that one is more likely than the other, even if one of them is horribly unlikely.

So to speak, you cannot say that 800000 is higher than X just because 800000 is a high number. You have no freaking idea what X is. It could be 1 or it could be 100000000000000000 or whatnot.

At 7/9/08 12:13 PM, Memorize wrote: Typical Scientific Responses to specific situations:

A Castle/Palace-like building on a planet discovered (hell, make it a system of caves discovered)...

Typical Scientific Response: "Who built this?"

The Univerise...

Typical Scientific Response: "We have no proof of a 'God/Deity/Force/Who, so therefore we cannot say 'it' exists."

lol

Gee, looks like you just hit on a key point.

It's not complexity that indicates design. It's artificiality.

At 7/9/08 02:28 PM, Memorize wrote: Key Word: "System"

Perhaps I should've included "complex" as well.

There are incredibly complex systems of caves on Earth. We don't sentient creatures made them unless they show signs of tool work.

When we look at evidence of water on Mars, scientists don't immediately think "Maybe we can't find it because the Martians drank it all."

I'm sorry, what?

Oh, I thought we were coming up with scenarios where scientists come up with irrational explanations without finding data to support it first. My mistake, but you really did lead me on.

No, they wouldn't.

It would be major news. A complex structure of buildings on a foreign planet where no life exists. They wouldn't dismiss anything. They would leave all options open. And even if they didn't find anything to substantiate their claims, they would still include "It was mostly likely..."

And yet, likelihood doesn't equate to a valid theory. It would have to be tested first. You can't make a hypothesis and call it a theory. While I would agree that, yes, it would make sense that a sentient creature created them, to say that's how it happened without evidence would be silly. And, going further, buildings on other planets are more proof than a proposed creator of the universe has given.

Which is why i'm drawing this parallel. We find that particular structure on a foreign planet and we logically come to the conclusion "Who built this?"

We look at the Universe which is vastly more complex and for some reason they conclude "We find no evidence of God/Deity/Alien/Force, therefore we can not say it exists"

Honestly. What kind of double standard is that?

Science doesn't say God doesn't exist. Some scientists do, sure, but that's not the scientific method. Science says there is no observable proof of God, whatsoever, so, unless some is found, we're just going to write it off.

Which, of course, is the logical assumption. If something doesn't exist, there isn't any evidence that proves it doesn't exist. That's just silly to expect there to be.

Besides, a more reasonable question is "What caused this?" You're making a wild assumption based on what you'd say if you were a scientist who discovered buildings on another planet, which, as you've made abundantly clear, isn't rooted in fact. The scientifically appropriate examination would try to determine how it came about, by any means.

Also, as I've said. We actually have a precedent for how buildings are made on earth. Even though it would be presumptuous of someone to assume that they had to have been built, it would be using prior knowledge to make assumptions about something. Saying "who built this" would be the start of the inquiry, rather than the end. I'm sure that if buildings were found on another planet, we would test to see if they were built by tools. That's simply using what we already know to draw conclusions.

If we found another universe within this universe, you can bet your ass that scientists wouldn't say "who built this." We have no prior knowledge that would allow us to make that assumption.

Please. You know exactly how these scenarios would play out.

How they play out in the press has nothing to do with scientific facts. There was a pretty good marketing blitz about how the earth was the center of the universe back in the day.

My point is that science is a wonderful thing in that every claim has to be held to scrutiny. Reputations are made by finding out something about our current ideas of the universe that throws the realm of science on its head. That means that, while people would automatically assume that structures on another planet are proof of aliens (which, as I mentioned, they would actually have some grounds to say, since we have prior knowledge about how structures are created here on earth, making it a ridiculous analogy in the first place), that doesn't make it a valid scientific theory. While religion may be able to make the "x number of people can't be wrong" claim, science isn't so lucky.

No matter how much something seems to be the case, you still have to test it. Hell, number theory is based around the principle that we still need to prove, with certainty, that 1+1 actually equals 2.

Not my problem. Just pointing out their blatant inconsistancies.

How is needing to prove every claim you make an inconsistency?

Your whole argument is based on some delusional view of how you think scientific theories are formed. When you look at the facts, there is no inconsistency. The claim that buildings are made by aliens needs to be proven just as much as whether or not the universe was created by God, or even if God exists.

Here's an old argument, but it's an apt one. Prove to me that rabbits aren't all-powerful godlike creatures that exercise their power when they aren't observed by humans. By the logic that you have to prove something is not true to a certainty, then it's true.

Again, not having proof that something doesn't exist, while in conclusive, for sure, is still far more powerful than not having evidence that something exists. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. That's how science works.

I won't say God doesn't exist. I do believe in God, actually. I have no scientific basis for saying that. In fact, I cannot make the claim that God exists. I can't honestly make the claim that God exists. I have no scientific basis for saying that the universe was created by anything. I'm not going to try to have it taught in science class because, guess what: it's not science.

First of all, let me point out that I personally do not care for ID. I just don't.

I'm not making a case for it. I'm just getting tired of these threads (honestly... how many are there?). But sometimes I don't understand why people can be so inconsistant.

Which is why I put up that parallel. On one hand, we'll take something that is small and infinitely less complex than our own universe and actually ask ourselves "Who built this? When was it built?". Yet the same people who would do that look at the Universe and simply say "We cannot say one way or the other". Because we all know if we found a castle/city/palace - like building on a foreign planet, we would immediately ask ourselves "What lifeform did this?"

And why wouldn't we? We would go with the most likely scenario, right? If we discovered such a thing, the mere idea that it got there "by accident" (as some would say) would be far far back in our minds on the possibility list.

Like I said. I do not care for ID. I just find it fascinating that the more complex something is, the less likely it is then considered to have been 'built" or "designed" or whatever word you want to use.

At 7/9/08 03:34 PM, Memorize wrote: I just find it fascinating that the more complex something is, the less likely it is then considered to have been 'built" or "designed" or whatever word you want to use.

If you think it's faulty logic to say that complex things can't have appeared without a designer, would you apply that to God, too? He must be far more complex than anything in this Universe, so he must require a designer himself, no? Where does the need for a designer end?

At 7/9/08 03:34 PM, Memorize wrote: Like I said. I do not care for ID. I just find it fascinating that the more complex something is, the less likely it is then considered to have been 'built" or "designed" or whatever word you want to use.

That doesn't follow from your argument. All it's saying is that we're more likely to assume something was created if that's how it comes about on our planet. People, in general, are going to assume that when they see a building, someone built it. Again, that's using prior knowledge and applying it to a situation. The complexity has nothing to do with it. If something looks like a machine that's far more complex than anything we've ever built, people would still first assume it was made, simply because we know how machines are built on earth.

On the flip side, if some alien race had the ability to make things that looked like incredibly complex natural phenomena, we would simply assume that's what it was, nothing more. We'd wonder how it was occurring, but the only reason people wouldn't make the jump that it was being created is because we don't have the prior knowledge to assume as such.

When it comes to the universe, it's not like we have a clue how it's formed. Therefore, it would be ridiculous to assume that something created it. There is no prior knowledge that would lead a rational observer to that conclusion.

At 7/9/08 03:26 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

There are incredibly complex systems of caves on Earth. We don't sentient creatures made them unless they show signs of tool work.

Which is the point I was trying to make.

When we look at evidence of water on Mars, scientists don't immediately think "Maybe we can't find it because the Martians drank it all."

I'm sorry, what?

Oh, I thought we were coming up with scenarios where scientists come up with irrational explanations without finding data to support it first. My mistake, but you really did lead me on.

I'm trying to figure out why we would come to that conclusion considering we factor in things like, oh... distance from the sun?

There are far more logical explanations for such occurances than what I proposed. No one would say that a delicate building-like structure would have been made by things such as... the wind. And it blew all of the pieces together to make one big ruin like the ones we find on our archeological digs.

We wouldn't do that. As I said, we're already spending billions looking for life on other planets. We haven't found any yet or have any evidence of any existing, yet we still look.

And yet, likelihood doesn't equate to a valid theory. It would have to be tested first.

Ok.

Put some bricks in your front yard and wait until natural planetary movements gravitate them to form a complex structure, like a house.

You can't make a hypothesis and call it a theory. While I would agree that, yes, it would make sense that a sentient creature created them, to say that's how it happened without evidence would be silly. And, going further, buildings on other planets are more proof than a proposed creator of the universe has given.

But as I said, that's not my problem.

I'm just telling you what would happen. Not if it were "scientific" or "logical".

Science doesn't say God doesn't exist.

No. They merely hide behind "God/Deity/Force may or may not". Which is more or less their subtle way of saying "Is not" considering what they're doing now. Which is looking for any other form of life on other planets and spending an incredible amount to do so when they have no proof.

Some scientists do, sure, but that's not the scientific method. Science says there is no observable proof of God, whatsoever, so, unless some is found, we're just going to write it off.

They would never write off that scenario I gave.

As I said. On one hand, they'll have no proof that anyone built it, but on the other, they have no proof of anyone not building it. As a result, they would simply say "It was most likely built by..."

Besides, a more reasonable question is "What caused this?"

And we all know where that's going to lead, don't we?

You're making a wild assumption based on what you'd say if you were a scientist who discovered buildings on another planet, which, as you've made abundantly clear, isn't rooted in fact. The scientifically appropriate examination would try to determine how it came about, by any means.

Tell me by which means they'll attempt to discover first, considering what they're doing now.

Also, as I've said. We actually have a precedent for how buildings are made on earth. Even though it would be presumptuous of someone to assume that they had to have been built, it would be using prior knowledge to make assumptions about something. Saying "who built this" would be the start of the inquiry, rather than the end. I'm sure that if buildings were found on another planet, we would test to see if they were built by tools. That's simply using what we already know to draw conclusions.

And since we already know that, and we're looking for other forms of life, I'll ask again: What is the first thought and headline they'll come up with?

"Intelligent Life could've crafted..."

If we found another universe within this universe, you can bet your ass that scientists wouldn't say "who built this." We have no prior knowledge that would allow us to make that assumption.

That's because they already have a predisposition.

As I said. Our universe is infinitely more complex than even our buildings and structures. So it would be illogical for them to first believe that a structure on a foreign planet would've been built by some "intelligent force" and then turn around say "We can't tell with the Universe we life in".

How they play out in the press has nothing to do with scientific facts. There was a pretty good marketing blitz about how the earth was the center of the universe back in the day.

But you know, for a FACT, the Scientists are going to push that idea along into the media headlines to promote their findings.

My point is that science is a wonderful thing in that every claim has to be held to scrutiny.

It's too bad probability is only selectively chosen over certain aspects of the Universe.

Reputations are made by finding out something about our current ideas of the universe that throws the realm of science on its head.

And you're telling me that scientists today are just going to let the idea of intelligent life on another planet just slip through their fingers?

Your whole argument is based on some delusional view of how you think scientific theories are formed. When you look at the facts, there is no inconsistency. The claim that buildings are made by aliens needs to be proven just as much as whether or not the universe was created by God, or even if God exists.

But that's the point I'm making.

I'm only telling you what will happen, even within the scientific community. They will not let a discover like this just simply slip through.

No one, not even them, are going to believe that a Skycraper on another planet was simply the result of natural planetary disasters.

They wouldn't be so quick to dismiss intelligent life, and you know it.

I won't say God doesn't exist. I do believe in God, actually. I have no scientific basis for saying that. In fact, I cannot make the claim that God exists. I can't honestly make the claim that God exists. I have no scientific basis for saying that the universe was created by anything. I'm not going to try to have it taught in science class because, guess what: it's not science.

Then neither is that discovery, now is it?

Funny how people argue science, but are in effect arguing against the scientists who they hold in such high regard.

Typical human behavior.

You seem to be basing your whole argument on speculation and assumption.

I'll agree with the assumption that some people will assume that a building would have been created by life. Again, we've been over why that's the case, no problem. I don't like where you stop, though. You're forgetting that science is a process. You make a hypothesis, but you don't let it stop there. Now, I'm sure that some scientists would make the initial claim that, yes, it was created by life forms. To say that science condones that is mistaking science for scientists. Humans are impatient and glory-seeking, of course some people will make the claim without checking it first.

Your comment about the bricks? Humorous, but irrelevant. Assuming that bricks on earth would behave the same way as some unknown material on another planet is ridiculous. It could be that the ground is made of a magnetic substance and certain electromagnetic phenomena shapes it a certain way. It could be any number of things. The scientific method says check it out.

You're also assuming that scientists say that they don't believe in God because of some agenda they're pushing. It might simply be because they have no evidence that God exists and so they choose not to believe it. That's a perfectly valid assumption.

Saying that you choose not to believe something until there's evidence isn't being against discovery. Not by any means. That's simply being skeptical. If scientists spent their lives researching everything that had no evidence for or against its existence, almost nothing would be discovered. The best way to make discoveries is to observe and THEN to study it.

How would scientists even begin to start testing whether or not there was a God? Your claim is absolutely asinine.

At 7/8/08 05:32 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

So lets put your belief against mine -

no beliefs are better than others btw

Yous = Chemicals and water mixed with rocks that somhow made life, although there hasn't been an experiment that created life from non living things, you believe that nothing exploded into everything somhow with no logical explanation for how and why.
Simply speaking, you believe that everything came from nothing... somhow, no explanation.

k um we made the building blocks of life already (amino acids, nucleaic acids, etc.)

Us- God created the heaven and the earth by simply speaking it because he is so powerful, created the first man and woman and were disconnected from god when they disobeyed him.
He has always existed in order to create everything, time matter and space are not infinite.

if hes so powerful why did he make a world that is so capable of evil and if he is the king of the universe why doesn't he directly rule us...???
it seems counterintuitive to believe that some all powerful but completely removed "power" is the ruller of us all
um so where did god come from dumbass?

At 7/9/08 12:13 PM, Memorize wrote: Typical Scientific Responses to specific situations:

A Castle/Palace-like building on a planet discovered (hell, make it a system of caves discovered)...

Typical Scientific Response: "Who built this?"

The Univerise...

Typical Scientific Response: "We have no proof of a 'God/Deity/Force/Who, so therefore we cannot say 'it' exists."

lol

Well for starters a castle isn't the universe. That's a piss poor analogy.

Secondly they'd claim they don't know if God created the universe because the cause of the Big Bang is unknown. THAT is what they say. They DONT KNOW if God, Thor, Magic Hippo's or just a natural cause created the universe.

It's even more funny you say that considering the majority of scientists are believers....

You're flirting terribly close to the "A watch has a watch maker so therefor so does the universe" argument.

At 7/9/08 03:26 PM, Gunter45 wrote:
There are incredibly complex systems of caves on Earth. We don't sentient creatures made them unless they show signs of tool work.

I always like to point this out.

Maybe they took into account.

That we'd be snooping around.

Whoever/whomever may be here or may come here, we won't fucking know, if they don't want us to.

At all.

At 7/9/08 09:02 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: I always like to point this out.

Maybe they took into account.

That we'd be snooping around.

Whoever/whomever may be here or may come here, we won't fucking know, if they don't want us to.

At all.

Aliens, those fucks.
Always covering their tracks.
Damn sneaky bastards.

At 7/9/08 05:48 PM, Brick-top wrote:

You're flirting terribly close to the "A watch has a watch maker so therefor so does the universe" argument.

he's not "flirting close", that's his argument.
He still thinks it's an awesome one.
It's memorize.
Using the watchmaker argument is infinitely idiotic if you think about it for exactly one second.
Wow, mountains exist, so they must have had a designer!
Wow, snowflakes are impossibly complicated and all unique, someone much be making snowflakes!

Then to all of these, he'll go "oh but those things we know how they're made, but not the universe, so my argument rules".

Don't argue with memorize, he's seriously about as bad as shaggytheclown, but he can spell and he hasn't made any embarrassing youtube videos ( that I know of...).

At 7/9/08 09:49 PM, poxpower wrote: Don't argue with memorize, he's seriously about as bad as shaggytheclown, but he can spell and he hasn't made any embarrassing youtube videos ( that I know of...).

Well, there are two things.

I severely doubt he is as bad. And if so then it will be an easy debate.

If the debate is going no where I'll drop the argument (or he will) and we'll call it a day. Addionally no fucker is talking to me so I've got nothing to lose.

If life is constantly adapting to survive and evolve and improve, will there ever be a point of apex?

What would be the measure of such a peak?

At 7/9/08 11:13 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: If life is constantly adapting to survive and evolve and improve, will there ever be a point of apex?

Nope, because an organism's environment and living conditions are ever changing.
Which means a "perfectly evolved" species is only "perfect" in that particular environment.

At 7/9/08 11:13 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: If life is constantly adapting to survive and evolve and improve, will there ever be a point of apex?

What would be the measure of such a peak?

Evolution != improvement.

Evolution doesn't have a consciousness, it just means that whatever traits help an organism survive until successfully reproducing are what goes into the gene pool.

The classic case of the white moths that where well camouflaged until a factory moved in and blew soot all over the place making the moths with darker and darker wings more advantageous is a prime example.

Having white or black wings isn't an improvement, it's simply what it took to survive.

If you want to get right down to it, there's already a creature at the survivability "apex." Archaeobacteria. It reproduces incredibly quickly and is more resistant to harsh climates than anything else on earth.

If evolution was working towards the goal of something, it would have stopped there. In reality, though, there is no logical driving force, no direction. It just happens.

At 7/9/08 11:21 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Nope, because an organism's environment and living conditions are ever changing.
Which means a "perfectly evolved" species is only "perfect" in that particular environment.

what if something evolves beyond the influence of environment?

At 7/9/08 09:49 PM, poxpower wrote:
Using the watchmaker argument is infinitely idiotic if you think about it for exactly one second.

It's all retarded. Because making an analogous statement towards something infinite and unknown will never accurately portray the idea or concept.

Because we don't know the concept. Do you know what was happening pox, 10 big bangs ago?

Wow, mountains exist, so they must have had a designer!

The winds and the plates can easily be personified.

Wow, snowflakes are impossibly complicated and all unique, someone much be making snowflakes!

Those are fractals anyone with logic can see that patterns are naturally occurring. The number phi was it? It was in the da vinci code.

Then to all of these, he'll go "oh but those things we know how they're made, but not the universe, so my argument rules".

We think we know how things are made. It's still a mental process, it falls through numerous filters. Anything is possible.

Don't argue with memorize, he's seriously about as bad as shaggytheclown, but he can spell and he hasn't made any embarrassing youtube videos ( that I know of...).

No one's as bad as me I guess you guys always seem to skip me by.

I guess I don't really address the topic at hand.

What is it, intelligent design?

I already indicated it implies that the source is capable of the human quality that is "intelligence."

Completely irrational analogies.

At 7/9/08 11:23 PM, SolInvictus wrote: what if something evolves beyond the influence of environment?

There are always infinite environments that can come up and take the organism down.

At 7/9/08 11:44 PM, drDAK wrote:
There are always infinite environments that can come up and take the organism down.

Infinite environments implies infinite organisms though.

Even though Shaggy left a while back full of contempt for our brainwashed sheep selves, I think the flaws in his arguments can be boiled down to one problem-- he bases everything off evolution not being certain, when ID is equally "unprovable." Many ID supporters point out gaps in the fossil record-- if you find a fossil that fits roughyl in the middle of a gap, you might say you've filled the gap. In the ID believer's mind, there are now simply two smaller gaps. That's Shaggytheclown17 in a nutshell.

Somehow most of the Intelligent Design believers I've met or argued with all seemed like idiots. In this thread there actually seems to be some good discussion happening. I'm still atheist and still don't agree with most of what's being said by the ID side of this argument, but it's refreshing to see this playing out without accusations of brainwashing or childish insults.

At 7/9/08 09:49 PM, poxpower wrote:

he's not "flirting close", that's his argument.
He still thinks it's an awesome one.
It's memorize.
Using the watchmaker argument is infinitely idiotic if you think about it for exactly one second.
Wow, mountains exist, so they must have had a designer!
Wow, snowflakes are impossibly complicated and all unique, someone much be making snowflakes!

Poxy, Poxy, Poxy.

Tell me again Poxy, am I religious or a confused Deist?

Oh I can never tell what I am with you.

Besides. I didn't argue for or against ID. As I said, I don't care for it and I'd prefer not to have it taught. I'm just pointing out what would happen given a certain circumstance.

It's not MY fault that it's how the scientists and world would react, now is it?

Lol. You're such a pitiful excuse for a human being.

Then to all of these, he'll go "oh but those things we know how they're made, but not the universe, so my argument rules".

Then I want you to answer me honestly (if that were ever possible... no).

If we found something like a palace or skycraper or any other building-like structure on a foreign planet, what will the headlines of the major media outlets say, and what will the Scientists be banking on?

Haha, You know the answer. Therefore your irritating rants and incoherent ramblings shouldn't be directed towards me, but to those who you, yourself, hold in such high regard.

I mean, after all, it's not my fault these same people are spending billions of dollars to find any underdeveloped lifeform on another planet when we have absolutely no evidence of proof whatsoever of any other forms of life even existing.

So please. Be consistant. I'm not shaggy. I've made known time and time again that I abhor religion in politics. I don't use religion to argue anything from my side of the isle.

Hell, I'm not even the first to bring up religion in a serious discussion.

But hey, what do I expect from the same guy who claimed I was a "confused deist" and then flip-flops right around and claims that I'm religious, only when it suits him?

Heh, wow I love you.

So much fun. I heavily enjoy having my balls in your mouth, you know.

At 7/9/08 04:16 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

How would scientists even begin to start testing whether or not there was a God? Your claim is absolutely asinine.

But that's not the point.

I'm only telling you about how the world and scientific community would act. Nothing more and nothing less.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. Or even if it's science or not. But that is how they will react. And it is for that reason, why I am wondering why the same group of people who would claim "We have no proof of God/Deity/Force, therefore we can't say" will suddenly jump at such a circumstance that I provided, before they even test anything.

And why wouldn't they? As I said, they're already spending billions to push forward specifically to find any other underdeveloped life on another planet when we have absolutely no evidence that such other life even exists.

Haha, that's why I don't understand people like Poxy. So simple-minded.

What do you believe, Memorize.

At 7/10/08 12:17 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/9/08 04:16 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

How would scientists even begin to start testing whether or not there was a God? Your claim is absolutely asinine.

But that's not the point.

I'm only telling you about how the world and scientific community would act. Nothing more and nothing less.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. Or even if it's science or not. But that is how they will react. And it is for that reason, why I am wondering why the same group of people who would claim "We have no proof of God/Deity/Force, therefore we can't say" will suddenly jump at such a circumstance that I provided, before they even test anything.

And why wouldn't they? As I said, they're already spending billions to push forward specifically to find any other underdeveloped life on another planet when we have absolutely no evidence that such other life even exists.

Haha, that's why I don't understand people like Poxy. So simple-minded.

We'll assume that they make the claim and everyone believes it without anyone testing the premise. Let's even go there. You're forgetting that science is based on constantly being checked and rechecked. If the structures weren't created by anything, then somebody would get the proof, present it to the scientific community and then, oh shit, the scientific community would change it's theory.

Also, your point wasn't to explain how the scientific community would react. You were using it as an example to show a perceived double-standard.

And again, it's entirely the point. You ALSO made the claim that scientists not believing in God wasn't discovery and lauded that as being against science. My counterpoint was that you can't discover something that's unobservable. That's just a stupid comment to make.

You can't exactly say that's the only point you were making when you're in print saying that you were using that as an analogy to illustrate a further point and, in the process, making separate points, as well. Well, you can't do that and look credible at the same time, if that's the sort of thing that's important to you.