may i add. Evolution and intelligent design are prima facie mutually exclusive of the other,

It takes a modified model for intelligent design to reconcile both. That is, for example that God intelligently created evolution knowing what his creation would develop into. Or that he guided it. Or intelligent design just in reference to the universe and setting up the possibility of life (but that runs into simply a deist and 'lazy' God)

Suggesting he guided it, will no doubt sound far fetched to atheists.

But at the end of the day, if it was guided or not it would be AS IS. Therefore science can only study it as it has been and science tries to theorise upon the empircal evidence. It postulates on what it sees. Accordingly, even if God did guide it, it would still appear as evolution by science's reckoning.

^ great post

Yeah, well there is no proof for evolution either...

Fucking hell, I nearly fell off my chair. Tell me you have changed your mind since posting this please.

Evolution is real and the complexity of life is not proof of intelligent design. The governing laws and structure (the ones we know and the ones we have yet to discover) of the universe - of our reality, have brought things together in the manner we see them.

Personally I look at the universe and creator as one and the same. Whether there is anything outside that makes no difference to me unless there is evidence to make me think otherwise.

may i add. Evolution and intelligent design are prima facie mutually exclusive of the other,

It takes a modified model for intelligent design to reconcile both. That is, for example that God intelligently created evolution knowing what his creation would develop into. Or that he guided it. Or intelligent design just in reference to the universe and setting up the possibility of life (but that runs into simply a deist and 'lazy' God)

Suggesting he guided it, will no doubt sound far fetched to atheists.

But at the end of the day, if it was guided or not it would be AS IS. Therefore science can only study it as it has been and science tries to theorise upon the empircal evidence. It postulates on what it sees. Accordingly, even if God did guide it, it would still appear as evolution by science's reckoning.

A modified model for intelligent design to reconcile both?

You're giving far too much credit and authority to Intelligent Design AS a scientific theory. Again, for the cheap seats, in order for ID to be scientific- this is all that can be debated at this point- it needs to overlap with what evolution describes...

...that is, it must describe a natural phenomenon and then proceed to take empirical steps to explain that phenomenon. Observation: This the first step. If we're looking at say, the Krebs cycle, in order for ID to be scientific it has to do more than go "I don't understand that, nobody ever will, looks like God's hand at work!" It has to identify what is AT WORK. In other words, it has to first identify this designer, otherwise our options on the table range from Zeus, to Cleopatra's ghost, to the disembodied voice of Bas Rutten. Quite a task. And this is to say nothing of what a biological system looks like when it is "intelligently" designed, and not "un-intelligently" designed- another instance where ID fails the test of being scientific. If your counterargument to extinct species is that ID is only directed at the molecular level than you've got some 'splaining' to do- any legitimate scientific theory will address both as they are each expressions of the other; at the level of the molecular as well as the physical.

Then it needs a mechanism- that is, what process perpetuates this design? Biological change occurs all the time, and within populations, certainly every generation, so I'm assuming there exists a mechanism that keeps it going- God's angels doing his dirty work perhaps. What predictions does it make? The answer is zero, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The thing to understand is that all of this is needed in order for ID to be considered SCIENTIFIC. If it's just a theory suggesting God started it all, then congratulations on totally missing the last few centuries of theological discourse. As it stands, ID is a poor attempt at turning science into a political battleground, with its theology masquerading as science.

As for your last bit. It's already been explained. There is an explanation for design. And it's "maker" is called evolution.

Then it needs a mechanism- that is, what process perpetuates this design? Biological change occurs all the time, and within populations, certainly every generation, so I'm assuming there exists a mechanism that keeps it going- God's angels doing his dirty work perhaps. What predictions does it make? The answer is zero, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The thing to understand is that all of this is needed in order for ID to be considered SCIENTIFIC. If it's just a theory suggesting God started it all, then congratulations on totally missing the last few centuries of theological discourse. As it stands, ID is a poor attempt at turning science into a political battleground, with its theology masquerading as science.

As for your last bit. It's already been explained. There is an explanation for design. And it's "maker" is called evolution.


The "design" being a work-in-progress, formed under envirnomental pressures.

ID sucks even harder when you consider that it really is the thin edge of the wedge for the belief that there is some omnipotent being watching over you and only talks to the people that ask you for money on Sunday.

may i add. Evolution and intelligent design are prima facie mutually exclusive of the other,

It takes a modified model for intelligent design to reconcile both. That is, for example that God intelligently created evolution knowing what his creation would develop into. Or that he guided it. Or intelligent design just in reference to the universe and setting up the possibility of life (but that runs into simply a deist and 'lazy' God)

Suggesting he guided it, will no doubt sound far fetched to atheists.

But at the end of the day, if it was guided or not it would be AS IS. Therefore science can only study it as it has been and science tries to theorise upon the empircal evidence. It postulates on what it sees. Accordingly, even if God did guide it, it would still appear as evolution by science's reckoning.

Still, if we can't verify if through direct or indirect observation and induction, occam's razor applies and superfluous entities are removed from the process until they are needed. If both situations would result in the same phenomenon, there is no need to postulate something like God.

Fucking hell, I nearly fell off my chair. Tell me you have changed your mind since posting this please.




I don't know what I was thinking when I posted that, I must have been high.

i always wonder what atheists have to say about what created everything or even started the big bang. something always had to have made it. i understand Christians say the same thing when theyre asked, "so what made God". im completely satisfied saying i dont know. but if there was no God i guess like aliens or something ad to have started everything. but theres no evidence whatsoever for them. i dont know haha

i always wonder what atheists have to say about what created everything or even started the big bang. something always had to have made it. i understand Christians say the same thing when theyre asked, "so what made God". im completely satisfied saying i dont know. but if there was no God i guess like aliens or something ad to have started everything. but theres no evidence whatsoever for them. i dont know haha

Ugh--theists need some new material.

Occam's Razor: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

which translates to: entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

Atheists don't have an answer to what created the universe (if anything did). So the reasonable response is to assume that the universe has always existed or that there is an infinite regress. Nobody likes either solution, but God does not solve the question.

http://www.sitchin.com/

This guy has some interesting ideas that may appeal to atheists as well as religious folk.

It's nice to fantasize that we were created by beings from outerspace whom will one day swoop down and inform us of the meaning of life.. IMO thats the only reason people believe in ID to hopefully someday GET that answer we've all been seeking.. "what is the purpose of life??"

A few things wrong with ID theories..

1.Did they create all life on earth or just humans??
2.in what image were we created in?? as the man we see now or caveman we've dug up out of the ground??
3.Did they kill the dinosaurs?? why??
Finally...
4.Where does the proof of evolution fit in?? I mean they have skeletons of the evolutionary cycle, so if they created anything it must have been the monkey..

Maybe they found our planet frozen and decided to defrost it by dumping tonnes of salt over the ice until it eventually melted innto the vast Salt water oceans we have today??

Where else did all that salt come from??? oh yah and stole our gold and diamonds.. BASTARDS!!!!!!!!

Open Letter To Kansas School Board (http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/)


I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.
Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.
I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.
You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg
In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; 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.
Sincerely Yours,
Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.
P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.
http://www.venganza.org/him2.jpg
Comment on this letter (http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/discussion/)

Yeah, well there is no proof for evolution either...

500 years ago idiots like you said there was no proof the Earth was round. It's not Galileos' fault you fuckers were just as blind back then as you are now. It's not Darwin's fault you do not understand the Scientific Method...

Why don't you begin with Copernicus and Gallileo, go through Newton, Dawin and Einstein and tell me all of the "scientific proofs" that religious people refused to accept... but now do. The list is amazing.

Wait--there's still 17 pirates around? Where?

Wait--there's still 17 pirates around? Where?

Off the coast of Somalia.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-11/2005-11-18-voa50.cfm?CFID=137532462&CFTOKEN=76310289

Are they hiring?

Are they hiring?

I believe so... yes.

And if not, just have faith that they are and go anyway.

No one knows for sure, there is no consensus in science.

Yes, there is. And Micheal Behe is NOT in the consensus. And he is the only one.

Do you know what no college (except maybe Bible Colleges) teaches ID? BECAUSE IT IS NOT ACCEPTED SCIENCE!

I like this thread... noticed its the non believers that act harsh and are so ready to call names.

So how many Atheists kill other Atheists over their beliefs? How many wars are raging right now due to Atheists?

I call you a fucking idiot for believing in superstious shit, you start a war to make everyone else think like you. Welcome to histoy.

:gojerkit:

:gojerkit:

Jesus you're stupid.

Jesus you're stupid.

I'm not Jesus lol

http://loljesus.com/submissions/jesuslol_spare_change.jpg

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" Stephen Hawking.

http://loljesus.com/submissions/loljesus_children_go_to_hell.jpg

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" Stephen Hawking.

Great.

How does God answer that question?

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" Stephen Hawking.



kudos for quoting the smartest man on the planet.



The same man who will bring time travel from fantasy to reality and also stated that the preservation of the human species is off planet.

Heres the a vid refuting intelligent design http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Esherdog%2Enet%2Fforums%2Fs howthread%2Ephp%3Ft%3D540951

[QUOTE=SVT;254177]This is a discussion on the theory of intelligent design NOT religion, that is a separate matter altogether. I believe there is strong evidence for the existance of a "God" that created this reality with an intelligence that we can't comprehend with our small brains and narrow points of view. The theory of ID was a major factor that brought me to this beliefe so let me share with you some of the information on the subject that I found compelling. I repeat this is not about any specific religion. Take your time and look at some of this info with an open mind.

Intelligen Design can be a seductive argument. It is an intuitive idea. Many scientific theories began as intuitive ideas. Many more intuitive ideas failed to become scientific theories. That happens to be the fate of I.D. Of course, since the concept is backed by the multimillion dollar religious establishment, it will not go away. Yes, the writing of Behe looks impressive, but as some of the other posters mentioned, everything he proposes has been either debunked, or not addressed yet by science. Somebody on this forum mentioned The God Delusion. You should check that book out. ID is NOT a scientific theory. This is an important point, and one that will not be properly atriculated by the ID camp. After somebody has an intuitive idea, rigorous testing is done before it can be called a scientific theory. The idea has to be reconsiled with the natural world. Gravity comes to mind. As does evolution by natural selection. As other posters mentioned, you can't do any testing on ID - it's basically smoke and mirrors. It can be tough to sort through it all - but the information is out there. If you want to believe in God, knock yourself out, but don't be fooled into thinking that ID is a theory to support that belief.

Intelligen Design can be a seductive argument. It is an intuitive idea. Many scientific theories began as intuitive ideas. Many more intuitive ideas failed to become scientific theories. That happens to be the fate of I.D. Of course, since the concept is backed by the multimillion dollar religious establishment, it will not go away. Yes, the writing of Behe looks impressive, but as some of the other posters mentioned, everything he proposes has been either debunked, or not addressed yet by science. Somebody on this forum mentioned The God Delusion. You should check that book out. ID is NOT a scientific theory. This is an important point, and one that will not be properly atriculated by the ID camp. After somebody has an intuitive idea, rigorous testing is done before it can be called a scientific theory. The idea has to be reconsiled with the natural world. Gravity comes to mind. As does evolution by natural selection. As other posters mentioned, you can't do any testing on ID - it's basically smoke and mirrors. It can be tough to sort through it all - but the information is out there. If you want to believe in God, knock yourself out, but don't be fooled into thinking that ID is a theory to support that belief.

Well put my brother. But in the 2 months in between starting this thread on ID and now, SVT has become a Creationist.

As with most absurd religious things, I could not possible make this up.

Thanks for all the posts.

Man was intelligently designed from an ape.

:bump:

:bump:

Jesus aman you're really going grave digging today.