Intellegent Design

[theundeadhero]

At the core Intelligent Design is a theory on the origin of the world. It was sparked when several major accredited scientist from a majority of scientific fields got together and started discussing the topic. One scientist brought up that their was irrefutable discrepencees in his field that prove against evolution but evolution still has to be true because of the proof in all the other scientific fields. Another scientist spoke up and said he found the same in his field. A majority of the other fields all agreed. They got together and did research and the Intelligent Design theory is the result. Here is a good website that discusses some of points. Discuss. Intel. Design

[DeBlayde]

(paints great big Flaming target on his chest)

yup. I agree. a huge explosion, defined as a random release of energy, cannot create a perfectly ordered system. or even an imperfectly ordered system. or creating any kind of system. a huge explosion is great for busting up systems, though.

evolution is a bad word to use. What Darwin observed and recorded was really nothing more than adaptation within a species. just becase the shape and structure of a bird's beak changes, or beatles change color and shape doesn't mean that that beatle will become a spider, or something resembling one. or that that bird will become an ostrich or something resembling one.

supposing we take into account random chance when the first neucleotides formed in the primordial soup. the odds of that happening by chance are astronomical.

wanna know what the odds are of it happening again? in a word, astronomical * astronomical. with each reoccurance, the thing increases exponentially. and for the first single celled organism to form, I think someplace along the lines of a million nuecleotides would need to form and link up.

therefore, random chance is a HELLLA bad kind of Origin Story. I mean, the Seneca legend of somebody cutting a hole in the sky, through which a lady fell and landed on a sea turtle and became mother earth is more likely.

This is my reasoning. I do not suggest anybody need agree with or accept this reasoning as valid. think about it for yourself.

now if you'll excuse me, I'll just hide so all the flames will not get me.

[Dr Unne]

I don't know crap about biology. I do know that evolution is considered all but fact in the scientific community. This is only according to my biology professors at college, my friends in med school (basically biology majors), and most of the informed opinions I've read on the internet and elsewhere.

I do know plenty about religion, and to the second a scientists puts a supernatural unknown perhaps-unknowable omnipotent creator-being into a scientific theory, he loses 99% of his credibility in my eyes.

"God did it" can explain any number of theories. "I don't understand how life could've formed at random" does not imply "God did it". It implies either that life formed at random and that you don't understand how, or that life did not form at random and that therefore some other of the infinite possiblities is correct instead.

This subject doesn't interest me very much, but I'll offer a link with some arguments against intelligent design. You can read if you like and decide for yourself. I haven't read most of it myself, personally.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...sm/design.html

[Shadow Nexus]

I agree with Unne. Evolution is just a theory, and could very well be wrong. Maybe God did create us all, I am an agnostic and a skeptic, so I wouldn't deny anything on the supernatural. However, I believe that a scientist, at least in modern science, should not rely on the supernatural. Science is meant to be empirical, and if you have no empirical (not even rational) evidence of a God existing, trying to explain things through God won't make a scientific theory, maybe a philosophical one.

Whats my point? Well, I don't like the method of modern science at all, but I believe that in the case of modern science, when you simply don't understand something, you must simply say it is beyond the reach of science for now. Can you mention God? Yes, but as your personal belief, not as a part of your scientific theory. I said, in modern science.

[Martyr]

Argument against evolution: Chances of occurrance are scientifically proven to be approximately impossible to the 300th power. (I'd look up the number, but I don't feel like it right now.)

That's the really strong argument. So strong that most people who don't believe in evolution simply consider it a scientist religion.

(Universities, especially science professors, strongly stress it's existence. It's because college is all about finding answers. I'd say that 3/4 of my professors are evolutionist or atheist, and they've all had something to say about it. That massive influence is probably what causes so many "?educated" or "intellectuals" to feel that God doesn't exist. You wouldn't believe how many people disregard religion because they want to pretend that they are really smarter than other people instead of merely educated.)

Evolution's only saving grace is that funny statement: "In an infinite universe with an infinite amount of time..."

On the flip side, Intelligent Design is always there, whether it's true or false. No sense in studying that at all. So scientists should keep searching for answers.

I wonder if evolution should be considered a failed theory by now. I think it's time for something else.

[eestlinc]

How exactly has evolution been proven to be impossible? How would you go about even trying to prove something like that?

[DeBlayde]

well, it's not so much that evolution is dead wrong, so much as there are several rather large inconsistencies and several things that fly in the face of the theory.

for example, opossums and sharks. the fossil record indicates both these creatures having existed for hundreds of thousands of years, millions in the case of sharks. the environments in which these creatures live, according to the fossil record and geological data, has changed drastically over that course of time. yet these creatures remain much as they are instead of changing alongside all the other animals that changed.

so the question raised is, why did these animals stay the same, while others changed drastically? these animals are just as suited as any other animal of their type to exist within their environment now, and according to the fossil record, they were just as suited as most other species of their type back then, so why did those animals change, when these did not?

that's just one example. I'll go back to hiding now.

[eestlinc]

maybe they really are more suited, or maybe they just got lucky, or maybe some sharks did evolve but got eaten and cut off the evolution. who knows?

[DeBlayde]

*you hear the voice of DeBlayde coming from somewhere where he's still hiding*

sure maybe. but maybe a talking donkey came along and yakked constantly then kicked them in the bejeebies and they couldn't reproduce after that.

there've been plenty of ideas, but nobody's been able to back anything up with data. unless they're making too broad of generalizations given the data they found. (happens a lot in scientific research)

*still hiding*

[eestlinc]

One time Babe Ruth came up to bat six times in one game but didn't hit a single home run. That proves he couldn't hit home runs.

[DeBlayde]

yes, that is an example of an over generalization, Est.

another common mistake in scientific research is interpreting your results to explain a theory to which they don't really apply, or more commonly interpreting somebody else's results to explain your case.

many people don't like the idea of a supreme being, because it means they'd be held accountable for what they do. not saying anybody here holds that opinion, I'm just stating a fairly commonly held belief evidenced by survey and sociological study. they will go far outta their way to back up this belief too. and when somebody does not want to believe something, there's usually nothing anybody can say to convince them otherwise.

another interesting note: The speed of rotation of this planet around the axis seems to be slowing. a few years ago, an atomic clock (accurate to 1/10000th of a second) had to be set one second back because of this effect (this isn't somebody's idea, this was a researched and published thing). now IF this is a trend that has been happening for a long time, then 65 million years ago, the world would have been spinning so fast as to be unable to support life.

[eestlinc]

anything's possible, but it just seems to me like you made up your mind what result you want to get and are just grabbing at anything that might possibly support that conclusion. If you believe God created everything and controls all aspects of life, why do you need to use science to try and prove it?

[Casey]

Erm, they recently found midget bones out in Asia (somewhere?). That would probably prove why alotta Asians are short.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_i...0545816C962329

[Doomgaze]

Do me a favor. Pick a number between 0-9, please. Write it down.

Got it? Pick another one.

And another. Get... let's see, 15 of them, right in a row. Nice number you've got there, huh?

NO. LIES. HERESY! You do NOT have that number! The odds of you having that number are astronomical! There's a one in a QUADRILLION* chance of you getting the number in front of you. Clearly GOD created that number.




*(if you use the american system, I believe it is 1000 Billion to you brits)

[Jebus]

The main problem with intelligent design is that this universe is NOT perfect. Sure its nigh impossible that life evolved the way it did, but there are also infinite outcomes. And when there are infinite outcomes even an improbable outcome becomes certain.

The universe does not work like a clock. There are many underlying factors. In the physical plane, objects work according to their laws. Apply non-euclidean theories. Relativity theories. Then we have another plane to work with. We exist in four dimensions. Intelligent design and the clockwork universe theory rely on the belief that time is infalliable, and that we are only affected in three dimensions. Einstein's theory states that as an object approaches the speed of light, time slows down. As time can be experimented on, we must assume that it can be altered in the same way as matter , and is subject to its own laws. Probability applies to it too, as with the rest of the universe. Due to the fact that there are infinite chances of it happening, an unlikely event becomes certain. Right now a pocket of space time is tearing it self open between two points in the universe. As I said before, if there are infinite possibilities, and infinite chances for each possibility, then an outcome becomes certain.

If this universe follows mathematical law, then all laws of probability apply. When the laws of probability are applied, everything becomes uncertain. The fact that uncertainties exist disprove an orderly universe. Of course, when probability is applied all laws become false, as there exists a possibility of something different happening. All things are uncertain.