Forums > Social Discussion > Intelligent Design vs Evolution

Login/Join to Participate
Page: ......
ben-ja-menGOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia


Posted:
ok so first read this https://www.venganza.org/
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how censored censored censored censored censored censored censored censored this is.

*deep cleansing breath*

ok so how is it that any educated person (as one would assume the Kansas School Board would be required to have some level of education?) or even a mildly retarded chimp for that matter would even consider adding something like ID to a science curriculum?

Now if the ID group where to be taking a page or two from Cellular Automata (which evolution essentially is just in a much more complex environment with more complex survival/interaction rules) and add that the resulting now is possibly the result of design by choosing the rules such that it would evolve in such a way to have created the given now, or that the soul's link to the real world might be the apparently random quantum tunnelling effects that take place in the microtubules (yet another CA) in the brain then i wouldnt have such a big problem with their proposal. both of which are horribly speculative and cant be proven but both allow for the concept of "god" to be introduced to highlight that science doesnt have all the answers

i suppose next we will be using the fox network for our history classes? confused
/end vent

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
(just to provoke) Reading even halfway through this thread I can't find it offtopic...

If man was created after the image of his creator, the creator must be perfectly stupid. As he is perfect in all other aspects... wisdom, knowledge, virtue...

F*** duality! This religion game is merely about the stupidity and to control those "who were designed to be"...

You classify stupidity in a certain way that is mainstream. I can't follow up on it, this way right now. I say stupidity exists, not just as an "absence" or lack of intelligence. There are very educated and rationalised people, who act extremely stupid. Stupidity and intelligence do not exclude each other.

And (just to raise the question) why is it that every time it comes to the restroom-scene, god is not in it? God doesn't have to fart or sh1t, he neuther has to fcuk to reproduce, nor does he have to eat or drink. He doesn't even have to sleep and is everywhere, all the time... how much do we have in common with this figure (if he exists at all)?

Created by................... Aliens *woahahaha* I seem to have lost track about the true intention of this thread long ago... shrug

redface pardon me...

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


StoneGOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,830 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia


Posted:
Fire Tom, its not that difficult to figure out. It's a story and it's all made up. We were never created, we evolved, and man created God in his image.

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh


spiralxveteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK


Posted:
 Written by: Alien_Concept


 Written by: Patriarch917


Very cool news on the structure of the brain...



Yeah! The part of the brain where spatial dimension is calculated is bigger amongst taxi drivers.


London black cab drivers to be precise. Most likely because the Knowledge is the strictest requirement for drivers anywhere in the world...

 Written by:

London's black cab drivers must pass a daunting exam known as "The Knowledge" before they can sit behind the wheel. The Knowledge takes two years of study, and prospective drivers must memorize some 25,000 streets near Central London, and learn the quickest way between points. They must also know the whereabouts of every hospital, theatre, hotel, train station, etc., etc., etc. Then they sit for months of rigorous exams before being certified. Rest assured that a driver of a black taxi knows his or her stuff!



That "near Central London" is within six miles of Charing Cross, a vast area of London...

"Moo," said the happy cow.


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
According to a survey at american universities, 58% of the students take the story of Adam and Eve literally.

The same survey showed that 23% believe, that god created humans 10.000 years ago.

At the university of Ohio it was learned that only 62% of those studying natural sciences are convinced that evolution is proven and nowadays more and more professors at universities in the US have to watch their students start counting a skeletons ribs, when asked which gender it would be...

Not very smart if you think that a skeleton has no gender in the first place... umm wink ubblol tongue

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


StoneGOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,830 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia


Posted:
Fire Tom, It all makes me wonder if we are entering another Dark Age of ignorance and superstition.

I'm thinking they should survey students at those american universities and ask them if they know what metaphor means.

rolleyes

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh


spiralxveteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK


Posted:
If you want to see speciation in action, this page has a living example with no "missing links".

https://www.osc-ib.com/revision/pdf/biologyoptd2.pdf

smile

"Moo," said the happy cow.


Patriarch917SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA


Posted:
Actually, that's an example of subspeciation in action. It is taking place through the loss of genetic material , not additions of new characteristics through random mutations. Both examples are simply different "breeds" in the same species.

DominoSILVER Member
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK


Posted:
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH!!!!

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5479410612081345878&pl=true

This Creationist video has the same arguments that have been hashed and rehashed again and again. It's nothing new in there but in the first 5 mintues is a great bit of reasoning as to why bananas are proof of God that made me smile.

There's also a nice bit about how no one can make an absolute statement (ie "There is no God") because to do so requires omnipotence, which no one has - that itself being a n absolute statement.

The upshot of this is that because without being omnipotence you can't "know" that there is no God an "Atheist" cannot exist but therefor is an "Agnostic". What is not meantioned is that without being omnipotence you can't "know" that God does exist, so you too are an Agnostic.

I realise that post adds little to the thread, it's just that the banana argument really did make me crack a smile ubblol

Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.


Patriarch917SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA


Posted:
I have not watched the video. If they indeed tried to make the argument as you expressed it, they are clearly wrong. I will explain it in more detail.

In order to prove the theory that "there is no God" you would have to prove the non-existence of something. This is generally considered to be impossible. It is not restricted to God, but can be applied to aliens, purple cows, or anything you haven't seen. In order to know that something doesn't exist, you would have to know everything that does exist.

The term for this is omniscience, not omnipotence. The special thing about applying this analysis to God is that omniscience is a characteristic generally associated only with God. That's the tricky part.

In order for an Atheist to say with certainty that "there is no God" he would have to be omniscient. Thus, in order to know that there are no gods, an Atheist would have to become a god himself.

You are incorrect in thinking that the argument works in reverse. One has to be omniscient in order to know that something doesn't exist, but you do not have to omniscient to know that something does exist.

In order for me to know that purple cows do not exist, I would have to know everything that does exist in order to be able to make sure. On the other hand, to know that there is a purple cow, one need not be omniscient. One need only to have seen a purple cow.

The same works with God. While one would need to be omniscient to know that there is no God, one does not have to be omniscient in order to know that there is a God.

This encourages Atheists to claim not that the believe God doesn't exist, but rather that they simply have no belief on the subject. Technically, this does make them agnostics.

Men will never be able to disprove the existence of God, because to do so would require the men to become gods themselves. Agnosticism is too lazy a position for people capable of rational thought. The idea of God will always be with humanity. Atheism is an untenable position, and agnosticism is unimpressive (rocks also lack opinions).

On second thought perhaps I am being too insulting to the rocks. After all, the Bible speaks highly of the ability of rocks to glorify God.

spiralxveteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK


Posted:
Not really, because atheism is a matter of faith; as you say, you can't disprove god. Therefore proof, or lack of it, (proof being disproof in this case) is irrelevant.

"Moo," said the happy cow.


DominoSILVER Member
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK


Posted:
I feely admit, I post that video mostly because the banana comment made me laugh. The video doesn't present a particlularly good argument and at least half of it is given over to ways to try and convert an athesist, specificly mentioning that it's not a good idea to dwell too long on the intellectual aspect of it.

 Written by: Patriarch917


The term for this is omniscience, not omnipotence.




Beg pardon.

 Written by: Patriarch917


You are incorrect in thinking that the argument works in reverse.




I disagree when it relates to a total lack of evidence. I might in fact be a purple cow. Without any evidence of this, you would need to be omniscience to know if I was.

Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.


UCOFSILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
15,414 posts
Location: United Kingdom


Posted:
I have added this thread to the Stumbleupon firefox browser plugin smile

DominoSILVER Member
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK


Posted:
Hahaha, I love that Stumble button - I haven't slept in weeks

Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.


Patriarch917SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA


Posted:
 Written by: Domino



 Written by: Patriarch917



You are incorrect in thinking that the argument works in reverse.







I disagree when it relates to a total lack of evidence. I might in fact be a purple cow. Without any evidence of this, you would need to be omniscience to know if I was.





If I were omniscient, I would have the evidence.



In order to get the evidence for somethings existence, I do not have to be omniscient.



To state that there is a total lack of evidence, I would need to be omniscient.



To know if you are a purple cow, I need only know you. I would not have to know everything else.



Oh yeah, and I thought the banana description was hilarious. I always knew the banana was a well designed food, but I never heard all of it's qualities pointed out like that.

DominoSILVER Member
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK


Posted:
Well at least we agree about the banana ubbrollsmile

Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.


jeff(fake)Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh


Posted:
Just saw the "Banana arguement" for the existance of God. biggrin



Those people are pretty stupid.



 Written by: Patriarch917

Men will never be able to disprove the existence of God, because to do so would require the men to become gods themselves. Agnosticism is too lazy a position for people capable of rational thought. The idea of God will always be with humanity. Atheism is an untenable position, and agnosticism is unimpressive (rocks also lack opinions).

By this logic you must also believe in the Flying Spagetti Monster, and the Invisable Pink Unicorn.



And by the way, atheism isn't untenable. Someone could rationaly believe something is true based on the basis of lack of evidence for the opposite. You're confusing atheism with absence of belief rolleyes.

 Written by: Patriarch917



Actually, that's an example of subspeciation in action. It is taking place through the loss of genetic material , not additions of new characteristics through random mutations. Both examples are simply different "breeds" in the same species.



That's exactly what speciesism is. Oy...



And we've already shown new characteristics forming though random mutations.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...


jeff(fake)Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh


Posted:
To summarise this thread in it's entriity...



 Written by: atheists of silicon valley

# PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE MEMORY

(1) [Christian asks "stumper" question.]

(2) [Atheist answers question.]

(3) [A lapse of time]

(4) [Christian repeats question.]

(5) [Atheist repeats answer.]

(6) [A lapse of time]

(7) [Christian repeats question.]

(8) [Atheist repeats answer.]

(9) [A lapse of time]

(10) Atheist, you never answered my question.

(11) Therefore, God exists.



According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...


mcpPLATINUM Member
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom


Posted:
i AM a flying spaghetti monster! Haven't you seen my hair? biggrin

"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade

I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.


Patriarch917SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA


Posted:
 Written by: jeff(fake)



 Written by: Patriarch917

Men will never be able to disprove the existence of God, because to do so would require the men to become gods themselves.

By this logic you must also believe in the Flying Spagetti Monster, and the Invisable Pink Unicorn.




Not at all. Read my post carefully. I do not claim that an inability to prove a lack of existence means that you must believe something exists. Instead, I claim that an inability to prove a lack of existence allows you merely to be uncertain. I will elaborate:

I cannot prove that aliens do not exist. In order to do that, I would need to have checked everywhere in the universe.

However, I cannot simply say "I can't prove that there are no aliens, thus they must exist." This would be an example of the logical fallacy known as an "argument from ignorance" where one essentially says "Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven."

It may be helpful in this instance to consider the adage "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

What I presented in the post you quoted was not an argument in favor of the existence of God. It merely demonstrated that it is irrational to claim to be certain that there is no God. At best, you can merely say that you lack knowledge about whether God exists. This is called agnosticism.

A case for the existence of God cannot be based on the irrationality of Atheism. Instead, the case for God's existence should be based on the evidence in favor of God.

 Written by: jeff(fake)


And by the way, atheism isn't untenable. Someone could rationaly believe something is true based on the basis of lack of evidence for the opposite.




Actually, that would be an example of irrationality. This is the sort of reasoning that you mistakenly thought I was advocating.

Stated succinctly it is a logical fallacy when "a person erroneously regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting evidence or proof that another view is instead true."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 Written by: jeff(fake)


You're confusing atheism with absence of belief rolleyes.




If I had wanted to confuse Atheism with an absence of belief, I would merely have quoted you when you said:
 Written by: jeff(fake)

Atheism means the absence of belief in God


SymBRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom


Posted:
ubblol

You're still at it!

I'll drop in again when you get to page 60...

Have fun hug

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees


Matty_BSILVER Member
veteran
1,314 posts
Location: Blu's Pocket, United Kingdom


Posted:
Invisible Pink Unicorn ?

if something is invisible, can it be pink ?

if it is pink, then surely we should be able to see it, and ,ergo, not invisible ?

SymBRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom


Posted:
But in doing that you're guilty of appling logic to faith...

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees


Matty_BSILVER Member
veteran
1,314 posts
Location: Blu's Pocket, United Kingdom


Posted:
I think I will leave before I cause anymore trouble . . . wink

jeff(fake)Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh


Posted:
 Written by: Patriarch917



 Written by: jeff(fake)



You're confusing atheism with absence of belief rolleyes.





If I had wanted to confuse Atheism with an absence of belief, I would merely have quoted you when you said:

 Written by: jeff(fake)

Atheism means the absence of belief in God





Good grief. You've even quoted it and gotten it wrong. Atheism means an absence in belief in God, not an absence of belief.



What part of this is complicated? confused



I mean, there are tons of religious atheist groups. Many forms of Bhuddism for example.



Look at the word.



"A-" meaning absence or opposite



"theist" meaning belief in God



All together - "a-theist" - absence of belief in God, not an absence of belief altogether. Many atheist have very few beliefs or none altogether, some have lots. All that atheist is is a word to describe any person who believes in one less of the many thousands of gods that mankind in their ignorance dreamt up to explain away things they couldn't answer than you do.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...


jeff(fake)Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh


Posted:
 Written by: Patriarch917

At best, you can merely say that you lack knowledge about whether God exists. This is called agnosticism.


One can lack knowledge of something and not believe in it. I have no evidence for an Invisable Pink Unicorn and I don't believe in an Invisable Pink Unicorn. I don't disbelieve in it, I simple don't believe in it. It is the same condition with standard atheism.

I think I've made that simple enough...

Incidently, I'm not an atheist. I'm told my position is known as ignostic, which apparently means I think the whole question of gods, goblins or magic is worthless.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...


Pogo69SILVER Member
there's no charge for awesomeness... or attractiveness
3,764 posts
Location: limbo, Australia


Posted:
 Written by: Matty B


Invisible Pink Unicorn ?

if something is invisible, can it be pink ?

if it is pink, then surely we should be able to see it, and ,ergo, not invisible ?



Which now proves (by some of the strange logic being applied elsewhere in this thread).... that pink is a state of mind, not just something that you need to "see" to prove it's existence.

--pogo (pat) [forever and always]


SymBRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom


Posted:
Jeff, I think the amount of posts you have made in this thread alone means you cannot be ignostic, I have always thought of you as an atheist...

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees


jeff(fake)Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh


Posted:
 Written by: Pogo69



 Written by: Matty B



Invisible Pink Unicorn ?



if something is invisible, can it be pink ?



if it is pink, then surely we should be able to see it, and ,ergo, not invisible ?





Which now proves (by some of the strange logic being applied elsewhere in this thread).... that pink is a state of mind, not just something that you need to "see" to prove it's existence.



Good point.



What am I doing trying to hold a rational conversation with someone who believe the world is 6000 years old and homosexuality a sin. Better to take to p*ss really, more fun too.



Find out where Family Guy ranks creationists...



Lookout! It's the Creationist Patrol



Science vs. Norse mythology. Why Norse mythology can beat science where Creationism failed.
EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1146526031)

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...


DominoSILVER Member
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK


Posted:
 Written by: Matty B


Invisible Pink Unicorn ?

if something is invisible, can it be pink ?

if it is pink, then surely we should be able to see it, and ,ergo, not invisible ?



That's kinda the point...

Linky!

Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.


Patriarch917SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA


Posted:
 Written by: jeff(fake)



Atheism means an absence in belief in God, not an absence of belief.







Point out to me where I said "Atheism means a lack of belief" and I will correct it.



You have taken pains to disagree with a claim that I have never made. Recall, the conclusion of my argument was:

 Written by:

This encourages Atheists to claim not that they believe God doesn't exist, but rather that they simply have no belief on the subject.





 Written by: jeff(fake)



One can lack knowledge of something and not believe in it. I have no evidence for an Invisable Pink Unicorn and I don't believe in an Invisable Pink Unicorn. I don't disbelieve in it, I simple don't believe in it. It is the same condition with standard atheism.



I think I've made that simple enough...







Indeed, I do not disagree. To "not believe" requires merely a lack of opinion. I lack a belief in unicorns, pink or otherwise. The same can be said of a rock. When it comes to unicorns, I am an agnostic.



It would be different if I were to claim to believe that there are no unicorns. This would be a positive statement about their existence, comparable to the Atheist who states that he believes there is no God. Neither of us can prove our beliefs because neither of us are omniscient.



The interesting philosophical difference occurs when we imagine the circumstances needed in order to prove our beliefs. Assuming that any being who has achieved omniscience deserves to be called a "god," we would both have to become "gods" in order to prove our beliefs.



Were I to become a god, I could check everywhere to see if unicorns exist. If they do not, I could then rationally hold the belief that there are no unicorns.



Were the Atheist to become a god in order to make sure that there were no gods, he would face a problem. If, indeed, there had been no other gods before, there would be one now. Thus, the theory that there is no God can never be verified. Atheism is untenable because the only evidence sufficient to prove it would require a method that would disprove it.



Thus, it is irrational to state "there is no God." At most, you can say "I do not know whether there is a God, so I will neither believe nor disbelieve in His existence."



To say "I don't know, therefore I have no opinion" is unimpressive, but at least it is not irrational.



To "believe" generally means "to accept as true or real." There are three possible positions one can have regarding God:

1. I believe that God does not exist.

2. I believe that God exists.

3. I do not believe either way.



People who hold to number 1 are clearly Atheists, but sometimes people who call themselves Atheists prefer to word their position more like number 3. Agnostics would generally identify strongly with number 3.



You say potato, I say potato. I was careful in my previous post to spell out the position, rather than simply apply a label. Were I to simply use the word "Atheist" and Agnostic" I knew I would have people try to dispute the meanings of the words.

Page: ......
HOP Newsletter
Sign up to get the latest on sales, new releases and more...