Forums > Social Discussion > Intelligent Design vs Evolution

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...2223242526...30
ben-ja-men
ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide
Member Since: 12th Jun 2003
Total posts: 2474
Posted:ok so first read this http://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?

Delete Topic

Chronofracture333
Chronofracture333

Hobo Gaylord
Location: I am worldwide and lush
Member Since: 15th Jun 2005
Total posts: 329
Posted:ubblol beerchug

*no moves there are no moves there are no moves there are no moves there are no moves there are no*

"Oooh, what a shiny new move!"

Delete

i8beefy2
i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA
Member Since: 24th Mar 2003
Total posts: 674
Posted:#1 Touche. It doesn't say it doesn't exist. Just that all things that happen in the natural world have causes. Whether or not the idea of a "supernatural" cause having a "natural" effect makes sense is a Philosophical problem though. If it is "super natural" then it is BEYOND natural cause-effects, and thus beyond science. This is the perhaps the crux of my argument.

Remember, I'm not saying science is the be all and end all of knowledge... it has its limits, most specifically in what it can consider given its axioms. But the supernatural isn't rightly a part of science, though it has a happy home in the considerations of Philosophy. ID seems to be a political-religious movement instead of an educational-science movement. I'd be very happy indeed though if instead of arguing for it in the science class, we argued for a philosophy course in every school. smile

#2 does not fit with the Quantifyability aspect of natural science. While this is true in application to the real world, ie I can't see atoms or lets say protons, but I can posit their existence, I can't really measure God's influence on things... if you could, it'd certainly mix things up a bit, but his aparent medeling in the world is so mysterious that we can't measure any of it. That also takes away falsifiability, and important part of the scientific method.

==

But anyway, I'm more concerned about the other apparent things I brought up. The evidential support that is, as well as the appearance of the ID argument (by way of Irreduccable Complexity) and the circular logic or infinite reduction it seems to imply as stated. Is there a way to state ID's arguments without falling into one of those holes? I'm sure theirs a tricky way out of em somehow, but I'm no advanced logician, just a poor Philosophy student... smile


Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:While I myself do not advocate ID, I do not think that it has a logical problem any more than any other theory of origin. As was mentioned earlier, one can believe that life on earth was intelligently designed, while the intelligent designer either evolved somewhere besides earth or had always existed.

Even if ID did have "circular" or "infinite" features, I do not quite understand why you would put these issues under the heading of "quantifiability" in the first place. Both a circle and infinity are simple mathematical concepts, and describe many feautures of the universe.


Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: Patriarch917

That's not real science



Ah, I hadn't realised the difference between 'real' science and all that crappy fake science I've been doing. Silly me. rolleyes



EDIT: Hey, mabey I could postulate a supernatural explaination to my lab reports! Bet I wouldn't get called an idiot. ubblol



All you are doing is futily trying to poke holes in a theory you don't understand. You still no evidence of god Patriarch, so your counter arguement is somewhat lacking.

EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1144739189)


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

Delete

i8beefy2
i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA
Member Since: 24th Mar 2003
Total posts: 674
Posted:It DOES have an infinite regress logic problem: specifically, if the complexity implies that an intelligent designer designed it that is one step. If intelligence requires an intricate and complex basis, then any intelligence that designed US must also be too complex to have evolved naturally. Now we can continue this ad infinitum, until we either (a) say that there is an undesigned first designer, which I call passing the buck as this same thing can be said of the original subject (ie Us) instead of passing it to something else, or (b) we say that there is an infinite line of designers and there was never a first intelligent designer. I feel this would be a hard position to hold based on scientific means.

The infinity problem is an interesting question... Do true infinites exist? This is a very special problem in philosophy. Mathematical and conceptual infinites exist, but some of the consequences of the existence of a TRUE infinite are interesting (for instance infinite time would have the interesting effect of meaning that all possibilities converge on 1... if the univer were infinite would this imply that we are both right and wrong, depending only on when, under what circumstances, etc. we are asking?). But again this is a Philosophy problem.

I'm questioning whether or not ID belongs in a classroom. Given sciences current limits, let's say the beginning of the universe, I am saying no. This is because it seems currently that science can say nothing about the universe prior to the beginning of the universe, so it must stop at that point and go no further. An infinite regress would imply being able to say through induction or some other means that science CAN make assumptions beyond this point. Simply another reason for me to reject ID as a scientific principle and say it belongs in a Philosophy class room.


Delete

mcp
mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow.
Member Since: 20th May 2003
Total posts: 5276
Posted: Written by: Patriarch917


In order to study the natural, one might have to assume that the natural exists. However, in order to study the natural, one does not have to assume that the supernatural does not exist.

Similarly, science is only capable of examining the things which humans can somehow sense and comprehend. This does not mean that a scientist must assume that things which he cannot sense or comprehend cannot exist.



Which also leads to the idea that to study the supernatural, one must assume it exists, which as i8beefy states in his uberly well argued posts, it not an assumption science makes. Nor will it ever make it, since as soon as science can study some 'supernatural' phenomenon, it becomes part of the natural world. hurrah! (or rather it always was, but we didn't know the cause previously.)

As for your second point: Yeah big deal. Scientists can believe in god too. And many do, so what?

You haven't defended against i8beefy argument (paraphrased) that creationism and ID have nothing to do with the real (natural) world and aren't based on facts and should be treated as philosophy. Whereas evolution is, (on both counts) and should be treated as science.

Which is part of my view as to why ID and creationism shouldn't be taught in schools, because they don't lead to anything. ID as part of a philosophy course - fine, creationism... nah, you might as well teach scientology for all the sense either of them are going to make.

And I'd just like to reiterate my love of i8beefys clear argument style. Beautiful.


"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.

Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:Given the differences between ID and Creationisim.

Were "they" to teach ID in schools, would the possibility that life originated on another planet and was transplanted here, be classified as natural or supernatural ?


Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning.


well now your just spreading rumors


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

afghan_bingo
afghan_bingo

member
Location: Calgary, Canada
Member Since: 20th Sep 2005
Total posts: 116
Posted:you evolved from a monkey... deal with it

we were somewhere near barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold...

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:An Intelligent Designer is theorized in this case because life is a complex system, and could not have been designed by an unintelligent thing, let's say a rock.

It is not simply because it is a complex system but because of the subtleties and beauty that surround the function. Efficiency is up to grabs if you look at all the left over anatomy, but I would argue relatively efficient.


Intelligence seems to imply a specific method of function: for instance there is a system to intelligence that is based on an inherrent complexity (for instance our intelligence arrises from the incredibly complex system of interconnecting neurons in our brains according to our current best scientific explanations...). Thus we have a bit of a problem.

How is that a problem? it is only a problem if that is the only way intelligence can exist is through increasing complexity. I hold by the fact that of your deductive reasoning while seemingly sound is based on a limitied premise. An author named Bruce Coville wrote that the human mind will never be able to create a true alien because all of what we can create is based on what we know in some shape or form.



That is, complexity implies intelligent design. Intelligence implies complexity.

Hardly, it is an inference made, not an implication.



This is the first cause argument in another form (Some say a Cosmological Argument, though I say that it is such a clear relationship to a Telological Argument that the difference is very slim). Which is why I gave my reasoning for thinking it is better (and more parsimonious) to apply the "uncauses first cause" to the world, or the "undesigned first intelligence" to some natural lifeform than to supply a somewhat less plausible, less explicable, and less parsimonious supernatural explanation.

Still thinking: why?



Which is why it doesn't work as science. Science implies certain things (without which science and all of it's findings are erroneous). One of those things is cause-effect. As this is an evolution / biology thread and not a metaphysics / theoretical physics thread, I hope that we may simply assume this for now without digressing into the cause-effect thread for deeper examination. Anywho, God by definition is "supernatural", meaning beyond the natural world and thus does not necessarily conform to such things as cause-effect, time, logic, etc. Thus as an explanatory force, explains nothing as it is outside of the given system.


There are so many dimensions and scientists see particles jump from one to another, string theory-esque. We know more dimensions exist than the ones we live in, but we cannot actually see them.

You're syllogism, further, only demonstrates that the first premise is mistaken, or at least needs to be qualified. This is a DEDUCTIVE argumentand thus form-valid. Whether or not the content is valid is another matter.

You are arguing the content and holding it as true



If you can show me that intelligence does not imply the complexity that IC argues means there is a designer, then you have not only defeated me, but yourself.
That's a problem in the way the ID argument is formed, and why it isn't scientific: it requires that at least one part of itself does NOT conform to principles like cause-effect, logic, etc. And this is why it isn't science.

Because science never looked at something and said Certainly, I am looking at an effect of something, I wonder what the cause is Damn those apples falling.
I stand by my syllogism as an example of how things that seems to make sense can be wrong. I just used an absurd example. Science is limited because our understanding is. People knew gravity existed before science proved it, you jumped and did not float into space, it was seen as a force that had indelible affect on the world. But if you told scientists that this invisible thing keeps us on the ground or all things in its orbit. Centrifugal forces. Weather patterns. Jet streams. Vector fields. Bacteria. Viruses. Ionospheric Plasma. Unified force theory.
Ah, how sad that miracles do not exist. That things happen that have no natural explination but are not supernatural I shall have to tell my mother that it was a freak accident that the cancer she had grew the wrong way and even though it was stage three did not travel through her system but existed in the pocket the cancer created. I shall tell my coworkers son that he was hearing voices when a woman told him duck when he was in the car alone and had the top ripped off of the car by a semi trailer that he did not see. I shall tell myself that it was coincidence that my perfectly good car stalled right before a car blew a stopsign.
I have more personal examplesI think many other people do too


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

RayinRed
RayinRed

member
Location: Huntington, New York
Member Since: 3rd Apr 2006
Total posts: 39
Posted:I thought it was unintelligent design. The idiots who decided to make US education Christian should be fired, along with Bush. The problem is, we would have to get rid of Bush and 16 of his next sucessors to get to someone decent.

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:Be careful when speaking of complexity. ID does not say that complexity requires intelligent design. Often, the opposite is true.

A stone that has been shaped randomly by the elements can have a great deal of complexity, yet we would not say that it was designed. On the other hand, a stone that was shaped in the form of a perfect cube would be very simple, yet it would be very likely that it was designed.

Irreducible complexity is a concept proposed by Darwin, who suggested that if any feature of life could not be explained by successive gradual modifications his theory would be destroyed. ID has investigated this proposition. I think their attention is misplaced.

A stone in the shape of a perfect cube may have been formed that way with a hammer and chisel through many successive small steps, yet it still would have been intelligently designed.


Delete

Domino
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Member Since: 26th May 2004
Total posts: 757
Posted:Post deleted by Domino

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

Delete

i8beefy2
i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA
Member Since: 24th Mar 2003
Total posts: 674
Posted:It is an inference and not an implication? I disagree completely. You are saying that WE are so complex (or rather, the biological basis of life, so simple bacteria would suffice) that we had to be designed by a more intelligent, and THUS more complex being. Let me explain: a monkey did not intelligently engineer a bacteria's genetic makeup, let alone the much more complex systems for US. Intelligence DOES imply complexity according to our current scientific understanding, because intelligence is a function of underlying complex biological systems. Ie: see cognitive science.

If you want to say intelligence needs no biological complexity, you've just stepped beyond the apparent evidence. You're now in metascience, or more specifically, philosophy.

Once again: why? Because you are positing a THING which can not, and necessarily can not, conform to natural law. Science, as I wrote in the next post, assumes certain axioms: one of which the universe works by certain discoverable laws. As per Berrtrand Russel and the first cause argument, I agree that this sort of infinite regress reasoning is "passing the buck". That is, you are placing a property into a "magical" or "supernatural" thing to explain things when you can just as easily apply a non-supernatural methodology to the original question and it works just as well (or in evolution's case, BETTER, see evidential research, probability of evolution of simple polymers article, etc. etc.). This is why.

Must say I don't have a strong enough background in the scientific methods application in quantum physics. I understand the theories, which I am told are backed by evidential support which arrise from application of the scientific method, which still rests on the cause-effect methodology, but these theories are in large part metaphysics still. You have a lot of people taking stabs at new models and no accepted model is out there yet. It is a paradigm that hasn't quite reached maturity yet, and I will not speculate too much about it as I don't understand the actual math side of it, only the theory side.

As for the syllogysm, yes, I am holding that my content is correct. I was simply pointing out that your argument's content was clearly not restrictive enough to form a valid argument. Just because that one poorly formed argument is incorrect, this does not mean that logic doesn't work. If God is so vastly different from everything else, then it is meaningless to talk about him. Apparently we can say SOME things about him to limit him if its in one view's favor, but not mine. If he is so beyond the natural world as to be incomprehensible, then this is the strongest argument of all to make it off limits to science.

Science is LIMITED because of it's central assumed axioms which are NECESSARY for its method to function. Further, science holds that the laws of the universe are comprehensible. So as a basic axiom, it assumes that we can understand how the universe works. As soon as you posit a thing that is entirely incomprehensible you have stepped out of science and into philosophy.

==

In the end, ID and Iredducable Complexity is a Telelogical Argument for the Existence of God. It is a Philosophical position, and not a science position because it steps outside the bounds of science. I must point out once again that though I am a strong supporter of science, I do NOT believe that everything we experience can be quantified and explained (unless as illusions, but Im skeptical). I'm ONLY SAYING ID IS NOT SCIENCE, not that it isn't a valid philosophical position.


Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:how sad

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

i8beefy2
i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA
Member Since: 24th Mar 2003
Total posts: 674
Posted:Ummmm... ok. Not sure what part is sad, but I'm assuming it's my overarching viewpoint. I suppose you are entitled to your opinion. smile

But in terms of discussion that seems rather like a brick wall dead end... So let's backtrack to my evidential arguments. What do you think about my response to the "ID is a better explanation given the evidence" argument? I offered a few clear cut cases where evolution had a ready made explanation for observable things that ID does not have predictable value. I can throw up some other ones if you'd like as well, but as to date no one has challenged any of them... I'm beginning to feel neglected here... Especially since this goes right in the face of the ID argument that it explains things better.

Also there's the teleological nature of the argument which belies its philosophical roots.

And the "passing the buck" problem which I am asserting is not valid for a "scientific" theory.

And the supernatural as a natural theory problem.


Delete

stickmen
stickmen

newbie

Member Since: 7th Apr 2006
Total posts: 7
Posted:Hmm Well I am not a science wizard, but I do know that this world is to complex and amazing to be created by chance. I do believe in Jesus Christ but even if for some reason I didn't I would still think there was someone or something that created this world we live in.

Stuart

I do not belive in religion but a relationship with Christ. THAT is the only thing that can save you.


Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:We evolved, its very simple. There not one bit of evidence to suggest we were created or intelligently designed.

Take the aids virus. Its so badly designed, in that it replicates poorly, yet this weakness or poor design is its success.

stickman, I believe Jesus is the light the way and the truth, but Jesus was a man.


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

Delete

polarity
polarity

veteran
Location: on the wrong planet
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1228
Posted:I believe that there was one original creator, but I consider it hubris to apply completely human concepts such as intelligence and design to something that achieves things that appear miraculous through the interaction of the simplest and most fundamental of things.

Look at how much human society has developed over the past hundred years, and then tell me that that scale of development couldn't have happened over the past million in other systems.

The only thing stopping a person from understanding this is their inability to comprehend what a million years is, or just how many chemical reactions can occur in that time, due to their experience of time being limited to one lifespan, and their experience of space being limited to what they can see with their own eyes.


You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.

Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.

Delete

i8beefy2
i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA
Member Since: 24th Mar 2003
Total posts: 674
Posted:On the logical possibility of an actual infinite existing WITHIN the natural world: http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/craig-on-the-actual-infinite.pdf
br>
Mr. Craig is most decidedly in the "not possible" camp. For the possible camp, there's a guy by the last name of smith here: http://qsmithwmu.com/
br>
Some of the logical problems and possible solutions are discussed by these two philosophers. An infinite regress would be an "actual infinite" that is existent in the real world. Craig attempts to show why an actual infinite in the real world is logically impossible. It isn't meant to show that infinite sets are not possible outside of the natural world though. So God is still safe, don't worry. In fact, Craig supports God, as his paper is meant to show that an infinite regress of causes is impossible.

Just an interesting side venture for those interested in the logical nature of the arguments involved. This is actually in response to the "It could be an infinite line of intelligent beings designing life over and over again". It is an interesting argument that implies that the universe had a beginning, and that the only possible beginning was God (we call this the Kalam Cosmological Argument in Philosophy). If you buy it, of course, this has the implication of saying that ID necessarily implies God, and is thus necessarily outside the realm of science.

For more on the Kalam argument, and a possible problem with it involving the concept of an afterlife: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/eric_sotnak/kalam.html
br>
==

Anyway, things seem to have slowed down so I'm off to the bar for a beer. Later gents! smile


Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: stickmen


Hmm Well I am not a science wizard, but I do know that this world is to complex and amazing to be created by chance.


Exactly right. This world wasn't formed by chance.

Because, as we've been saying for the last few months over about two dozen pages -

Evolution and natural proscesses aren't chance.


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

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: faithinfire



how sad



The counter arguement is as rational and coherent as ever.


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

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted: Written by: polarity


I believe that there was one original creator, but I consider it hubris to apply completely human concepts such as intelligence and design to something that achieves things that appear miraculous through the interaction of the simplest and most fundamental of things.

Look at how much human society has developed over the past hundred years, and then tell me that that scale of development couldn't have happened over the past million in other systems.

The only thing stopping a person from understanding this is their inability to comprehend what a million years is, or just how many chemical reactions can occur in that time, due to their experience of time being limited to one lifespan, and their experience of space being limited to what they can see with their own eyes.




this is sort of where i am coming from but where you see the Creator stepping back, I think the Creator still makes adjustments
I think a Creator set things in motion. A Creator set things in motion with the rules that bind our universe. I think evolution did, does, will occur. But I also think that there is an active invisible hand here and there, aka miracles and supernatural occurrences, see above personal experiences. I probably believe that there is a more active hand than many people.


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

polarity
polarity

veteran
Location: on the wrong planet
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1228
Posted:I consider that in the act of creating the single creator ceased to exist in it's original form, and it's original fundamental nature gave rise to a system, and is visible throughout that system, which procedes to develop complexity by combining existing parts in different ways.

I think the adjustments come from within the system.

Science can't explain them because it's method is to seperate what it's studying from the rest of the system, and those adjustments only occur through interaction with the whole system (the whole system being what the creator became).

Religions try to explain them but similarly get it wrong because they're using just one societies language and concepts to describe something that can only be described by a universal language. You'd need to work with the intuitive/sub-consious (non culture specific) language of metaphors/dream-symbols alongside mathematics, as a purely intellectual language like mathematics isn't universal, and cannot be applied to the realm of consciousness and awareness.

The prophets could understand this, but what they said gets taken literally in only one societies frame of reference. There are references to microbiology in genesis, but they can only be seen if you look for scientific concepts, explained using completely non scientific language.


You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.

Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:very cool theory

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

polarity
polarity

veteran
Location: on the wrong planet
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1228
Posted:Now this is interesting (just hit 'Try again' if it complains about cookies).

You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.

Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:Very cool news on the structure of the brain...

Delete

Loewan
Loewan

and behold!
Location: Liverpool
Member Since: 11th Aug 2005
Total posts: 464
Posted: 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.


Why let your body be a temple? When it can be a theme park?

Wii Console Number: 3294 0297 7824 7498

Delete

polarity
polarity

veteran
Location: on the wrong planet
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1228
Posted:For those with a masochistic streak - Complexity: bacterium vs. CPU. I'm staying away from the rest of that site in case my brain implodes.

You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.

Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.

Delete

infinite
infinite

member
Location: ashland OR
Member Since: 9th Nov 2004
Total posts: 110
Posted:I work at a print shop and someone brought in this book, and asked me to copy it. I cant' remember if they thought it was a joke or were serious, I think they were serious... I have some great land in New Orleans if you believe all of that. (No offence to those who just lost everything)

dont make peoples heads turn, give them whiplash.

Delete

Page: 1...2223242526...30

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [intelligent design v* evolution] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > Is Intelligent Design a Theory or a Critique? [60 replies]
2. Forums > Intelligent Design vs Evolution [874 replies]
3. Forums > need your help/opinion [14 replies]
4. Forums > Burning Man 09' Evolution [17 replies]
5. Forums > 5/19 The Next Evolution Sideshow

     Show more..