Intelligent Design - A Surprisingly Worthwhile Video

[Guest X-QUORK]

I thought you were talking about Darwinism up until the last paragraph. Strange how it fits so well with what you say.

Please explain your statement, it appears to be hogwash.

[athom]

If you think that evolution is exclusively based on chance, it may be that you don't understand Darwin's theory.

Evolution is thought to have come about through steps made possible/inevitable by a chance event, what is it you think i don't understand?

If there is anything other than randomness in this universe, laws of physics for instance, a rational person would wonder how that came to be following a random event. Who/what is the lawmaker?

[Ologhai Jones]

Evolution is thought to have come about through steps made possible/inevitable by a chance event, what is it you think i don't understand?

I don't know yet whether you do understand Darwin's theory or not (or at least, whether you understand to the extent that I think I do).

By appearing to suggest that evolution is essentially a theory of 'chance', it would appear that you either misunderstand evolution, or that you're just labelling it as a chance-based theory as a bit of a wind-up (you little trickster! )

Perhaps if you would be specific about what 'chance event' you think makes evolution possible?

[Guest X-QUORK]

If there is anything other than randomness in this universe, laws of physics for instance, a rational person would wonder how that came to be following a random event. Who/what is the lawmaker?

The laws of physics are just ways of describing the way things work. What's so mystical about that?

[athom]

Perhaps if you would be specific about what 'chance event' you think makes evolution possible?

Er, i don't think evolution is possible. Go back to the beginning of the thread, do not pass go, do not collect your £200

[Mal Volio]

Er, i don't think evolution is possible.

What do your fellow amoebae make of that view ?

[Ologhai Jones]

Er, i don't think evolution is possible. Go back to the beginning of the thread, do not pass go, do not collect your £200

I'm starting to get the feeling that you may not actually want a proper discussion, but just in case you do, I'll reword my question in an attempt to side-step pedantry, thereby hopefully eliciting some real response:

You said: "Evolution is thought to have come about through steps made possible/inevitable by a chance event, what is it you think i don't understand?"

My (slightly) reworded question is:

Perhaps you could be specific about what 'chance event' in your view causes others to think that evolution is possible?

[athom]

I'm starting to get the feeling that you may not actually want a proper discussion, but just in case you do, I'll reword my question in an attempt to side-step pedantry, thereby hopefully eliciting some real response:

You said: "Evolution is thought to have come about through steps made possible/inevitable by a chance event, what is it you think i don't understand?"

My (slightly) reworded question is:

Perhaps you could be specific about what 'chance event' in your view causes others to think that evolution is possible?

Big bang presumably undirected? Chance distance from the sun? Chance make up of this planet? Chance event after chance event after chance event out of so many billions of planets this one happened to be just right by chance. Then chance interaction after chance interaction etc. I'm not saying it is all chance, a lot of it is cause and effect made inevitable by the physical laws governing material interaction..... which darwinists would have to suppose also came about by chance.

But i don't actually feel the need for a discussion here, especially with indignant dogmatists like Malvolio, it's been done before and nothing much new comes out. On the other hand i thought the film actually did have something new to add which is why i posted the link. I do find the psychology surrounding this issue very interesting and once again it has proved to be an utterly polarising debate. Science is under threat far more from the side that claim to support it than from any flat earth religious types.

[I want a house!]

and also on the problem that if this is the best "he" could do then "he" really can't be much good.

(or, "his" notion of what is good is entirely different from mine!).

Perhaps "he" is Gordon Brown.

[Guest X-QUORK]

Big bang presumably undirected? Chance distance from the sun? Chance make up of this planet? Chance event after chance event after chance event out of so many billions of planets this one happened to be just right by chance. Then chance interaction after chance interaction etc. I'm not saying it is all chance, a lot of it is cause and effect made inevitable by the physical laws governing material interaction..... which darwinists would have to suppose also came about by chance.

But i don't actually feel the need for a discussion here, especially with indignant dogmatists like Malvolio, it's been done before and nothing much new comes out. On the other hand i thought the film actually did have something new to add which is why i posted the link. I do find the psychology surrounding this issue very interesting and once again it has proved to be an utterly polarising debate. Science is under threat far more from the side that claim to support it than from any flat earth religious types.

If everything's been created by Intelligent Design, why's the Designer so bashful? I'm sure we'd all like to meet him.

[Mal Volio]

But i don't actually feel the need for a discussion here, especially with indignant dogmatists like Malvolio,

Is it not more the case that you have failed to be at all convincing in making the case you set out to, and are yourself getting ratty as a result ?

I might point out that it was you who chose to raise the idea of ID as one for debate - it wasn't exactly forced on you.

I do find the psychology surrounding this issue very interesting and once again it has proved to be an utterly polarising debate. Science is under threat far more from the side that claim to support it than from any flat earth religious types.

It's only polarised because you've chosen to make it in that way. As i suggested upthread, I don't have any issue with people having religious faith - the problem comes when they try to make that faith part of the rational world model. That's neither necessary or ultimately of any benefit to anyone.

[I want a house!]

The economy is "irreducibly complex". It relies upon money. Take away money and it no longer works. We have all come to depend upon exchanging essentially worthless items that we ascribe value to. Yet this system originally evolved and only later standardised through design.

You cannot compare a material object or concept like money over a biological animal. I think the whole ID vs Darwin problem is humans just cannot accept they are Apes and it's the arrogance of humanity.

All Scientists have to have open minds and willing to listen to everything. They need to falsify statements as dead ends.

Another problem I have is if there really is a designer, where does it say we must worship it? Where is it, the designer? Also, I think Space proves most of the nonsense spouted by religious zealouts, now no longer open about their beliefs, that man isn't god's special choice. We don't have the evidence yet but the chances are that there are many other societies out there is high. Did god make all these societies special choices? Religion is nonsense period and a behaviour science.

Religion is dangerous, breeds stupidity and dangerous ideas. It's not healthy for society.

[GrillsBears]

Big bang presumably undirected? Chance distance from the sun? Chance make up of this planet? Chance event after chance event after chance event out of so many billions of planets this one happened to be just right by chance. Then chance interaction after chance interaction etc. I'm not saying it is all chance, a lot of it is cause and effect made inevitable by the physical laws governing material interaction..... which darwinists would have to suppose also came about by chance.

But i don't actually feel the need for a discussion here, especially with indignant dogmatists like Malvolio, it's been done before and nothing much new comes out. On the other hand i thought the film actually did have something new to add which is why i posted the link. I do find the psychology surrounding this issue very interesting and once again it has proved to be an utterly polarising debate. Science is under threat far more from the side that claim to support it than from any flat earth religious types.

Polarising dabtes tend to occur when one side is presenting "truth" in opposition of evidence to the contrary.

as for

Big bang presumably undirected? Chance distance from the sun? Chance make up of this planet? Chance event after chance event after chance event out of so many billions of planets this one happened to be just right by chance. Then chance interaction after chance interaction etc. I'm not saying it is all chance, a lot of it is cause and effect made inevitable by the physical laws governing material interaction..... which darwinists would have to suppose also came about by chance.

Well to be fair its kind of self selecting at the moment isn't it? But only until life is discovered elsewhere. At which point darwinism will be evaluated under different environmental conditions. Darwinism properly does not concern itself with "physical laws".

[athom]

Another problem I have is if there really is a designer, where does it say we must worship it?

Can't you see how that's irrelevant to the question in hand. Where did you bring that from? Can't you divorce what you think about religion, with the possibility that there might be a designer?

Where is it, the designer?

Think of the size of the universe, well try to. Then imagine the magnitude of a thing that could create it. We can't do it, which i think is part of the problem. We have been subject to cranks claiming to be god. How laughable to think a human could create the universe.

Also, I think Space proves most of the nonsense spouted by religious zealouts

Again you seem to be mixing up your reasonable distrust of religion with the concept of a creator.

now no longer open about their beliefs, that man isn't god's special choice. We don't have the evidence yet but the chances are that there are many other societies out there is high. Did god make all these societies special choices?

Not relevant

[General Congreve]

Big bang presumably undirected? Chance distance from the sun? Chance make up of this planet? Chance event after chance event after chance event out of so many billions of planets this one happened to be just right by chance. Then chance interaction after chance interaction etc. I'm not saying it is all chance, a lot of it is cause and effect made inevitable by the physical laws governing material interaction..... which darwinists would have to suppose also came about by chance.

But i don't actually feel the need for a discussion here, especially with indignant dogmatists like Malvolio, it's been done before and nothing much new comes out. On the other hand i thought the film actually did have something new to add which is why i posted the link. I do find the psychology surrounding this issue very interesting and once again it has proved to be an utterly polarising debate. Science is under threat far more from the side that claim to support it than from any flat earth religious types.

I will admit that when I was in early adolescence I did some similar thinking on this topic. I wasn't brought up to believe in God or to be an atheist, my parents left me to interpret things for myself and make my own mind up (thanks Mum and Dad).

So, when you think about it, here we are the right distance from the sun in the depths of a huge universe. On our little planet we've got all the things we need to exploit to live our wonderful modern lives. Wood, metals, oil, coal, gas. I did think momentarily that it's almost like someone generously put them all there for us to use. Not to mention granting us oxygen to breath, water to drink and plants and animals to eat. Thank the Lord.

But hang on a minute. Perhaps we've just capitalised on what happens to be at hand (trees, mineral deposits etc.)? Maybe the oxygen and water came first and we evolved into that environment? In fact, are oil, metals and wood really that fantastic, or just the only things to hand? Actually I feel I've been short-changed. Why the hell didn't God design me so I never have to eat, drink, piss or sh1t, after all, these physical handicaps are a big inconvenience. And while I'm at it why didn't he give me lightspeed wings so I can fly to the other side of the universe and back if I wish. He's not so benevolent after all is he?

No he isn't. Because he/she/it doesn't f4cking exist. It's voodoo fairy tales. That is all.

Religion/creationism/intelligent design is the product of an ignorant and arrogant mind. Ignorant, because you are too stupid to look at the facts and make sense of coherent philosophical debate on the matter (read Dawkins please). Arrogant, because nature blessed you with a slightly bigger brain than the other species on this planet, but you use it to assume you are somehow superior to everything else and therefore someone/thing must have divinely created you and the wonderful world around you, because you're so f4cking special.

If you need any more convincing about the non-existence of an intelligent creator here's a good one - child abuse. Who/what the hell creates a world where child abuse occurs? If there is a God he's a total f4cking b@stard.

Where's my lightspeed wings you @rsehole? :angry:

[I want a house!]

Can't you see how that's irrelevant to the question in hand. Where did you bring that from? Can't you divorce what you think about religion, with the possibility that there might be a designer?

Think of the size of the universe, well try to. Then imagine the magnitude of a thing that could create it. We can't do it, which i think is part of the problem. We have been subject to cranks claiming to be god. How laughable to think a human could create the universe.

Again you seem to be mixing up your reasonable distrust of religion with the concept of a creator.

Not relevant

Accepting a "creator" without the religion just seems to me as wrapping god in toilet paper so that we think its nice and soft when we wipe our bum but the ownus is for you to prove to me that there is a creator. I can tell you that there is none. My proof, where is IT? Where is your proof of where it is? Prove me this and I'll believe.

Please feel free to bastardise all science to try argue the point. Feel free to mix the big bang with speciations and evolution because I am of the opinion that you may not know but both of these theories (do you know what a theory means to a scientist? Think gravity) are very different and from different sciences. Not the science of who dun it.

What makes this conversation worse, is I'm more than likely chatting to a religious human who denies he is religious, or do you?

[I want a house!]

If there is a God he's a total f4cking b@stard.

Remember he created Blair and Brown. Not his greatest moment, I think he was taking coke at the time.

Another thing I don't get and I want the religious lot to answer this.

If god (not calling anything an intelligent designer as it sounds like the PC version of god) created pot, coke plants, why do we make them illegal? Do we admit that this god is an idiot?

[Guest X-QUORK]

Where's my lightspeed wings you @rsehole :angry:

Possibly the funniest and best post I've read in quite some time!

Calling God an @rsehole, priceless!

[Guest Skinty]

You cannot compare a material object or concept like money over a biological animal.

Why not? I could have just as easily used an example from an eco-system. Underlying it all are the same principles of self organisation.

The point I was trying to make though was that if a system changes so that one part of it depends on recent changes, then if you reverse those changes then the system can completely fail. Creationists call this irreducible complexity and happily ignore the fact that the system self organised over time to reach a state of equilibrium.

I think the whole ID vs Darwin problem is humans just cannot accept they are Apes and it's the arrogance of humanity.

All Scientists have to have open minds and willing to listen to everything. They need to falsify statements as dead ends.

Another problem I have is if there really is a designer, where does it say we must worship it? Where is it, the designer? Also, I think Space proves most of the nonsense spouted by religious zealouts, now no longer open about their beliefs, that man isn't god's special choice. We don't have the evidence yet but the chances are that there are many other societies out there is high. Did god make all these societies special choices? Religion is nonsense period and a behaviour science.

Religion is dangerous, breeds stupidity and dangerous ideas. It's not healthy for society.

Completely agree.

[King Stromba]

This argument fall into three camps:

Darwinists - Beleive that random events and pigeon breeding can explain how man came about. Cannot see that their devotion to an untestable 'scientific' theory makes them fall under the heading of fanatics. Mostly unquestioning, unthinking repeaters. These people will keep us in the dark ages if they have their way. Generally dead wood in this camp.

Creationists - Believe that a man in the sky created man in 7 days or 7 thousand years depending on their degree of insanity. Cannot see that their devotion to 'religion' makes them fall under the heading of fanatics. Mostly unquestioning, unthinking repeaters. These people will keep us in the dark ages if they have their way. Generally dead wood in this camp.

Senisble people - Can see that there is little good evidence for either of the above. Are not affraid to ask questions and realise that theories are there to be tested and questioned. Realise that a theory is a theory and not a fact. Are attacked as 'creationists' by the Darwinists and as 'Darwinists' by the creationists whenever the question either of the above.

[Mal Volio]

Realise that a theory is a theory and not a fact.

What do you think a theory is ?

[GrillsBears]

This argument fall into three camps:

Darwinists - Beleive that random events and pigeon breeding can explain how man came about. Cannot see that their devotion to an untestable 'scientific' theory makes them fall under the heading of fanatics. Mostly unquestioning, unthinking repeaters. These people will keep us in the dark ages if they have their way. Generally dead wood in this camp.

Creationists - Believe that a man in the sky created man in 7 days or 7 thousand years depending on their degree of insanity. Cannot see that their devotion to 'religion' makes them fall under the heading of fanatics. Mostly unquestioning, unthinking repeaters. These people will keep us in the dark ages if they have their way. Generally dead wood in this camp.

Senisble people - Can see that there is little good evidence for either of the above. Are not affraid to ask questions and realise that theories are there to be tested and questioned. Realise that a theory is a theory and not a fact. Are attacked as 'creationists' by the Darwinists and as 'Darwinists' by the creationists whenever the question either of the above.

What an excellent example of a strawman.

[King Stromba]

What do you think a theory is ?

Well in my view a theory in science is testable. Darwinism is not testable so it should not even be called a theory. Natural selection is testable, but only on a micro level, not to the level Darwin described. It cannot be tested to show that a T rex can become a Finch through many small changes. If it cant be tested its not a theory but a nice ancedote.

Bless

[King Stromba]

What an excellent example of a strawman.

And which camp do you fall into? Fanatic, fanatic or free thinker?

[I want a house!]

Well in my view a theory in science is testable. Darwinism is not testable so it should not even be called a theory. Natural selection is testable, but only on a micro level, not to the level Darwin described. It cannot be tested to show that a T rex can become a Finch through many small changes. If it cant be tested its not a theory but a nice ancedote.

Bless

Your avatar is apt.