Intelligent design

medicineman

medicineman

New Member
joepro said:
So, people believe in fortune tellers.
It's just a shame that the mayan people couldn't see their own future.
I'm not sure what's going to happen when the sun is in the center of the galaxy and our axis shifts.
After alittle read up I've learned it's going to be a polar reversal.The north pole will be changed into the south pole. Scientifically this can only be explained by the fact that the earth will start rotating in the opposite direction, right? Does this equal a huge disaster of unknown proportions??
good thing I'll be around to find out huh?
Might be a good idea not to live close to a fault line and nowhere near the bomb called yellowstone park.
....But I guess it wouldn't matter with the ash, you would just be sufercated slowly.
Great pep talk!!
Can't wait to run out and start the work week...
I should just fuckin quit my job and camp out at yellowstone.
Click to expand...
Give it a couple a years Joe, winter at Yellowstone is a bitch
 
O

overmyhead

Well-Known Member
Stoney McFried said:
I was gonna respond, but I'm tired and mindphuk did a really good job.See below.
Click to expand...
Mndphuk dodged the main question - where did the elements come from? There has to be some form of creation no matter which theory you subscribe to. And on the transitional forms, what I meant was that we should still have "cave men" walking around in transitional form - or was there a memo sent out that no more mutations in the primate to hominid progression were needed. It seems like if it is a constant process there new homo erectus clans would have been popping up the whole time.

Whether you believe it or fossils form during cataclymic events (or under extrem circumstances not often occuring where humans are likely to be chilling out) a humam is going to a. get out of the area - seek higher ground in a period of terrential downpours and flood or b. in the case of a flood human bodies bloat and would float and rot therefore avoiding the fossilization process.
I can remember as a child visiting the smithsonian and seeing the supposed evidence for these transitional forms and realizing that most of it was nothing more than an artists redition of what they think might have been. There would be a four square inch piece of bone and frome that they would create a skull - then a huge diaramo showing these hairy people and how they lived.

I watched the miller video's and to me it looks like a lot of circular reasoning - and we all know that carbon dating has its issues - to begin with we are talking about a molecure that has been in existance since the beginning of time - in one form or another.

I am not a scientist - dont claim to be, heck I'm here because I'm having trouble with my plants. But to deny that there is faith involved in accepting that all we see around us is the result of a series of accidents is crazy.

I can remember as a child visiting the smithsonian and seeing the supposed evidence for these transitional forms and realizing that most of it was nothing more than an artists redition of what they think might have been.

I'll just continue to read and maybe one day I will get it.
 
hom36rown

hom36rown

Well-Known Member
overmyhead said:
Mndphuk dodged the main question - where did the elements come from? There has to be some form of creation no matter which theory you subscribe to. And on the transitional forms, what I meant was that we should still have "cave men" walking around in transitional form - or was there a memo sent out that no more mutations in the primate to hominid progression were needed. It seems like if it is a constant process there new homo erectus clans would have been popping up the whole time.

Whether you believe it or fossils form during cataclymic events (or under extrem circumstances not often occuring where humans are likely to be chilling out) a humam is going to a. get out of the area - seek higher ground in a period of terrential downpours and flood or b. in the case of a flood human bodies bloat and would float and rot therefore avoiding the fossilization process.
I can remember as a child visiting the smithsonian and seeing the supposed evidence for these transitional forms and realizing that most of it was nothing more than an artists redition of what they think might have been. There would be a four square inch piece of bone and frome that they would create a skull - then a huge diaramo showing these hairy people and how they lived.

I watched the miller video's and to me it looks like a lot of circular reasoning - and we all know that carbon dating has its issues - to begin with we are talking about a molecure that has been in existance since the beginning of time - in one form or another.

I am not a scientist - dont claim to be, heck I'm here because I'm having trouble with my plants. But to deny that there is faith involved in accepting that all we see around us is the result of a series of accidents is crazy.

I can remember as a child visiting the smithsonian and seeing the supposed evidence for these transitional forms and realizing that most of it was nothing more than an artists redition of what they think might have been.

I'll just continue to read and maybe one day I will get it.
Click to expand...
lol, you must be high :)
 
Stoney McFried

Stoney McFried

Well-Known Member
Uhh...where did god come from?Your answer of him being eternal doesn't pass muster, either.Fact is, transitional life forms exist in fossilized form as well.I've explained over and over where I PERSONALLY think the universe might have come from...in a nutshell, from other universes,because we humans only comprehend a small portion of time.Do I know for sure?No.But I do know that science doesn't dodge questions, it faces them head on...dodging the truth is the sole province of religion.Soooooooo...no, no ID in schools,because it's religious crap.I don't know if I can state it any more clearly.:peace:
overmyhead said:
Mndphuk dodged the main question - where did the elements come from? There has to be some form of creation no matter which theory you subscribe to. And on the transitional forms, what I meant was that we should still have "cave men" walking around in transitional form - or was there a memo sent out that no more mutations in the primate to hominid progression were needed. It seems like if it is a constant process there new homo erectus clans would have been popping up the whole time.

Whether you believe it or fossils form during cataclymic events (or under extrem circumstances not often occuring where humans are likely to be chilling out) a humam is going to a. get out of the area - seek higher ground in a period of terrential downpours and flood or b. in the case of a flood human bodies bloat and would float and rot therefore avoiding the fossilization process.
I can remember as a child visiting the smithsonian and seeing the supposed evidence for these transitional forms and realizing that most of it was nothing more than an artists redition of what they think might have been. There would be a four square inch piece of bone and frome that they would create a skull - then a huge diaramo showing these hairy people and how they lived.

I watched the miller video's and to me it looks like a lot of circular reasoning - and we all know that carbon dating has its issues - to begin with we are talking about a molecure that has been in existance since the beginning of time - in one form or another.

I am not a scientist - dont claim to be, heck I'm here because I'm having trouble with my plants. But to deny that there is faith involved in accepting that all we see around us is the result of a series of accidents is crazy.

I can remember as a child visiting the smithsonian and seeing the supposed evidence for these transitional forms and realizing that most of it was nothing more than an artists redition of what they think might have been.

I'll just continue to read and maybe one day I will get it.
Click to expand...
 
O

overmyhead

Well-Known Member
I didn't say I knew where a/ the creator came from if there is one - I am thoroughly confused and awestruck every second of every day at the wonder that is the world around us. All I'm saying is that either belief is an act of faith. The ingredients had to come from somewhere and/or a creator would have to come from somewhere.

My point on the transitional forms was that the process shouldnt just end once a new species has been brought about, so (in te instance of man) there should theoretically be a constant supply of evolving hominids walking around that's all.

I'm definitely over my head when it comes to these types of discussions but I think that folks who believe in evolution are a lot more like their religious creationist counterparts than they would like to admit.
 
NewGrowth

NewGrowth

Well-Known Member
overmyhead said:
I didn't say I knew where a/ the creator came from if there is one - I am thoroughly confused and awestruck every second of every day at the wonder that is the world around us. All I'm saying is that either belief is an act of faith. The ingredients had to come from somewhere and/or a creator would have to come from somewhere.

My point on the transitional forms was that the process shouldnt just end once a new species has been brought about, so (in te instance of man) there should theoretically be a constant supply of evolving hominids walking around that's all.

I'm definitely over my head when it comes to these types of discussions but I think that folks who believe in evolution are a lot more like their religious creationist counterparts than they would like to admit.
Click to expand...
Evolution is based on scientific theory NOT faith. I really don't know where people get this idea. Science is based on dynamic observation so as soon as a theory is dis-proven by a preponderance of facts another is generated. A good example is physics, we no longer follow the Newtonian model instead Einstein's theory of relativity reigns supreme. This will probably change as we expand our knowledge. This is no way discounts the obvious improvements science has brought to our lives.

Faith is not ANYTHING like this, when a preponderance of evidence is presented to the Church well . . . . they kill people. Faith is blind belief without doubt or evidence. It is simply a destructive control mechanism manufactured by man.

Hey mister pope I just found out the world is round!
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
It's my understanding that there is no correlation between mag flips and mass species die off in the fossil record....so I don't think it would be any different if it occurred today... no mass die off.


out. :blsmoke:
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
overmyhead said:
I didn't say I knew where a/ the creator came from if there is one - I am thoroughly confused and awestruck every second of every day at the wonder that is the world around us. All I'm saying is that either belief is an act of faith. The ingredients had to come from somewhere and/or a creator would have to come from somewhere.

My point on the transitional forms was that the process shouldnt just end once a new species has been brought about, so (in te instance of man) there should theoretically be a constant supply of evolving hominids walking around that's all.

I'm definitely over my head when it comes to these types of discussions but I think that folks who believe in evolution are a lot more like their religious creationist counterparts than they would like to admit.
Click to expand...
I think you are confused by what transitional and intermediate forms are. Anything living today, has by definition been successful at evolution. They are able to take advantage of whatever environment they inhabit. If there is no outside force acting on a species, they may remain pretty similar for thousands to millions of years. Look at sharks and crocodiles, very successful in their niches. However, if environment changed, or new predators came about, or food supply changed, then a species either dies out or evolves. If it evolved, then the previous form, as stable as it was, is now a transitional form for the new species. If a species evolved, that means that the environment that it was inhabiting is no longer suited for that species so all we are left with is either extinction or evolving. Obviously, if a species evolved, then the earlier form, was no longer suited to its habitat and died out and we find a transitional fossils but no living examples.
Same thing happens with hominids. The larger brain and ability to use tools (along with global climate change according to many hypotheses) allowed early man to dominate other hominids that haven't evolved as well (including their own relatives) leading to the extinction of the primitive hominids, hence the fossils we find of our early ancestors.

In 1975 a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium living in waste water of companies making nylon. These bacteria were using the nylon for food. IOW, the bacteria developed a new enzyme, nylonase to become successful in this new environment. Since nylon has only been around since 1935, this mutation happened within that 40 year time span.

When the common ancestor to whales and dolphins (cetaceans) began to venture into the water, they still had legs and a middle ear capable of hearing well in air. As time progressed, the species that were able to utilize the resources of the water the best flourished. Over time, mutations occured that made their limbs smaller or non-existant making their movement through water easier (so selection favored those mutations).
After scientists knew where to look for these cetacean ancestors, it appears they evolved in Pakistan, they were able to find many more transitional fossils.
Then the debate was, were these really cetacean ancestors? If they were, there should be a definite progression of the inner and middle ear from that of a land based animal, which can hear well in air, but not water, to one more like today's marine mammals, extremely capable of hearing well underwater.
Paleontologists disected many of these skulls and there was clear evidence of progression from the more primitive species with ear structures similar to other land animals to the more amphibious creatures that evolved an ear that could hear better under water.
Another prediction of evolution verified.

As to your comment about dodging the question where the elements came from, where is your confusion? As I said, the early universe only had hydrogen and helium (maybe lithium too) the only elements capable of being created by the Big Bang. The first stars had to use those elements for fuel. If you do some research on stars, you will see that nuclear fusion at the star's core produces heavier elements. When that star dies, those elements get blown out into space and the resulting nebula is a big star nursery. New stars are born incorporating all of the various elements, including the heavier ones produced by nuclear fusion. Without getting into much more detail (look some of this up yourself), elements heavier than iron are made only in supernova explosions.
 
O

overmyhead

Well-Known Member
mindphuk said:
I think you are confused by what transitional and intermediate forms are. Anything living today, has by definition been successful at evolution. They are able to take advantage of whatever environment they inhabit. If there is no outside force acting on a species, they may remain pretty similar for thousands to millions of years. Look at sharks and crocodiles, very successful in their niches. However, if environment changed, or new predators came about, or food supply changed, then a species either dies out or evolves. If it evolved, then the previous form, as stable as it was, is now a transitional form for the new species. If a species evolved, that means that the environment that it was inhabiting is no longer suited for that species so all we are left with is either extinction or evolving. Obviously, if a species evolved, then the earlier form, was no longer suited to its habitat and died out and we find a transitional fossils but no living examples.
Same thing happens with hominids. The larger brain and ability to use tools (along with global climate change according to many hypotheses) allowed early man to dominate other hominids that haven't evolved as well (including their own relatives) leading to the extinction of the primitive hominids, hence the fossils we find of our early ancestors.

In 1975 a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium living in waste water of companies making nylon. These bacteria were using the nylon for food. IOW, the bacteria developed a new enzyme, nylonase to become successful in this new environment. Since nylon has only been around since 1935, this mutation happened within that 40 year time span.

When the common ancestor to whales and dolphins (cetaceans) began to venture into the water, they still had legs and a middle ear capable of hearing well in air. As time progressed, the species that were able to utilize the resources of the water the best flourished. Over time, mutations occured that made their limbs smaller or non-existant making their movement through water easier (so selection favored those mutations).
After scientists knew where to look for these cetacean ancestors, it appears they evolved in Pakistan, they were able to find many more transitional fossils.
Then the debate was, were these really cetacean ancestors? If they were, there should be a definite progression of the inner and middle ear from that of a land based animal, which can hear well in air, but not water, to one more like today's marine mammals, extremely capable of hearing well underwater.
Paleontologists disected many of these skulls and there was clear evidence of progression from the more primitive species with ear structures similar to other land animals to the more amphibious creatures that evolved an ear that could hear better under water.
Another prediction of evolution verified.

As to your comment about dodging the question where the elements came from, where is your confusion? As I said, the early universe only had hydrogen and helium (maybe lithium too) the only elements capable of being created by the Big Bang. The first stars had to use those elements for fuel. If you do some research on stars, you will see that nuclear fusion at the star's core produces heavier elements. When that star dies, those elements get blown out into space and the resulting nebula is a big star nursery. New stars are born incorporating all of the various elements, including the heavier ones produced by nuclear fusion. Without getting into much more detail (look some of this up yourself), elements heavier than iron are made only in supernova explosions.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I don't have the best choice in words - and maybe my question isn't understood. Where did the energy for the big bang come from? In my book that is just as much of a black box as "where did god come from?"

It is impossible for something to come from nothing so logically speaking - subscribers to both theories believe in the supernatural no?
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
overmyhead said:
Sometimes I don't have the best choice in words - and maybe my question isn't understood. Where did the energy for the big bang come from? In my book that is just as much of a black box as "where did god come from?"

It is impossible for something to come from nothing so logically speaking - subscribers to both theories believe in the supernatural no?
Click to expand...
Ascribing the supernatural to something we don't know yet is shortsighted and basically ends the search for answers. The lack of full understanding of something does not equate to it being supernatural.

There are a few competing hypotheses for where the Big Bang came from. First, it didn't come from nothing, but an unimaginably small point called a singularity. The whole universe was as small as the proton of a hydrogen atom. Without getting into things like quantum foam and multiverses, suffice it to say that the universe didn't start from nothing. Also, in spite of the name, there was no explosion of material. Space-time itself suddenly went through a rapid expansion. It is this we call the Big Bang.

If you are really interested in learning more about this stuff, you should read or watch some videos, rather than try to learn from a pot forum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9Ok
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFjwXe-pXvM

Sure, we don't completely understand where our universe came from or how life first formed, but why stop looking? Claiming that it's just a black box so is akin to belief in a god is just giving up; it's the god of the gaps argument.
Most people argue that their god is unknowable. This is the problem that science has with any question where god (or some other unnamed, undefined intelligence) is the answer. To quote the late Dr. Sagan:
If the general picture of an expanding universe and a Big Bang is correct, we must then confront still more difficult questions. What were conditions like at the time of the Big Bang? What happened before that? Was there a tiny universe, devoid of all matter, and then the matter suddenly created from nothing? How does that happen? In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?​
 
tinyTURTLE

tinyTURTLE

Well-Known Member
There is an itch that we as humans have. It is a very powerful itch that compels us to fill in empty spaces. Something makes us innately uncomfortable with not knowing. We fill in the gaps with our imagination (we have great imaginations) until something comes along that explains 'it' better. It is true wisdom to be comfortable not knowing. there are billions being spent globally seeking... both the farthest reaches of space and the farthest reaches of smallness. What answers are they looking for? They don't know. They are just looking for an answer because they have the itch. Honest seeking is also true wisdom.
This is the main problem i have with intelligent design, they begin with a conclusion and only recognize facts that support that conclusion. This is entirely the wrong way to go about it. Because when you begin with facts, the conclusion is amorphous and evolving. Not a certainty. I liken those who beleive in intelligent design to a child in the back of a car traveling at night imagining a castle in the far darkness. Is there really one? Probably not, but it's nice to image it that way.
 
Leothwyn

Leothwyn

Well-Known Member
Exactly right IMO... people used not have any idea of what the sun was. Easy answer: it's a god. We still don't know how the universe started. Again, easy answer: it was magically zapped into existence by the magic spirit. I suppose religions will always be needed by people as a social/community experience, but as we find more answers to life's mysteries many aspects of religion become dated and irrelevant.

tinyTURTLE said:
There is an itch that we as humans have. It is a very powerful itch that compels us to fill in empty spaces. Something makes us innately uncomfortable with not knowing. We fill in the gaps with our imagination (we have great imaginations) until something comes along that explains 'it' better. It is true wisdom to be comfortable not knowing. there are billions being spent globally seeking... both the farthest reaches of space and the farthest reaches of smallness. What answers are they looking for? They don't know. They are just looking for an answer because they have the itch. Honest seeking is also true wisdom.
This is the main problem i have with intelligent design, they begin with a conclusion and only recognize facts that support that conclusion. This is entirely the wrong way to go about it. Because when you begin with facts, the conclusion is amorphous and evolving. Not a certainty. I liken those who beleive in intelligent design to a child in the back of a car traveling at night imagining a castle in the far darkness. Is there really one? Probably not, but it's nice to image it that way.
Click to expand...
 
TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
misshestermoffitt said:
Check it out......... marijuana cave art, it seems that our love for weed might be an evolutionary trait? Wouldn't that be a riot !!!


Click to expand...
I don't see how having an addiction to substances that alter your consciousness is a evolutionary trait. It's probably not even a genetic trait, just an ingrained condition unique to the only sentient species on the planet.

I mean, who hasn't seen little kids spin themselves repeatedly just to get dizzy to alter their mental state.
 
TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
misshestermoffitt said:
Please try to have a sense of humor ........ once......... in ........... a ............ while.
Click to expand...
I think I have a sense of humor that is fine.

What you obviously meant is that I should realize that despite being to the left the Zombifiers (Reid, Clinton, Pelois, and Obama) haven't gotten to your brain yet and removed your sense of humor. :-)
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
tinyTURTLE said:
There is an itch that we as humans have. It is a very powerful itch that compels us to fill in empty spaces. Something makes us innately uncomfortable with not knowing. We fill in the gaps with our imagination (we have great imaginations) until something comes along that explains 'it' better. It is true wisdom to be comfortable not knowing. there are billions being spent globally seeking... both the farthest reaches of space and the farthest reaches of smallness. What answers are they looking for? They don't know. They are just looking for an answer because they have the itch. Honest seeking is also true wisdom.
This is the main problem i have with intelligent design, they begin with a conclusion and only recognize facts that support that conclusion. This is entirely the wrong way to go about it. Because when you begin with facts, the conclusion is amorphous and evolving. Not a certainty. I liken those who beleive in intelligent design to a child in the back of a car traveling at night imagining a castle in the far darkness. Is there really one? Probably not, but it's nice to image it that way.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top