i am an athiest, and always will be. i do, however, have some unique theories about our existence, that incclude a "creator", though a diferent kind of creator than some all-knowing god.

i sometimes find evolution kind of hard to believe, for various reasons. take zebras for example. zebras have stripes, because when they are in a heard of other zebras, the stripes make them blend in and predators perceive this as one huge mass of stripes, and not hundreds of diferent individuals. this makes it hard for them to pick out a single target.

however, the stripes dont work if only one animal has them. if anything, it makes them stand out more. think of a black and white zebra standing in a herd of brown horses. sticks out like a sore thumb, right?

anyway, this means that dozens of zebra bloodlines would have to all evolve this same trait at the same time for it to be effective. if a single or a few bloodlines began growing stripes at any one time, they woulh have been pointless and ineffective, and therefore, would not have become widespread.

thats just my theory anyway, feel free to disagree.

now as for intellegent design being taught at school, i think it is an alright thing, as long as the teacher stresses that it is just one of several theories, and that evolution and creationism are also possible explainations.

also, i think that kids should be taught nothing of any of these theories until they are at least able to make a sensible decision for themselves, (ie: 14-16 years of age).

Your spelling of the word "intelligent" amuses me.

quote:Originally posted by DesertWolf:

i am an athiest, and always will be. i do, however, have some unique theories about our existence, that incclude a "creator", though a diferent kind of creator than some all-knowing god.

i sometimes find evolution kind of hard to believe, for various reasons. take zebras for example. zebras have stripes, because when they are in a heard of other zebras, the stripes make them blend in and predators perceive this as one huge mass of stripes, and not hundreds of diferent individuals. this makes it hard for them to pick out a single target.

however, the stripes dont work if only one animal has them. if anything, it makes them stand out more. think of a black and white zebra standing in a herd of brown horses. sticks out like a sore thumb, right?

anyway, this means that dozens of zebra bloodlines would have to all evolve this same trait at the same time for it to be effective. if a single or a few bloodlines began growing stripes at any one time, they woulh have been pointless and ineffective, and therefore, would not have become widespread.

thats just my theory anyway, feel free to disagree.

now as for intellegent design being taught at school, i think it is an alright thing, as long as the teacher stresses that it is just one of several theories, and that evolution and creationism are also possible explainations.

also, i think that kids should be taught nothing of any of these theories until they are at least able to make a sensible decision for themselves, (ie: 14-16 years of age).

I think you should actually learn something. Like what the scientific theory is, and why creationism and ID aren't science.

I still think Rationalism is the way to go. The Founding Fathers had the right idea.

People come up with some of the strangest reasons why they don't accept evolution.

Populations evolve, individuals don't. In this case it's quite possible an earlier version of camouflage evolved into this one or that Zebra camo is from a single family which used it together.

Can you give an explanation of intelligent design that is scientific and doesn't break separation of church and state?

(I don't want to hear how separation of church and state doesn't exist in the constitution, anyone who says this will be called a moron, k?)

Do you also believe that the theory demons cause disease should also be taught along germ theory in medical schools?

"Inbreeding" is the word that answers all your questions. It also explains why orthodox Jews are such scrawny looking fuck ups.

"Do you also believe that the theory demons cause disease should also be taught along germ theory in medical schools?"

It should be taught for the comic value and perspective.

Seperation of Church and State. Why don't you try to teach them about a virgin birth to.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Can you give an explanation of intelligent design that is scientific and doesn't break separation of church and state?

Do you also believe that the theory demons cause disease should also be taught along germ theory in medical schools?

lets say that a higher lifeform from annother planet learned how to engineer new species (as we are beginning to do now, with GM crops, but much more advanced) and they then travelled to earth, which was vacant of life, and seeded it with these lifeforms, in order to watch them progress, change and interact, over a period of millions or billions of years.

perhaps they did this in an effort to learn how their kind evolved, or just for entertainment purposes (think the "sims").

the idea that a higher lifeform (read: aliens) engineered us and put us here has absolutely nothing to do with religion, heaven, hell or god. but it means we were designed by something intellegent. perhaps, in thousands of years, humans will do the same kind of thing on annother planet, to seed it with life and watch it grow and interact, like a giant petrie dish.

and for the demon disease thing, no i dont belive that. like i said, im an atheist and i dont beleive in god, satan, heaven, hell, ghosts, demons or anything of that sort.

i do believe in life outside our solar system, whether it be a single celled organism, or a race of intellegent, star-travelling beings.



[This message has been edited by DesertWolf (edited 12-10-2005).]

The thing is the Zebra's stripes developed through slight changes over thousands of years... So a single individual with black and white stripes in a herd of brown zebras would be an impossibility as its parents, siblings and extended family would have to have this trait concurrently...

As black and white stripes is also an advantage in the process of natural selection, the majority of the population of brown zebras would eventually die out by the time Black and White stripes had developed from the brown colouring...

Most likely as Beta69 stated; the zebras evolved from an earlier type of the camouflage we know today... One individual doesn't just "get born" with this adaptation. “Spontaneous Adaptation” is not a mechanism of evolution and is probably why you struggle to understand the concept...

quote:Originally posted by DesertWolf:

...aliens engineering us...*not catching Beta's sarcasm*

Do you understand the term 'scientific'? I wouldn't even classify that idea as a hypothesis, it's based on no facts. None. You just made it up off the top of your head. No scientific basis behind it whatsoever.

And Beta was being sarcastic about the demons of sickness. A common argument is that evolution is "just a theory", but so is germ theory, and that's hardly a disputed thing. Cell theory is similar, you don't see anybody fighting for spontaneous generation to be taught in schools.

I believe THIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xel'Naga) is what DesertWolf is talking about. :)

Aliens

Well, what you described has nothing to do with evolution but abiogenesis which is a separate theory. Right now you have an untested hypothesis. Before you can seriously suggest it be taught in school you need to test your hypothesis and provide supporting evidence for these Aliens.

Demons

The point about demons is that most intelligent design theory (such as that proposed by the discovery institute) really comes down to "God [or magical intelligence] did it, that's final" which is very similar to demon 'theory' where in the past people explained diseases by saying "Demons did it, that's final."

the bible is an untested hypothesis. there is no other proof that what it says is true than itself. yet millions of people believe the bible.

About the aliens, read a bit on the beginning of the universe. It's quite improbable that another species evolved that far ahead of us. Almost impossible.

quote:Originally posted by DesertWolf:

the bible is an untested hypothesis. there is no other proof that what it says is true than itself. yet millions of people believe the bible.

Because prior to scientific method it was taught as fact in schools... You see first hand the damage teaching ID as fact will cause… Millions of people believing the theory with the theory been the only supporting fact…

Complex arrangement of chemicals does not equal intelligent design, they’ve already concluded (In the 1950's) that complex proteins (The building blocks of life) do result from a soup of early elements and a bolt of electricity in the lab…

Did God create those molecules as well? or is Stanley L. Miller God and Harold C. Urey Jesus?



[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 12-10-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

About the aliens, read a bit on the beginning of the universe. It's quite improbable that another species evolved that far ahead of us. Almost impossible.

Why? Besides well you know our own ego saying it isn't possible.

quote:Originally posted by Axiom:

Because prior to scientific method it was taught as fact in schools... You see first hand the damage teaching ID as fact will cause… Millions of people believing the theory with the theory been the only supporting fact…

Complex arrangement of chemicals does not equal intelligent design, they’ve already concluded (In the 1950's) that complex proteins (The building blocks of life) do result from a soup of early elements and a bolt of electricity in the lab…

Did God create those molecules as well? or is Stanley L. Miller God and Harold C. Urey Jesus?

quote:What biology textbooks never told you about evolution

A review of

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong

by Jonathan Wells

Regnery Publishing, Inc., Washington, 2000.

by Royal Truman

Why do many believe evolutionary theory is true? One is bombarded constantly with claims that all scientists believe in evolution; that science has demonstrated it; that evolution is based on empirical science. Many might remember ‘proofs’, which Dr Wells calls ‘Icons of Evolution’, learned in school or from popular science articles. The ten most common ‘icons’ used to back up evolution are reviewed and showed to be either fraudulent or irrelevant as evolutionary evidence. Amazingly, Wells documents that even some leading biology professors were unaware they were teaching nonsense. Had these false ‘icons’ never existed, perhaps evolutionary doctrine would not have taken such a hold.

Wells is a man with indisputable intellectual gifts who does not bow to intimidation. Having been opposed to serving with the American armed forces in Vietnam, he chose jail rather than compromise his convictions. He then went on to earn a Doctorate in Theology (Yale) and a second Doctorate in Molecular and Cell biology (Berkeley).

Icon 1: The Miller-Urey experiment

Wells sets the scene for this chapter by describing the 1920s Oparin/Haldane idea that lightning in the primitive atmosphere could have produced the chemical building blocks of life.

The hypothesis remained untested until 1953, when University of Chicago graduate student Stanley Miller reported an experiment in which methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water (thought to be the components of the ‘primitive’ atmosphere) were mixed in a closed glass apparatus. The water was heated and the gases circulated past a high-voltage electric spark to simulate lightning. This provided the energy to break the chemical bonds of the compounds present, and the resulting free radicals combined to form a mixture of simple organic compounds, including trace quantities of some amino acids.

Crucial to the success of the experiment was Miller’s water trap in which the amino acids generated could dissolve and thus be protected from subsequent destructive contact with the spark. But on the hypothesized primordial Earth with no oxygen (and therefore no ozone), the products would have been exposed to destructive ultraviolet rays. This is so even if they reached the oceans, because UV radiation can penetrate tens of metres of water.

Per se, this experiment does not pose difficulties to the creationist. With the most astute intelligent guidance, such an experimental set-up, which generates a multitude of interfering organic acids and bases (plus racemic and biologically useless amino acids) cannot produce a single biologically relevant protein strand. To claim this experiment as evidence for evolution would be akin to allowing water to flow over a bed of coal, and upon identifying a little ink-like substance, claiming the Encyclopaedia Britannica was produced by natural, random processes.

Oxygen, deliberately removed from Miller’s apparatus, destroys amino acids. But geological evidence indicates oxygen was always present on earth.1—7 It is produced by photolysis of water vapour in the atmosphere, where hydrogen escapes gravitation and oxygen thereby increases in concentration.

Currently, the most probable early atmosphere is deemed by evolutionists to have consisted of water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and hydrogen, a very different composition than used by Miller. Hydrogen would have been present in small concentrations at most, because it could escape Earth’s gravity; ammonia and methane would have been destroyed by ultraviolet light. In 1983, Miller reported that if carbon monoxide is added to the more realistic mixture, plus a large proportion of free hydrogen, then only glycine, the simplest amino acid, could be produced, and in trace amounts only.

The experts know the experiments provide no support for an abiogenesis model. But nevertheless, biology textbooks and popular magazines like National Geographic continue to mislead the public into thinking that the Miller-Urey experiment is evidence for evolution.8 Wells concludes by citing one chemist’s acknowledgement that such publications are teaching ‘mythology rather than science’ (p. 27).

References

1. Berkner, L.V. and Marshall, L.C., On the origin and rise of oxygen concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere, J. Atmospheric Sciences 22:225—261, 1965. Return to text.

2. Brinkmann, R.T., Dissociation of water vapor and evolution of oxygen in the terrestrial atmosphere, J. Geophysical Research 74:5355—5368, 1969. Return to text.

3. Carver, J.H., Prebiotic atmospheric oxygen levels, Nature 292:136—138, 1981. Return to text.

4. Kasting, J.F., Earth’s early atmosphere, Science 259:920—926, 1993. Return to text.

5. Towe, K.M., Early Precambrian oxygen: a case against photosynthesis, Nature 274:657—661, 1978. Return to text.

6. Clemmey, H. and Badham, N., Oxygen in the Precambrian atmosphere: an evaluation of the geological evidence, Geology 10:141—146, 1982. Return to text.

7. Thaxton, C.B., Bradley, W.L. and Olsen, R.L., The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis and Stanley, Dallas, Chapter 5, 1984. Return to text.

8. Monastersky, R., The rise of life on Earth, National Geographic 193(3):54—81, March 1998. Return to text.

the above is from http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/textbooks.asp

or try:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4220.asp

Axiom hit it, but assumed you were christian.

Plenty of people believe the bible but that doesn't mean we should teach the bible in science class, and we don't teach the bible in science class.

It's possible Aliens created life or tinkered with evolution but just because it's possible doesn't mean it's science or should be taught in school.

Oh and something I missed in your first post, creationism is not a possible explaination, it has already been falsified. It is about as possible for creationism to be true as spontaneous generation.

quote:

In his book Icons of Evolution (2000), Jonathan Wells attempts to overthrow the paradigm of evolution by attacking how we teach it. In this book, Wells identifies ten examples that are commonly used to help to teach evolution. Wells calls these the "icons," and brands them as false, out of date, and misleading. Wells then evaluates ten "widely used" high school and college biology textbooks for seven of these "icons" with a grading scheme that he constructed. Based on this, he claims that their treatments of these icons are so rife with inaccuracies, out-of-date information, and downright falsehoods that their discussions of the icons should be discarded, supplemented, or amended with "warning labels" (which he provides).

According to Wells, the "icons" are the Miller-Urey experiment, Darwin's tree of life, the homology of the vertebrate limbs, Haeckel's embryos, Archaeopteryx, the peppered moths, and "Darwin's" finches. (Although he discusses three other "icons" -- four-winged fruit flies, horse evolution, and human evolution -- he does not evaluate textbooks' treatments of them.) Wells is right about at least one thing: these seven examples do appear in nearly all biology textbooks. Yet no textbook presents the "icons" as a list of our "best evidence" for evolution, as Wells implies. The "icons" that Wells singles out are discussed in different parts of the textbooks for different pedagogical reasons. The Miller-Urey experiment isn't considered "evidence for evolution;" it is considered part of our experimental research about the origin of life and is discussed in chapters and sections on the "history of life."

-Icon 1-

Despite Wells's claims to the contrary, new experiments since the Miller-Urey ones have achieved similar results using various corrected atmospheric compositions (Figure 1; Rode, 1999; Hanic et al., 2000). Further, although some authors have argued that electrical energy might not have efficiently produced organic molecules in the earth's early atmosphere, other energy sources such as cosmic radiation (e.g., Kobayashi et al., 1998), high temperature impact events (e.g., Miyakawa et al., 2000), and even the action of waves on a beach (Commeyras, et al., 2002) would have been quite effective.



Above from http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/

"ICONS OF EVOLUTION?

-Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong"

This expirement is proof that random elements can be organised into complex chained molecules including amino-acids and proteins... Nothing other than elements and electricity did this in 1953... I await your proof that God, not chance can do the same...

Early life evolved out of the oceans, not the atmosphere and it is highly likely the organic materials of life produced the atmosphere thereafter...

Another thing to question is the origin of life from Earth? What are your thoughts on this?

Edit: We learnt all about the differing views in my high school science classes, Evolution does not have a similarly blind following as creationism may...

[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 12-10-2005).]

http://www.geocities.jp/hggngbgr/shit.jpg

I'm personally in favor of I.D.

ok i am convinced now that Intellegent design should NOT be taught in schools, because of all the good points everyone made.

i still believe in the possibility of alien involvement in our existence though.

In my opinion, i rate the existence theories as follows:

Evolution by natural selection - 70%

intellegent design by aliens or humans - 20%

nonexistence - 5%

creationism - 1%

other - 4%

quote:Originally posted by DesertWolf:

ok i am convinced now that Intellegent design should NOT be taught in schools, because of all the good points everyone made.

i still believe in the possibility of alien involvement in our existence though.

In my opinion, i rate the existence theories as follows:

Evolution by natural selection - 70%

intellegent design by aliens or humans - 20%

nonexistence - 5%

creationism - 1%

other - 4%



nonexistence - 5% ???

in otherwords, you dont think that you or anything else exists? the fact that you think is proof that something exists... even IF you are just a thought of something else.

ID by aliens or humans ?? All that does is push the existence of life further back in time.. it does not answer the question.

The only viable possibilities are natural origins or creation by an omnipotent God that also created time (hmmm.. maybe the Eternal God?).

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

I'm personally in favor of I.D.

Why is that?

quote:Originally posted by Axiom:

Why is that?

Because it's stateing that each thing was designed for a specific purpose. CREATED for a PURPOSE. Does not God say this in His Word? It says we were created FOR the purpose, and not the purpose for us. How are you going to ask a Christian why they're in favor of I.D.? Come on now. That's like asking a midget if the world's larger in their eyes. You know what I'm sayin'?

So it's for its theistic viewpoint rather than its scientific content...

The reason why I ask is purely speculation, however you have confirmed my theory... Not saying you're wrong in anyway, just wondering why ID over evolution, as the Vatican came out in defence of evolution over ID, less than 6 months ago... Interesting don't you agree?... You’re most likely American…

Edit: Just read your profile… American indeed… BTW: ID is not science in any shape or form... It is 21st century religion... In what why does evolution limit an individual’s purpose on Earth? I'm confused how you quantify that opinion?

[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 12-10-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

Because it's stateing that each thing was designed for a specific purpose. CREATED for a PURPOSE.

What is the purpose of a virus?

What is intelligent about the design of cancerous cells?

You can believe in anything you want on your own, but science is not something you are "in favor of" or not.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

What is the purpose of a virus?

What is intelligent about the design of cancerous cells?

Their purpose is to punish sinners, of course.

Desert: I agree it is possible, we just don't have any evidence for it.

Hellz: In Honor of the mighty Winace, here is a list of organisms God designed with a great purpose http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designed_organisms/index.htm

(Warning, God's amazing designs are not for the light of heart).

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

Their purpose is to punish sinners, of course.

With the nature of HIV spread being what it is, that would certainly appear likely.

I stopped listening to atheists long ago. It's as if they believe nothing exists. Just stupid. Believing that there is no god. That there is no energy or greater beings.

Well tell you what, the sun is your god because one that is gone and you're on this planet, you're fucked.

Luckily the two instances of the sun being "gone" and humans still being on this planet will never happen together, so I rather like my atheist position. Sorry. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

I wouldn't feed the troll Beta

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

With the nature of HIV spread being what it is, that would certainly appear likely.

Great, you have found one virus that seems to strike those you call sinners. What about the rest of them, deadly or not? Ah, they must be the punishment for different degrees of sin. Praise the eternal wisdom of God. What's the need for hell when we got viruses???

No, actually I think it's just HIV.

Personally, I don't get why it's a debate at all. I mean, while i find I.D. ridiculous, i dont care if a bunch of deluded fruitcakes have been brainwashed into believing it. What I don't get is why anyone wants it taught in a science class... there's no science to it at all. All it is is a step back to the time when everyone thought the sun and all the other planets and shit revolved around the earth.\

I guess what I'm trying to say is that religion makes people fucking stupid, and that wouldn't bother me so much if they wouldnt keep trying to SPREAD THEIR FUCKING STUPIDITY LIKE FUCKING AIDS.

[This message has been edited by TwistdSoul (edited 12-11-2005).]

If HIV is God's punishment he is a bigger moron than I thought. Not only did he infect supposed sinless (because no soul) monkeys long before Humans but many of those infected are Women in Africa who have no rights and get raped and babies from those rapes. Good job god.

Next punishment for sin, God will send down Jesus to club a baby Seal. Maybe Mike Tyson is the second comming.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

No, actually I think it's just HIV.

Yes. Those filthy sinners that took blood transfusions or contracted HIV accidentally while performing a life saving procedure on a person; fuck 'em, that's what I say.

Clearly a winning thesis! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

I've actually ran into christians who seriously believed that those who get HIV deserve it. That includes doctors and raped women. Because 1) They have sins too. 2) the sins of other people effect those around them. 3) Don't question god, everything he does is correct and just no matter what.

What's particularly ironic, painful and disgusting in this situation is that this person (the_Rabbi), a) is allegedly studying medicine, b) just preached the virtues of rationalism in this very thread.

Didn't Einstein believe in ID?

Were there any major human figures that even believed that our existence was based solely on chance?

[This message has been edited by j0ey (edited 12-12-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by j0ey:

Didn't Einstein believe in ID?

Were there any major human figures that even believed that our existence was based solely on chance?



Absolutely not... He believed in God, but not in any mainstream religious sense... He solely believed in science, and proof through scientific method totalled his beliefs... Yet he believed God revealed himself to him through subtle details that he discovered doing his work… Science to Einstein was just an extension to God’s Thinking and through his curiosity he worshipped that superior spirit… He explained his religion as...

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." -Einstein

Adding...

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." -Einstein

As for your second question... The late Pope John Paul was a evolutionist...

Its one thing to point and create, yet a truly skilled craftsman, creates the tools of creation themselves...

[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 12-12-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by j0ey:

Didn't Einstein believe in ID?

Were there any major human figures that even believed that our existence was based solely on chance?

The people who believe in it don't matter in the slightest. It's the evidence for it.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

What's particularly ironic, painful and disgusting in this situation is that this person (the_Rabbi), a) is allegedly studying medicine, b) just preached the virtues of rationalism in this very thread.

My understanding of the definition:

Rationalism - the belief that anything in physical existence can be understood through science, and should not be feared or avoided due to religion.

Now, anything I study, as far as I'm concerned, is just explaining how God put the shit together.

I admit that my understanding of the definition conflicts with Webster's, though. Perhaps I should find another term to describe my philosophy.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Yes. Those filthy sinners that took blood transfusions or contracted HIV accidentally while performing a life saving procedure on a person; fuck 'em, that's what I say.

Free-will and all. Once it got into the world, not much control over where it went and how it spread.

Please don't think that I consider those innocent children who were born with HIV or the unlucky souls who got it through blood transfusions sinners. I am not that cold.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:



I admit that my understanding of the definition conflicts with Webster's, though. Perhaps I should find another term to describe my philosophy.

Yes, yes you should, because your understanding not only conflicts with Webster's definition, but also with what you've said here.

If you believe that HIV is a virus meant to punish sinners, then you are not in any way remotely understanding the virus through the scientific method. Thus, either you're a complete hypocrite or your definition or "understanding" is not that one.

quote:Free-will and all. Once it got into the world, not much control over where it went and how it spread.



You're now grasping at straws to save your shitty belief. If what you say is true, then I point you to Beta's post, as I echo his sentiments exactly.

1. God would be a complete and utter fucking moron if that were the case, since he infected apes first.

2. "Free will and all" would apply to all humans contracting the virus. It wouldn't be a virus targeting sinners, it would be a virus targeting unaware decision makers.

quote:Please don't think that I consider those innocent children who were born with HIV or the unlucky souls who got it through blood transfusions sinners. I am not that cold.

Then please don't say idiotic things that would necessitate that. If it targets sinners, then those who contract the virus are sinners. If they are not, then obviously it doesn't target sinners!

P.S.

semantics:

"The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form"

Don't mind me, I'm just pointing out how much of a hypocrite you really are.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 12-12-2005).]